Why England’s Faith in Thomas Tuchel Has Been Shaken

Let’s call a spade a spade.

England were absolutely dreadful once they’d gone ahead against Argentina in their World Cup 2026 semi-final on Wednesday night.

And, in the end, despite a decent enough showing until Anthony Gordon scored, they fully deserved to get knocked out.

As soon as they went in front, they went into their shell and sank back to protect their lead, perhaps believing that their sensational work in holding out with 10 men for most of the second half against Mexico in the altitude of the Azteca would serve them well again this time around.

It wasn’t to be, though. England could not hold out against the reigning world champions and crumpled to a devastating defeat. They set a new record for the latest a team had led in a World Cup semi-final before losing inside 90 minutes.

The Same Old Story

Defeat means that, after showing promising signs that they might actually have what it takes to take the final step they never could under Gareth Southgate, things have ended exactly the same way as every other tournament in recent memory: in failure.

Only, this time, while there was hope that this would be different, that manager Thomas Tuchel would deliver on the vast sums spent to bring him in to get England over the line, the tournament arguably ended even more disappointingly than anything we saw under Southgate.

The Southgate Legacy

Tuchel’s predecessor had transformed England from a laughing stock on the international stage to genuine, reliable and consistent contenders. But while Southgate took them very close to glory indeed, with two European Championship final failures, there was a general acceptance England had done as well as they reasonably could have been expected to.

In the Euro 2020 final, a wily Italy ground them down, while Spain were without question the best team at Euro 2024.

Southgate’s failures felt honorable—England had competed well but ultimately been beaten by better teams or cruel luck.

The Crucial Difference: England Were in Control

At 1-0 up against Argentina this week, though, England were in control. They had their opponents exactly where they wanted them, and looked the superior team. Argentina were understandably worried about the pace that England had in attack, and the one-goal lead meant more space would open up for England to exploit on the break.

But they showed absolutely no ambition to score a second. Tuchel’s substitutions were made with the sole aim of protecting their advantage, and they failed miserably as England crashed out in the most devastating fashion.

The Fallout and Loss of Confidence

Confidence in the manager has plummeted. Calls for him to be sacked are widespread, even if the FA insist he will, at the very least, see out his contract until after Euro 2028. Reports this week that many of the players were left shocked by Tuchel’s negative changes have only increased the pressure and scrutiny on him. Marc Guéhi maintained that sentiment in his post-match interview.

“Once we went 1-0 up, we seemed to just try and hold on, which at this level is just not enough,” he said. “We should have carried on. We should have carried on pushing. It kind of felt like we scored, and then the mentality was go back, defend.”

This public criticism from a player—particularly one as measured and professional as Guéhi—is damning. It suggests not just tactical disagreement but fundamental disconnect between manager and squad regarding how to approach crucial moments.

A Pattern of Problematic Substitutions

It wasn’t just in that game that Tuchel’s substitutions have caused a stir – for better or for worse – either.

The Good: Croatia and Mexico

He was roundly praised for his positive substitutions in England’s tournament opener against Croatia when, with his side leading 3-2, he made three like-for-like changes in attack. Two of his substitutes, Bukayo Saka and Marcus Rashford, combined to make it 4-2 late on.

Meanwhile, against Mexico, with their backs to the wall, Tuchel’s changes shut up shop extremely effectively.

The Bad: Norway’s Confusion

Against Norway, however, he caused confusion among the players by changing shape at half-time – something he later said he had decided to do as soon as Norway took the lead, and he chose to stick by even after Jude Bellingham had equalised in first-half stoppage time.

The substitutions meant Bellingham dropping into a deeper position, and did not work in the slightest. Tuchel was then chasing solutions for the rest of the game, changing England’s shape and moving players between positions time and again as he tried to find a workable system. Only by extra-time had England started to look back in control of things.

The Ugly: Argentina’s Disaster

The Argentina match represented the nadir of Tuchel’s substitution policy. His three defensive changes—Ezri Konsa for Anthony Gordon, Nico O’Reilly for Declan Rice, and Dan Burn for Reece James—transformed England from a team in control to one desperately clinging on.

The result: 11.9% possession, just 4 passes in the attacking third, and a 97.6% field tilt favoring Argentina from the 55th to 92nd minute.

The Tactical Tinkering Problem

Tuchel’s tweaks in that game followed a familiar pattern: he made 20 in-game formation changes at the 2026 World Cup, more than any other team.

That works out at 2.7 changes of shape per 90 minutes played, which is the sixth-highest rate of any team. Three of the teams above England here crashed out in the group stage (Qatar, Jordan and Czechia), while Paraguay and Belgium went out in the last 16 and quarter-finals, respectively.

None of the other semi-finalists came close to England in this regard. Argentina made 11 in-game formation changes (a rate of 1.4 per 90), France made nine (1.3 per 90) and Spain seven (1.0 per 90).

The difference between these sides and England is that none of those would countenance making anything like as many consistently defensive changes. The best teams don’t do that.

Learning From Spain: How Champions Manage Leads

When Spain went 1-0 up against France, for example, they didn’t sit back and protect their lead – even if they arguably had more reason than England to rely on their defence, given they have the best defensive record at the World Cup. They carried on playing exactly the same way and it paid off when they found a second goal to kill their opponents off.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

And it wasn’t just the Argentina game where England showed a lack of ambition after going ahead. When leading at the 2026 World Cup, England had a per-90 xG difference (between xG for and xG against) of +0.28.

Of the teams who made the last 16, only Colombia, Norway, Egypt and Paraguay had a worse such rate. France (+1.4), Spain (+1.2) and Argentina (+0.8) all showed far more attacking ambition and controlled games far better when they went in front.

