{"id":39576,"date":"2026-07-17T06:15:41","date_gmt":"2026-07-17T06:15:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eplvip.com\/index.php\/2026\/07\/17\/has-thomas-tuchel-really-improved-england-data-reveals-familiar-patterns-for-gareth-southgate\/"},"modified":"2026-07-17T06:15:41","modified_gmt":"2026-07-17T06:15:41","slug":"has-thomas-tuchel-really-improved-england-data-reveals-familiar-patterns-for-gareth-southgate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eplvip.com\/index.php\/2026\/07\/17\/has-thomas-tuchel-really-improved-england-data-reveals-familiar-patterns-for-gareth-southgate\/","title":{"rendered":"Has Thomas Tuchel really improved England? Data reveals familiar patterns for Gareth Southgate"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n<\/p>\n
\n
They say history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.<\/p>\n
Gareth Southgate’s England were one of the most reliable qualifying teams in Europe. Then the tournament began and something quietly changed. It’s as if England withered under the expectation that their years of suffering would inevitably be prolonged with every World Cup and Euro.<\/p>\n
Thomas Tuchel was appointed to fix just that. The former Chelsea manager, who is widely respected for his tactical acumen and attacking style of play, spoke in March and gave his assessment of what caused England to falter at the final hurdle of Euro 2024.<\/p>\n
“Identity, clarity, rhythm, repeating patterns, player freedom, player expression, hunger. In my observation, they were more afraid of being eliminated from the tournament than they were excited and hungry to win the tournament.”<\/p>\n
Eighteen months later, England’s World Cup ended in familiar fashion with Argentina coming from behind to win 2-1 after a second-half performance in Atlanta that saw Tuchel’s tactical retreat criticized by pundits and fans alike.<\/p>\n
“We had a very close game,” Tuchel told BBC Sport, “but after we scored we were too passive, we conceded too many chances, we couldn’t turn possession around and we just conceded too many crosses, chances and shots.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was close, but we couldn\u2019t keep raising the level after we scored.\u201d<\/p>\n
Despite a tournament that promised so much, England supporters are once again left with the same feeling of emptiness. It’s okay to just want to switch off at times like this, but for Tuchel, his staff and the FA, the autopsy has only just begun.<\/p>\n
Machine Football allows you to start answering uncomfortable questions. Did Tuchel actually solve England’s tournament problems, or did he just find new words to repeat the same old story?<\/p>\n
Did Tuchel slip into Southgate’s conservative vest too easily?<\/p>\n
Pattern below Southgate<\/h3>\n
Southgate’s record from 2018 to 2024 tells a story that England supporters instinctively know.<\/p>\n
England have never lost in 19 World Cup qualifiers. With 15 wins and 4 draws, they averaged 2.01 expected goals per game and conceded just 0.35.<\/p>\n
The average xG difference \u2013 the xG England produced themselves minus the xG of chances they gave their opponents \u2013 was +1.66. The Three Lions dominated almost every opponent they faced.<\/p>\n
Then came tournament soccer.<\/p>\n
Across the 2018 World Cup, Euro 2020, 2022 World Cup and Euro 2024, England’s attacking power fell to 1.17xG per game, but their xG goals conceded more than doubled to 0.89.<\/p>\n
Overall, the average xG difference decreased from +1.66 to just +0.28. Despite progressing more steadily than ever into the latter stages of the tournament, England went from hanging around in games to barely making it through.<\/p>\n
Your style has also changed. Southgate’s qualifying team averaged 178.3 forward passes and 83.0 passes into the final third per game. In the tournament, those numbers dropped to 135.3 and 49.9 respectively, with touches inside the opponent’s box dropping from 24.5 to 15.7.<\/p>\n
Part of this can be explained by the higher level of opponents and the increased danger inherent in tournament football, but Southgate’s England often gave the impression that they were playing within themselves on the biggest stage.<\/p>\n
Most notably, news organizations have become more cautious. PPDA \u2013 Passes allowed per defensive move. Lower numbers indicate more aggressive pressing to disrupt opponents \u2013 increased from 7.1 during qualifying to 13.9 in major tournaments.<\/p>\n
When tournament football arrived, England arguably became much more passive, allowing their opponents almost twice as much freedom in possession when the stakes were highest.<\/p>\n
Early readings of Tuchel<\/h3>\n
Tuchel’s sample is much smaller, with the obvious caveat that the eight qualifiers cannot be directly compared to Southgate’s eight years of football. Still, early signs are becoming clear.<\/p>\n
England broke new ground under the German manager, winning all eight of their World Cup qualifying matches, keeping a clean sheet in every game, averaging 2.41 xG and conceding just 0.25 goals.<\/p>\n
Their average xG difference amounted to +2.16, comfortably ahead of Southgate’s qualifying team. They also pressed more aggressively, posting a PPDA of 6.7. This was the most aggressive pressing of any club under Tuchel, averaging 34.4 touches in the opposition area per game.<\/p>\n
The World Cup brought an inevitable and significant setback. Through seven games, England’s xG differential has fallen to +1.03, PPDA has risen to 12.8 and touches in the box have fallen to 23.6 per game.<\/p>\n
The question was not whether England had retreated, but that they clearly had. It’s whether they regressed as before.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
Despite the small sample size, Tuchel’s England have shown clear improvement over Southgate’s side in some key metrics, but the press remains subdued in the tournament (Image: Machine Football)<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Under both managers, England became less attacking once tournament football began. PPDA almost doubled, attack power decreased, and results and game control became difficult to obtain.<\/p>\n
