Tuchel was hired to win semi-finals - not to produce a tactical disaster when it mattered most

View 4 Images

First things first, Argentina are not getting the credit they deserve for finding a way to reach a second consecutive World Cup final. This idea that England somehow had the semi-final in Atlanta in the palm of their hand is fanciful, to say the least.

Fifty-five minutes had gone when Anthony Gordon converted Morgan Rogers’ cross. After the hour mark, Argentina have now scored TEN goals in this tournament.

They can look distinctly average for large, early parts of the game and then deliver when it matters. If a team has so few touches in an opposition penalty area - England had seven in the entire contest - they are always going to be vulnerable.

And vulnerable to substitutes of the highest quality. If you can keep Lautaro Martinez on your bench for over 80 minutes, you are a good side.

England were in a good position after the Gordon goal but that was about it. Yet the loss to Argentina was on Thomas Tuchel. From tactical tweaks to substitutions, he could not have done more wrong after taking the lead.

Early briefings suggest the Football Association have no intention of changing the manager of the national team. Well, they wouldn’t, would they? Because they were daft enough to give him that new contract.

Originally, Tuchel was brought in on an 18-month deal with one brief only. Not to lead England to a couple of tournaments - to win one. The World Cup.

He has failed to complete that brief. Getting to the last four was commendable but the eventual manner of the failure was dismal.

You do not have to be overly patriotic to hold a principle that suggests the manager of a major football nation’s team should be one who hails from that nation. But the Football Association ditched that principle - they ignored the claims of every English coach - because, presumably, they thought Tuchel was a game-changer.

Unfortunately, they were proved right. He changed the game dramatically in Argentina’s favour. But over his whole tenure, has he really been that impressive?

The qualifying campaign would have been a walk in the park for any manager and at the tournament itself, England have shown flashes of being a very good team, but only flashes. It has been emphatically familiar.

Only this time, England have had a super-coach in charge. In Lionel Scaloni and Luis de la Fuente, the two finalists have federation men in charge. One is already a World Cup winner and the other has a European Championship to his name.

Neither will be on the £5million-a-year salary Tuchel earns - and will continue to earn over the next two years. Up until the serious business, Tuchel has clearly had a ball managing England.

He has probably never stopped finding it vaguely amusing that England had turned to a German to help them end those long years of hurt. He has clearly enjoyed the different rhythm of international management, essentially part-time.

And he has clearly relished the special challenge of leading a country at a World Cup. But he fell short. Simple as that.

The Football Association will point to the fact that he got England to the semi-finals as justification of their faith in him. But he was hired to win semi-finals, not to produce a tactical disaster when it mattered most.

Still, Tuchel can take a couple of months away before thinking about the next fixture towards the end of September. And the FA will have to stick by their decision.

Would it have made any difference to England’s performance in those late stages of the semi-final had Tuchel not been given a new deal ahead of the tournament? Probably not. But it was a silly decision at the time - and looks even sillier now.

Content cannot be displayed without consent