Key events
Oh man, imagine what a vibe this was.
“We have to give some credit to Argentina,” reckons Chris Holmes. “A lot of the criticism for Tuchel and the England players suggests that it was a conscious decision for them to retreat and hold on after they scored last night. Argentina played a cagey game for the first 50 minutes or so, perhaps not wanting to commit too much until they had to, but the increased urgency after the England goal was what changed the game. England had no answer to the change in pace and the fresh substitutes they brought on. There were several times when Pickford and the defence had the ball but were pressed by a swarm of blue shirts and just couldn’t play out. Their attacks also increased in accuracy. Compare England’s opportunities to cross throughout the game (with the exception of the goal) and they rarely found a white shirt. Once Argentina started moving the ball about with more speed, they found Argentina players in the box on numerous occasions, despite the extra defenders England brought on. I think it’s easy to be critical of England for how they played in the last third of the match but we have to give a lot of credit to Argentina who ultimately changed their approach and England didn’t have the quality to stick with them. No shame in that, they’re the world champions for a reason.”
I agree we have to credit Argentina, who showed the confidence and aggression of a proper football team, but to know it was a conscious decision for England to defend, we need only look at the substitutions. As soon as they were made, the game, which was leaning that in that direction, could only take that direction, and really, it’s the simplicity of the errors that is galling – and again, England aren’t my team, but watching the waste has got me going. If you’re going to defend the box and hope to hold out – a tactic that doesn’t suit England’s players – you still need an out-ball and an attacking threat. If you’ve a couple of players on halfway, the opposition need to respect that, but once you pull everyone back, they’re not going to respect you at, and nor should they.
I wouldn’t mind*, but England’s defence isn’t even any good. I’m not sure there’s any that’s ever existed that I’d fully trust to keep a clean sheet when offering an opponent unrestricted access to their penalty area for half an hour. But Spence-Guéhi-Stones-James isn’t exactly Tassotti-Baresi-Costacurta-Maldini, and once England opted not to contest possession, Argentina no longer had to earn passage upfield – something they’d struggled with not just earlier in that game but in others too – and could commit men forward knowing there was no counter-attacking coming, something that, pre-match, they feared. And worst of all, it meant that they could continually feed Messi, perhaps the greatest lock-picker of all time, allowed to work him on to the ball until he made something happen.
*I absolutely would mind
Thing is, with Southgate I can almost understand it: he spent his career as player and manager with underdogs and led England in that spirit. Tuchel, though, has worked with elite clubs whose culture is to attack yet, as England manager, his conservatism has defined his squad, the question now how on earth his players can ever trust him again.
“Slightly unfair to criticise Gareth Southgate,” writes Andrew Milne, presumably of something said before I took over. “By the end of his tenure, he was making brave substitutions including hooking Harry Kane for Ollie Watkins in the later knockout rounds of the last Euros in Germany.
The England players struggled under pressure reverting to type in falling back. Whilst understandable (albeit still questionable given some of the players’ experience), what was disappointing was that the manager followed suit. He wouldn’t have slung on defenders and permitted his club teams to play that way, so why did he do it with England? It seemed that Tuchel like the side wilted under pressure last night.”
What happened against Argentina wasn’t Southgate’s fault, obviously, but I doubt I was the only one who, when the damage was being done, recalled his reaction to taking the lead against an Italy side there for the taking in the Euro 2020 final.
I did also blame Southgate in significant part for the 2018 semi-final defeat – he ought to have realised Croatia wouldn’t play as badly in the second half, just as England were unlikely to be as dominant as in the first, and he was passive as that happened. Still, I don’t think they could possibly have beaten France in the final so the damage wasn’t dreadful, just as their defeat to France in Qatar in what was, for mine, the highest-level game of the competition, is something that can happen, especially if your captain lashes a penalty over the bar, and i Euro 2022 they were beaten by a better side.
But the Italy game is one they ought to have won and yesterday belongs in that category, the team hamstrung by the manager’s negativity.
Gosh, I bet Nick is has some sentiments to express. Tune in to find out.
Finally, in attack, neither Eberechi Eze and Madueke are first-picks for a side that can struggle to create in open play – with good reason. Neither are able to change the pace of a game in the way that Palmer can, nor do either have his goalscoring threat, likewise Foden and Gibbs-White. It’s true the first two hadn’t had good seasons, but nor had the Arsenal duo.