As mentioned above, some setbacks are to be expected as a result of facing stronger opposition. But the difference lies in where England have landed after that return.<\/p>\n
The xG difference between Southgate’s tournament teams has dropped to just +0.28. In contrast, Tuchel’s England side finished more than three times better than Southgate’s tournament side at +1.03, despite averaging over 50% more touches inside the penalty area, even after losing in the semi-final.<\/p>\n
England still fell back in crisis, but to a lesser extent and from a higher starting point.<\/p>\n
What went wrong against Argentina?<\/h3>\n
England was poor. Tuchel’s semi-finalists finished with just five shots and 0.79 expected goals, below the competition averages of 13.6 shots and 2.10 xG.<\/p>\n
Argentina had just four touches inside the penalty area, but their average for the entire competition was 23.6 touches. Crosses were also reduced from the tournament average of 17.7 to just 11.<\/p>\n
Simply put, all attacking metrics declined at once, and Harry Kane’s performance reflected the same frustrating pattern. His xG total and penalty box touches were both the lowest of the tournament.<\/p>\n
In 105 minutes, Kane only had one shot worth 0.01xG, failed to register a single touch inside Argentina’s penalty area and completed just eight of his 14 passes.<\/p>\n
Tuchel’s puzzling decision to switch to a back five further reduced what little attacking threat remained. It was a scaled down version of Southgate’s pattern, compressed into just over half an hour of misery rather than the entire tournament.<\/p>\n
One widely cited statistic is that between Anthony Gordon’s opener and Enzo Fernandes’ equaliser, England had just 12% of possession and had zero touches inside Argentina’s penalty area.<\/p>\n
Gary Lineker’s horror at what he saw, shared on Netflix’s The Rest Is Football podcast, was a reaction that England fans could relate to.<\/p>\n
“This seems really, really hard to accept,” Lineker said. “We got one goal up, but they were sitting deep. The substitutes he brought in made it even deeper. When you have five players, you say, ‘We’re going to play in a low block,’ against a strong team.”<\/p>\n
“It made no sense to me at all. To be completely honest, tactically it was surprising. It was a negative move. We were all sitting there watching the same game and saying the same thing.”<\/p>\n
“I thought it was completely unbelievable. You’re playing against the greatest footballer of all time. Stay close to him (Messi). He hits ball after ball into the box.”<\/p>\n
Speaking on BBC 5 Live, South American football pundit Tim Vickery added: “England put Argentina exactly where they wanted them. Argentina were afraid England would rush at their pace. England sent off all the players doing that.”<\/p>\n
“I’m totally baffled by the decision the manager made here. Argentina had a game plan and England went straight for it.”<\/p>\n
England looked to protect their lead by falling back from the front-foot approach that had given them the lead, as Argentina pressed in and there was no reliable out-ball to give them a chance to threaten on the break.<\/p>\n
Instead, they hunkered down deep in their own half and in doing so gave the incomparable Lionel Messi and the sharp-shooting Enzo all the space in the world outside the box.<\/p>\n
Argentina took full advantage of it. The rest is history.<\/p>\n
judgment<\/h3>\n
One tournament is not eight years old, and drawing firm conclusions from such a small sample of matches is tenuous at best. However, this works both ways.<\/p>\n
Tuchel’s sample remains small, and while small samples can be as flattering as they can cause panic, the broader numbers remain reassuring.<\/p>\n
Throughout the World Cup, Tuchel’s England created chances and controlled matches at a level that Southgate’s tournament side had never consistently reached.<\/p>\n
The most obvious example is their presence in the opposition penalty area. At this World Cup, England have averaged 23.6 touches in the box per game, just below Southgate’s average of 24.5 in qualifying and far more than their average of 15.7 in major competitions.<\/p>\n
England were also behind (Democratic Republic of the Congo and Norway), but they came back with two wins in this tournament. Southgate’s charges have only managed to achieve such a feat three times in eight years (against Denmark at Euro 2020 and against Slovakia and the Netherlands at Euro 2024), after falling behind nine times in four major competitions.<\/p>\n
But while the overall numbers suggest England have improved, the final 35 minutes against Argentina showed that the underlying problems may not have been resolved as much as everyone had hoped.<\/p>\n
The manner of their defeat in the semi-finals provided an unpleasant conclusion. When England needed to defend their lead on the biggest stage, Tuchel reached for the same response that increasingly characterized Southgate’s tournaments.<\/p>\n
If this pattern is to be resolved, England need to lose that fear. Unfortunately for Tuchel, his tenure so far has only added yet another painful chapter to the story.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
opinion<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Join our new WhatsApp community and receive Mirror Football content every day. Community members also receive special offers, promotions, and advertisements from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check it out whenever you like. If you are interested, please read our privacy notice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
![\"Despite](\"https:\/\/i2-prod.mirror.co.uk\/article37440683.ece\/ALTERNATES\/s1200e\/0_MKR_LECH_160726TuchelvSouthgate.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i2-prod.mirror.co.uk\/article37437974.ece\/ALTERNATES\/s650\/0_GettyImages-2286301009.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n