This statistic is particularly damning. England showed less attacking ambition when leading than three teams that were eliminated before the semi-finals, and vastly less than the three teams that finished above them.

Has Anything Actually Changed?

It’s reasonable to wonder after what we’ve seen of England in North America whether anything has actually changed. It had felt like there was more belief this time around with a proven winner in charge rather than a perennial nearly-man in Southgate, but the display and complete lack of confidence in the players to see out the Argentina game has eradicated much of the hope that Tuchel could oversee the necessary transformation.

The Proven Winner Myth

Thomas Tuchel arrived with an impressive CV:

• Champions League winner with Chelsea (2021)
• Multiple domestic titles with PSG
• Bundesliga success with Borussia Dortmund
• Reputation as a tactical innovator

Yet his “winning mentality” proved illusory when it mattered most. Rather than showing the confidence of a champion, Tuchel’s decisions in the Argentina semi-final reeked of fear—fear of Argentina’s quality, fear of Lionel Messi’s genius, fear of losing the lead.

Champions don’t manage games by hoping to survive. They impose their will on opponents. Spain demonstrated this perfectly against France. Tuchel did the opposite.

The Central Question: Stick or Twist?

So, where do England go from here? Is there any good reason to continue with Tuchel when things were so catastrophically broken in that second half against Argentina?

The Case for Keeping Tuchel

It’s important to remember that there have been lots of positives.

Positive Performance Moments:

• The second-half performance against Croatia was one of the best by an England side at a major tournament
• The mentality to fight back against DR Congo was admirable
• The defensive resilience they showed against Mexico was sensational
• Even if the first 55 minutes against Argentina weren’t perfect, Tuchel had England in a great position to go on and beat the reigning champions

Tactical and Personnel Development:

In a more general sense, there were elements of England’s tournament to be pleased with. The relationship between Bellingham and Harry Kane bodes well for at least the next Euros (if not beyond). England looked far more fluent in attack as a result, producing almost twice the non-penalty xG per game (1.41) they managed at Euro 2024 (0.77).

A midfield pairing of Declan Rice and Elliot Anderson will only get better. Nico O’Reilly looked perfectly at home at this level. And had they had a fit Saka and Rice, England might well have done even better than they did. They aren’t a million miles from ending this trophy drought.

Contract and Stability Considerations:

Tuchel has a contract until Euro 2028. Sacking him would require:

• Significant financial compensation
• Another managerial search and appointment process
• Risk of instability and disruption to squad harmony
• Potential difficulty attracting top candidates mid-cycle

The Case for Sacking Tuchel

But all that said, the manner of their capitulation against Argentina was, for some, unforgivable, and entirely of Tuchel’s own making.

Fundamental Tactical Failure:

The statistics from the Argentina collapse are damning:

• 11.9% possession from 55th-92nd minute (record low)
• Just 4 passes in attacking third vs Argentina’s 160
• 97.6% field tilt favoring Argentina
• Dan Burn touched the ball 3 times, all in opposition half

Loss of Player Confidence:

If England stick with him, what reason would there be to expect anything remotely positive the next time they take a lead against a good team? The players might not believe in themselves with Tuchel in charge, knowing what happened against Argentina.

Marc Guéhi’s public criticism suggests players have lost faith in Tuchel’s tactical approach in crucial moments. This breakdown of trust between manager and squad is extremely difficult to repair.

Pattern of Defensive Cowardice:

While this is a small sample size, the pattern matches England’s historical tendency under pressure—and Tuchel was hired specifically to break this pattern, not reinforce it.

Comparison to Peer Managers:

Spain’s Luis de la Fuente, Argentina’s Lionel Scaloni, and France’s Didier Deschamps all showed greater tactical courage when leading. None made 20 in-game formation changes. None prioritized defense over attack to the extent Tuchel did.

If the best managers don’t manage games the way Tuchel does, why should England persist with his approach?

The Broken Trust Problem

There’s a chance that this is all broken beyond repair. If Tuchel and England are to recover, this will all take some fixing.

What Would Recovery Require?

From Tuchel:

1. Acknowledgment of mistakes — Public admission that the Argentina substitutions were wrong
2. Tactical philosophy shift — Commitment to maintaining attacking ambition when leading
3. Player empowerment — Trusting the squad’s quality rather than retreating into defensive shells
4. Consistency in approach — Reducing the excessive in-game formation changes that create confusion

From the Players:

1. Forgiveness — Willingness to move past the Argentina disappointment
2. Renewed belief — Trust that Tuchel will make better decisions next time
3. Open communication — Honest dialogue about tactical concerns before they become public

From the FA:

1. Clear backing — Unambiguous support for Tuchel to avoid further instability
2. Performance targets — Specific expectations for Euro 2028
3. Support structure — Ensuring Tuchel has the resources and personnel needed

The question is whether this is achievable or whether the Argentina defeat has created irreparable damage.

Historical Precedent: Can Managers Recover from Such Failures?

Football history provides mixed examples:

Successful Recoveries:

• Vicente del Bosque (Spain) — Lost to France in 2006 World Cup qualifiers, won Euro 2008, World Cup 2010, and Euro 2012
• Joachim Löw (Germany) — Humiliated 6-0 by Spain in 2020, recovered to reach Euro 2020 last 16

Failed Recoveries:

• Fabio Capello (England) — Never recovered from 2010 World Cup disappointment
• Various managers who lost player trust and were eventually dismissed despite contracts

The critical factor appears to be whether the fundamental approach was wrong (harder to fix) or whether execution failed (easier to address). Tuchel’s problem is the former—his entire tactical philosophy when leading appears flawed.

Read More: England Didn’t Just Lose the Semi-Final, They Handed It Away

FAQs