In midfield, I have no idea why Tuchel took Konnie Mainoo. Not because he didn’t need him, he did – he ought to have been brought on against Ghana when England needed a small-space specialist, against Norway too, and absolutely in the Argentina game, when composure and ball-retention were paramount.
This isn’t even a reflection of Mainoo’s abilities, though they are excellent, more that he was the only midfielder in the squad with soft feet under pressure, able to take the ball on the back foot, carry it forward and look after it. But when Henderson was sent on ahead of him against Panama, it was clear that the manager wasn’t going to use him and, because he left Adam Wharton at home, he didn’t have the option of a snappy, line-breaking passer.
On the other side of the defence, Luke Shaw and Lewis Hall are better defenders than those taken ahead of them, and also offer the balance of a natural left-footer on the left while, in the middle, in no world is Dan Burn superior to Harry Maguire – on which point wasting a squad-spot on Jordan Henderson, like Burn admired for his personal qualities, sent a message that the rest of the squad were mentally weak, so needed cajoling by players who didn’t earn their selection on the pitch.
Similarly, Trent Alexander-Arnold is no one’s idea of a top defender. But he offers unique attacking abilities for when you’re chasing a goal, at which point it doesn’t matter if you lack nous or speed on the turn. Now, I’m not saying he’d have supplied a late equaliser, but leaving him out set a tone.
Tuchel seemed to have one idea of how to play – which the evidence suggests he couldn’t communicate effectively to his players, but even if he could it wasn’t an especially good one – when tournaments generally offer a variety of different challenges that demand agility in response. In 2006, for example, Italy took, used and got contributions from six strikers, wheres Tuchel picked players and their closest analogues, hence Noni Madueke was preferred to Morgan Gibbs-White, Phil Foden and Cole Palmer.
The cravenness, by the way, did not begin with Anthony Gordon’s goal. The squad Thomas Tuchel selected was itself an expression of misplaced confidence and unnecessary conservatism, omitting game-breakers and mavericks to deny variety and unpredictability, so let’s start there.
Hello there mateys, has everyone recovered? I can’t lie, I don’t even support England and woke up with my head hot; them and Portugal, brilliant talent wasted by craven management, the experience of watching them an exercise in emotional regulation. Let’s debrief!
It ended unhappily and unsatisfactorily for England, as tournaments tend to: but it’s worth keeping in mind that a semi-final defeat by the reigning champions is a more than decent effort from Tuchel and his coaching team.
Daniel Harris is here to take you through the next bit.
A few BTL comments here. Please keep them coming. You can also mail us with your thoughts on England 1-2 Argentina, or anything World Cup-related.
Are you going to the final? Let us know.
Opinions eh!
I thought Tuchel’s squad was a baffling mix of the injured, fatigued and simply not good enough. But I accepted Madueke instead of Bowen, Henderson over Gibbs-White, James rather than Trent, Burn not Lewis-Hall or Shaw, Konsa above Maguire. I thought we’d be a devastatingly quick counter attacking team with Mainoo moving the ball quickly, buying fouls, playing in the quick wingers and linking defence and attack by taking the ball off Stones, Rice or Anderson.
Instead we played like sickly cowards when we should have gone for the kill.
It wasn’t just the one match. It was the whole tournament set up.
Tuchel out. He picked the players and didn’t use them as he promised or could have done.
How many clean sheets England kept in this world cup ?
I am surprised this stat has been overlooked.
They conceded 2 against Croatia, Mexico already
If you are regularly conceding that many goals in single main event, one way or another you will be found out and that is what Argentina did they scored 2 goals
Add 1 each by DR Congo , Norway
8 goals conceded. No team is winning world cup conceding 8 goals. Look at France
Conceded only 4 goals and are knocked out.
Argentina have conceded a lot but they can score more its a different game for them.
The problem with all this analysis of “how Tuchel’s substitutions lost England the game” ignore a few things, the main being that England had ALREADY given the initiative to Argentina from pretty much the moment that Gordon scored in the 55th minute. It was already Argentina pressing for the 17 minutes BEFORE Tuchel’s first substitution. Bringing on Konsa for Gordon on 72 minutes meant back 5 (i.e. playing with two wing backs, James and Spence) and you would still have Kane on the field as an attacking outlet. The Konsa for Gordon substitution didn’t “invite Argentina on”, that had already happened, but at the same time it didn’t stop the Argentina onslaught. Of course there are those who will say why didn’t Tuchel bring Foden or Palmer or whoever for these moments but looking at the XI on the field in the 72nd minute it was well balanced and talented enough to take back the initiative. Unfortunately the ‘leaders’ on the field, Kane and Bellingham, didn’t rise to the occasion as they had done in previous games. The later defensive substitutions in the 82nd minute made sense in that England were already ‘on the rack’ and it was worth gambling on holding out at THAT point. This didn’t work, it’s arguable that Anderson’s failure to close Fernandes down for Argentina’ equaliser and the defence not clearing Messi’s cross for the winner was influenced by those late substitutions, but very few managers would have brought on attacking subs when leading 1-0 with less than 10 minutes to go. Tuchel gambled and it didn’t come off this time, it had in earlier matches.
