- The 28 players in Arsenal’s 25 man squad for next season…
- The 36 players that Arsenal are now chasing this summer!
By Tony Attwood
One headline recently read “Thomas Tuchel is guilty of orchestrating England’s craven World Cup demise” (NY Times) and maybe that is right, or maybe not. But behind the headline is the point that someone cfreated that England team playing that way. Rather like Arsenal winning the league, it didn’t just happen.
The article continued, “The German coach was supposed to be the master of big-game management but this felt like a self-inflicted collapse” and here we have the clue to the writer’s thinking. It “felt” like a self-inflicted collapse.” And “felt” is very much the key word.
Because for most of us, when we go to a match, it is the feeling of the match that we take away with us rather than anything that actually happened.
Now the piece continues by noting that also, “England reached some huge games under Gareth Southgate but it often felt as if they were frozen by passivity at crucial moments, unable to make the changes required to keep pace with cleverer opponents, forcing their eventual retreat. Not least in their last World Cup semi-final, eight years ago in Moscow, when they were 1-0 up with 22 minutes left before Croatia finally reeled them in.”
Such criticisms are common in football – as the viewer sees in retrospect a moment when, with the benefit of hindsight, it can be seen that one specific change to the team could swing the whole direction of the match. I doubt that it is much consolation to anyone, but writers often feel the same way – one slight change of a sentence early on could have changed the whole tenor of the piece, and persuaded readers more readily.
But life isn’t like that. We make instant decisions, and take the consequences. So maybe the “defeat to Argentina was a proactive disaster, a self-inflicted collapse, an entirely chosen retreat into their own penalty area which ended the only way it was ever going to….” Maybe.
Yet what is most interesting, I think, is that I seem to remember reading similar bits and pieces after the last world cup, and the one before and…. And maybe the problem it is the fact that England has a league made up of players from multiple countries. Or maybe it is that English players just are not that good. Maybe the tactics of English managers are not that good. Or maybe the England media are always on the players’ backs too much…
And that’s a thought. Maybe it is the fault of the people who regularly write about the England team and keep suggesting that somehow the England players combined ARE good enough, when they are not. Maybe if the England players were that good we would have more English players playing in Premier League matches, rather than bringing what appear to be the best players from other countries into Premier League clubs like Arsenal.
Then there is the matter of tactics and the fact that, according to some writers early on, the “game was precisely where England wanted it, with Argentina needing to come onto them and offering space to attack.”
And maybe it is simply the fact that it is not possible to have a vibrant, 20-team league where almost every match throughout the entire season is sold out, and where many clubs have years-long waiting lists for season tickets, while at the same time having a national team that could win the World Cup. Maybe, as I say, it is just not possible.
Or maybe we should take some of these journalists who seem to know everything there is to know about football and put them in charge of the team and see what happens. After all, they can invariably see how the game could have gone. Take this commentary for example:
“…England blinked. They turned down the opportunity. No pace from the bench, no Bukayo Saka, Noni Madueke or Marcus Rashford, to pin Argentina back or kill the game. England barely had a single attack after going 1-0 up. One blocked Kane shot. One counterattack when Morgan Rogers hung onto the ball for too long. And nothing else. The rest of the game was played 20 yards from Jordan Pickford’s goal.”
So why is it that we don’t get the right manager? I suppose the answer to that is much the same as why it is that Arsenal didn’t get the right manager after Wenger and before Arteta. The board obviously thought they had found their man, but some 18 months or so into the appointment they realised what a cock up they had made.
But at least in Arsenal’s case they were able to switch mid-tournament, and we have been on the up ever since. Except now I come to think of it, it took six seasons of the club coming eighth, fith and second before we actually won the league. Some maybe we ought to give this England team a longer run. Maybe it does take six seasons to build a team. Except, England hasn’t really been winning stuff for decades…
So maybe better still, we should just give up on internationals. We seemingly have the best league in the world, so why don’t we just carry on playing in that, and just say that England can have all the players it wants, provided none of them is playing in the Premier League.
It is true, after all, that Tuchel and his mates did a lot of talking prior to the World Cup about how the wonderfulness of the Premier League was its speed and intensity, but somehow we never really got to see that in the WC. So could it be that Tuchel is not as good a tactician as that little huddle of two Arsenal men who debate changes during a match with Arteta?
Now don’t get me wrong, I absolutely don’t want Arteta & Co to leave Arsenal and go and manage England. But I just wonder what would happen if the ex-manager of ManC had managed England. Would he have found the right players with English passports who could have gone out there and stolen the show? Somehow I am not sure.
Tony, I agree that the manager will and should shoulder the majority of the blame only if mistakes are made in selection rather than England on paper not matching the opposition in squad quality.
I did notice that our England manager went for some less experience individuals compared to the mature Argentine team selection.
I was going through the player profile list of the Argentina teams and was surprised at their average age being apx 28, they had a few more oldies than youngsters in their squad maybe giving them a mental edge.
Maybe experience at the later stages of the competition is key or not.
How many of the Euro 2024 England finalist players were used compared to Argentinas 2022 finalist players being used?
Perhaps at the later stages of the competition experience is more so a must, but as you say that’s down to how strong the manager is in ignoring media pressure and to be more tactically aware in not just physical attributes but as Argentina proved mental attributes more so at the later stages.
The manager has the power without hindsight to change things correctly, so he will always get the blame. IMO.
The players get the blame if they make passing or defending mistakes as the manager cannot control that part, but unless he knows the player is of sub quality during training exercises and should know that he is not experienced and mentally not ready for such a big step up semi final event, especially at such a late stage in the competition, where nervous decision situations whether to take chances in attack and mental experience and confidence are more commonly needed perhaps. Just an observational opinion regarding experience and decisions are different under higher pressure than what is normally ok, but I 100% agree with your manager assessment. IMO.
‘So in conclusion: ‘England is doomed to never winning the World Cup again.’
Is this whst you are saying?
Football “journalists” are always amazing with hindsight. They know everything after the event. In fairness, like the archetypal bunch of monkeys with typewriters, they will, very occasionally getsomething right before the event. Largely, however, we all know that their real skill is pretending they know evrything when they are actually less knowledgable than the average fan.
Very occasionally I will read an article and I wonder about the pedigree of the author who, seemingly, is proclaimed as an expert on coaching and tactics. When I google them, most have left some unheard of University a couple of years earlier with a degree completely unrelated to sport (or journalism), have written for a fanzine and then suddently become a “senior reporter/football analyst” for a tabloid I wouldn’t wrap my fish and chips in.
That’s why I only “very occasionally” read articles by sports “journalists”. I really should stop doing it altogether!!