As the dust settles on England's World Cup 2026 campaign, a familiar question lingers: do they have what it takes to be more than just a 'nearly' team? While their spirit and effort are undeniable, the late collapse against Argentina in the semi-final has reignited debates about their ability to deliver when it matters most.
In an interview following England's quarter-final win over Norway, head coach Thomas Tuchel offered a revealing insight. He praised England's mentality, a quality he claimed could be bottled and sold, but he also highlighted a glaring issue: their lack of big-game reliability. This sentiment was echoed in the aftermath of the Argentina defeat, which saw England miss out on a men's World Cup final appearance since their triumph in 1966.
England's World Cup journey was largely carried by the exceptional performances of captain Harry Kane and Jude Bellingham. Together, they accounted for 12 of England's 14 goals, a testament to their world-class quality. However, beyond these two stars, England's squad lacked the depth and brilliance of their opponents. Spain, with their European championship pedigree, and France, boasting an array of attacking talent, showcased a level of all-round quality that England struggled to match.
Tuchel's assessment of England's performance against Argentina is particularly damning. He pointed out that England's campaign was characterized by moments of brilliance rather than consistent, dominant displays. The late goals from Kane against DR Congo and Bellingham against Norway kept England in the tournament, but these moments of magic were few and far between.
The issue, as Tuchel sees it, is a lack of possession and control. England's inability to dictate the tempo and terms of the game against quality opposition has been a recurring theme. Tuchel himself acknowledged that possession 'plays a crucial role' and that it is not in England's DNA to dominate the ball like Spain, Argentina, or Brazil.
This raises questions about England's tactical approach and the players selected. Tuchel's strategy, which mirrored the Premier League template with a back four and a familiar midfield setup, may have been effective domestically, but it fell short on the world stage. England's physicality and skill were not enough to overcome the X-factor possessed by their elite opponents.
The Football Association now faces a conundrum. Tuchel was brought in to be the anti-Gareth Southgate, the elite coach who would deliver success. However, his tactical retreat in the semi-final, a move that would have been criticized if Southgate had made it, highlights the fine line between success and failure. England reached the semi-finals, but as Tuchel himself said, par does not win big prizes; quality does.
The concern is that England has tried various approaches, from Southgate's conservative style to Tuchel's pragmatic squad selection, yet they continue to fall short. The exclusion of players like Trent Alexander-Arnold, Cole Palmer, and Phil Foden, despite their talent, suggests a cautious approach that may be holding England back. The absence of a player like Adam Wharton, who possesses the ability to control games with his passing, further emphasizes the need for a different approach.
In my opinion, England's World Cup journey serves as a reminder that while effort and spirit are essential, they must be complemented by tactical flexibility and a deeper pool of talent. The question now is whether Tuchel and the FA can find the right formula to transform England from a 'nearly' team into a consistent winner on the world stage.