I think it was Bellingham who reacted late to close down Fernándes, but perhaps it was both Anderson and Bellingham who should have been more alert.
Robert Kitson
Look, most people were awfully good about it. Our waiter at a restaurant near Plaza de Mayo shook our hands warmly and said nice things about Jude Bellingham. On the metro ride back from the fan zone there was no massive gloating either, just bright-eyed kids in Lionel Messi shirts swept along by the nationwide euphoria. ‘Vamos, Vamos Argentina!’ they sang, barely able to believe their team were once again in a World Cup final.
And to be a stray English bystander in a city totally awash in sky blue and white was … a rare privilege. Some of us currently over here covering England’s rugby union tour have been lucky enough to visit a few iconic sporting cauldrons, but to be in Buenos Aires in the aftermath of Argentina defeating England at a football World Cup is right up there.
From train drivers triumphantly honking their horns at every underground platform to people dancing in the streets and old ladies waving flags from balconies high above the traffic, it made even a frenzied cricket World Cup fixture between India and Pakistan feel like a garden fete. “Tell them you’re Scottish,” advised my Argentinian friend, concerned for our welfare in the event of an English victory. In the event there was no need for any such subterfuge.
Robert Kitson, our rugby correspondent, is in Argentina …
The debate about playing style and general fatigue is an interesting one. Pre-tournament, Tuchel said this before one of England’s friendlies:
“I think there is a value in recovering the ball high, even if it brings risk, and even if it’s highly intense.
“But I think there’s also a high value in having the ball, and moving the ball and not chasing the ball. In the last tournaments it was very, very important to not chase too much.”
From where I was sitting, England ran themselves into the ground for an hour in Atlanta with their intense pressing. And it worked well … until it didn’t. They were no longer capable of maintaining the same intensity. That is arguably on the manager, more than the substitutions or any perceived waving of a white flag.
Another email! (There are many …) This one from Adrian, entitled: “The fixture load’s fault?”
“Saka and Rice exhausted, Reece not fit, Stones not fit, Rice having injections for months on end. Then a bunch of games in excessive heat after the typically long attritional Premier League and Cup calendar.
“Isn’t this an argument to reduce the Premier League to 18 teams at least? Are we putting sufficient blame on the workload players must endure, a drum Klopp and others have been banging for years.”
“Tuchel’s tactics certainly weren’t “unfathomable”; he decided their best chance was to shut up shop and ride it out,” emails Mike. “It worked against Mexico, after all. He brought on Dan Burn because England seemed to have collectively forgotten how to defend crosses. You could as easily characterise this as a collective bottle-job by the players on the pitch, but maybe it’s easier to blame the German than Our Brave Boys?”
Also in praise of Tuchel: could another manager have brought that kind of performance from Djed Spence, who was outstanding off the bench against Norway, and even better starting against Argentina? Morgan Rogers on the right can also be seen as a success, well given his assist for Gordon’s goal. Would this sort of stuff have happened under Steve McClaren or Sam Allardyce?
Compare and contrast these two emails about England. Was it Tuchel, or was it the players?
“I think the Southgate comparisons are unfair. On Southgate,” writes Peter.
“Croatia, Italy and Spain were superior to England in central midfield. Over the course of a match, that will usually make the difference.
“This was different. England were not struggling. The retreat was entirely deliberate. Other options were available. Tuchel made mistakes and should own up to them.”
And then this, from Ryan: “Our players were lethargic and lost control of the game: we are lucky it wasn’t 4-1.
“We were just not good enough, it’s a simple as that, and the manager is taking the brunt of the blame as per usual. But our players stopped pressing and chasing and blocking and marking, they were not aggressive enough, the game was lost by the team.”
I agree with that: I don’t think Tuchel can shoulder all the blame for the way the team shut down after going in front.
Regarding the point about Croatia being better in midfield, as I wrote in this piece in 2024, Southgate’s set-up for that 2018 semi-final was conservative from the start: it was about containment rather than trying to dictate.
The Euros final against Italy was all about Roberto Mancini unloading his bench while Southgate persevered with the same exhausted players. At least Tuchel used his bench, but you can clearly argue against the way he did so.
Sid Lowe
On the way out of the dressing room in Arlington, Luis de la Fuente gathered his “family” and delivered one last message before the World Cup semi-final against France. He had long known what he was going to say, if not exactly how – it’s what he has been saying for 50 days and more. “I’ll tell them that this is a unique stage, the kind of moment that may never be repeated again, and that we have to be ourselves,” he had suggested 18 hours earlier; now that idea crystallised in a line. “We’re facing one of the best lineups in the world,” the Spain coach told them, “but we’re the best team in the world.”
By the time they made their way back in again, a voice was heard above the shouts, another line to encapsulate it all, to define this. It belonged to Marc Cucurella and it said: “What a fucking recital!” A call came in to De la Fuente, King Felipe on the phone saying pretty much the same thing, if a little more politely. On went the music, Jamaican (Bam Bam) blasting out, pizza was passed around, and they bounced about. Some did, anyway. Some just sat there taking in what they had done. “It was written: we started in Atlanta and we end in New York,” Dani Olmo said, but a semi-final is not supposed to be like this.
Given the fact that England were the better team for an hour or so in Atlanta, do we make Spain favourites for Sunday’s final? Coming up, a piece on the European champions, by Sid Lowe.
Just in case you missed any of it: England 1-2 Argentina match report by David Hytner | reaction from Matt Hughes | player ratings from Ed Aarons | analysis by Jacob Steinberg | Argentina analysis from Pablo Iglesias Maurer | England fan reaction by Priya Bharadia | Barney Ronay on Lionel Messi | Reaction from Thomas Tuchel by Ed Aarons | World Cup Daily podcast with Max Rushden and team | Plus! This morning’s news about Argentina’s post-match Falklands banner antics:
“A lot of the criticism for Tuchel and the England players suggests that it was a conscious decision for England to retreat and hold on after they scored last night,” writes Chris on email. “Argentina played a cagey game for the first 50 minutes or so, perhaps not wanting to commit too much until they had to, but the increased urgency after the England goal was what changed the game.
“England had no answer to the change in pace and the fresh substitutes they brought on. There were several times when Pickford and the defence had the ball but were pressed by a swarm of blue shirts and just couldn’t play out. Their attacks also increased in accuracy. Compare England’s opportunities to cross throughout the game (with the exception of the goal) and they rarely found a white shirt.
“Once Argentina started moving the ball about with more speed, they found Argentina players in the box on numerous occasions, despite the extra defenders England brought on. I think it’s easy to be critical of England for how they played in the last third of the match but we have to give a lot of credit to Argentina who ultimately changed their approach and England didn’t have the quality to stick with them. No shame in that, they’re the world champions for a reason.”
The Argentina players celebrated their World Cup win over England with a banner saying “Las Malvinas son Argentinas”, making reference to the 1982 Falklands war.
Argentina were 1-0 down with five minutes to go of the semi-final in Atlanta but rallied and scored twice in quick succession to reach a second straight World Cup final, where they will face Spain in New Jersey on Sunday.
The banner refers to the dispute over the territory, which is referred to as the Falkland Islands in Britain and Islas Malvinas in Argentina, which led to a 74-day conflict 44 years ago. More than 900 people – 649 Argentinians and 255 Britons – lost their lives in the conflict.
Matt Hughes
The captain, Harry Kane, who is on six goals before England’s third-place playoff on Saturday against France – two behind Messi and Kylian Mbappé in the race for the Golden Boot – conceded England had been too defensive after taking the lead.
“Once we went 1-0 up we seemed to just try to hold on, which at this level is not enough,” he told the BBC. “I’m just gutted for the boys, gutted for everyone, the team, the staff, the fans. We played a good game for the large majority of it.
“I’m just gutted because we’ve worked so hard to be here. The lads have given everything – every last bit of running, sweat, blood, tears, whatever it is. To fall short like we did today is just gutting.”
“Before yesterday’s match I had several patients (I’m a psychoanalyst) describe their fear of humiliation at the hands of Argentina,” emails Daniel.
“I am expecting their next sessions to be difficult after last night when fear was precisely what left England so vulnerable. The vibe was best captured in a piece that just appeared in The Athletic which wrote “Tuchel made a tactical alteration that will go down as one of the most consequential mistakes ever by an England manager in a big game”. Well said.
“I was 11 when I saw England win in 1966 and in every World Cup since I have seen the team lack the courage of the Alf Ramsay team and the only thing that helped make this bearable was a lifetime of disappointment as a dedicated Gas Head (AKA Bristol Rovers fan). Lions don’t lie down when the hunt is on. That’s the lesson that has to be learned.”
“My biggest takeaway from last night, apart from England inevitably retreating to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, is that Enzo Fernàndez may well be the heir to Luis Suárez,” emails James. “An incredibly unlikeable character, but one who is pretty bloody good at football. Oh, to have someone like that on the England team.”
On that note, didn’t Fernàndez essentially smack Anderson in the head early doors? How did he get away with it?
Priya Bharadia has some reaction from fans in Manchester:
“To be honest, I’m just happy we’ve made it this far,” Lucas Clapham, 25, with a shrug. “We’ve got to enjoy such a long period in this tournament. We’ve even got another game to play off the third, regardless.”
The England players “deserve a hero’s welcome” for their performance, said Rachel George, 30, who sat outside the now-empty Castlefield Bowl with friends Connor Ford and Amnre Judge.
“I was crying when we lost. It’s very sad, it’s a very sad time. But we go again in four years’ time,” she said. “We had a pub booking for Sunday. We’ll go see the final anyway, we’ll be supporting Spain.”
“People were celebrating too early as well, there were fireworks going off,” said Ford. “But the players should be really proud of their performance.”
The first Argentina goal – that came from Pickford touching a Martínez shot that looked to be going safely over the bar for a goal kick – reminded me of England v Colombia in 2018. Back then, if memory serves, Pickford made a spectacular save of a shot that wasn’t actually going in, conceded a corner, and Yerry Mina did the rest.
So if that Fernandez shot was actually going over, can we say it was all Pickford’s fault? Juuuuuust kidding.
There was a stat shared on the live minute-by-minute last night after the game was over: ‘In the 37 minutes between Anthony Gordon’s goal and Lautaro Martinez’s winner, England had 12% possession.’
That’s not just England going back into their shell, that’s England being totally outplayed. Which is not to say that the substitutions were right, they weren’t, but in the end Argentina just never give up and a limited England team already playing above themselves just couldn’t cope.
England had a good tournament, but Argentina have Messi, and Messi is , as much as skill, genius even, pure force of will. It’s not true to say that he’s carrying this team, he’s driving it forward, inspiring his teammates, making them all better than they would be without him.
My bracketology prediction was for a Spain/Argentina final with Spain to win. Now I’m not so sure, not while Argentina have Messi. We live in a time when greatness wears football boots and a No. 10 shirt. Let’s be grateful for it.
I love Tommy but he fucked up yesterday. As soon as we scored the entire team compressed within 30 yards of goal, no outlet whatsoever.
He says he didn’t change the tactics inferring the players decided to do that themselves but even if they did why the fuck weren’t they screaming at Kane and Gordon to move forward.
The first sub, a defender for our fastest attacker, removing a masive counter opportunity. Then Rice and James had to be subbed and you get 2 more defenders.
What the absolute fuck?
I don’t think he should be sacked, there are definitely signs of improvement within the England squad, but Tommy has to own that.
I thought Argentina played really well after we scored. They were a different team, focused, flowing football, stopped the ‘Argie bargy’ fouls and got down to work.
Their first goal was a great goal and in a tight defence, they’re only chance was something special which they go. As for their second, they had been attempting about 3 or 4 times before success so we should have been able to plug the gap.
We reached the semi finals, a great achievement for a team that has had a dogged campaign at best – some highlights and some painful watching. The semi finals featured the top four ranked clubs so we were in good company and at least can say, reached our potential.
But you don’t beat teams like Argentina by defending a goal, you have to break their spirit by scoring more and then sit back and watch the fustrations and eventual yellow cards start to flow in.
Come on Spain!
Lineker describes Tuchel tactics as ‘unfathomable’
Gary Lineker has described Thomas Tuchel’s tactics in England’s World Cup semi-final defeat by Argentina as “unfathomable”.
England took the lead early in the second half through Anthony Gordon but paid for a negative approach thereafter as Enzo Fernández struck in the 85th minute before Lautaro Martínez’s stoppage-time winner.
England boss Tuchel made several defensive substitutions, bringing on Ezri Konsa, Nico O’Reilly and Dan Burn, but they could not stop Lionel Messi setting up both goals from the right wing.
Speaking on The Rest is Football podcast, former England forward Lineker said: “I found it absolutely unfathomable that, if your tactic is to sit everyone deep, you do that against the greatest player ever to play football.
“I think he’s just cementing that game after game after game. Most goals in the World Cup, most assists in the World Cup. And he moves to the right, and you play a back five, and you still don’t go and get tight to him.
“Just put someone on him. He had so much space. He just whipped ball after ball after ball into the box.”
Former midfielder Joe Cole cited a negative mentality in sight of victory after England lost a third successive World Cup semi-final.
Cole said: “It was deflating, wasn’t it? Because we’ve been here before. I think it’s the same problems. If you ever take England on and get it done, you have to get over the hurdle where the fear of failure just paralyses England teams.
“Twelve per cent possession after we scored the goal, that tells you there’s something there. It’s a mindset. We could talk about tactics, substitutions and everything like that, but ultimately it comes from a manager.
“Too many times, it’s like a panic sets in when we’re nearly there. We’ve got it, and then we just trip over our own feet.” PA Media
“I think the criticism of Tuchel is justified,” emails Jon in Kent. “However, if he had have gone with more attacking subs earlier (ie Rashford for Gordon) and we conceded, then he would have been criticised for not being defensive as well. Damned if he did, damned if he didn’t, but as much as he got right during the tournament, he got it badly wrong at the worst time.
“I do think questions need to be asked about the fitness of the squad – no Saka in a game of this magnitude was very strange, even for the last few minutes.
“Overall, the team did so well getting to where they did, but the curse of the final hurdle remains.”
Argentina players’ behaviour with Falklands banner ‘entirely inappropriate’, says government minister
Argentina’s players’ behaviour was “entirely inappropriate” when they waved a banner in support of their country’s claims to the Falkland Islands after their World Cup semi-final win against England, senior minister Peter Kyle has said.
Argentina, the defending champions, beat England 2-1 in Wednesday’s match in Atlanta. Argentina fans celebrated their victory jubilantly, with some near the pitch holding a banner which read “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” – “The Falkland Islands are Argentinian”.
The banner made its way to the players, who held it up as they revelled in their win. They could face the prospect of disciplinary action from governing body Fifa for violating rules banning political messaging on the pitch.
Asked about the Argentinian players’ move, the Business Secretary Mr Kyle told the BBC: “My reaction is that it was entirely inappropriate. Politics needs to be separate from football.
“In fact, the World Cup has one of its central tenets that politics is separate from football. That is now a matter for Fifa. I expect Fifa to do its investigation thoroughly.”
He continued: “We expect Fifa to undertake an investigation into this. I think it was certain to happen because it was such an egregious violation of the the rules of not having political activity as part of the football.”
Political tensions linger between Argentina and Great Britain over the Falkland Islands, which boiled over into war in 1982.
Buenos Aires has repeatedly claimed sovereignty over the islands, which are about 8,000 miles from Britain and 300 miles from mainland Argentina.
Argentina boss Lionel Scaloni had said before the game he did not want the fixture to become about the conflict over the British overseas territory.
The country’s vice-president Victoria Villarruel had described England as “invaders” and “usurping pirates” in the buildup to the fixture, and posted a victory message on X at full-time by saying, “it wasn’t just another match” alongside a video of what appeared to be Argentinian soldiers. PA Media
Pablo Iglesias Maurer
Until Argentina intersected with England in the World Cup semi‑final on Wednesday, their good fortune at this summer’s tournament had been preserved by a very particular, chaotic cocktail, one that sometimes felt more mythical than real. And for just a moment, it seemed like that mysticism was about to run out.
And then Argentina did what they’ve done all summer. They sent the bulk of a stadium – and an entire country – into hysterics. La Albiceleste scored twice in the dying moments of the match, erased the English lead and advanced to the final. After the second of those two goals – a Lautaro Martínez strike in second‑half stoppage time – supporters from both sides were openly weeping, for wildly different reasons.
“Didn’t you consider trying to win 2-0 or 3-0?” … is clearly a very armchair-fan type question. (Tuchel: “That’s brilliant! I never thought of that, thank you.”)
But given how the game went after England scored and the substitutions that were made, it’s a valid question all the same.
I suspect part of England’s problem was simply physical exhaustion. As Tuchel said [below], nothing was changed immediately after the goal. So was it a mentality issue, with a place in the final in sight? Was it fatigue? Was it that Argentina simply upped their level to something England couldn’t deal with?
I am surprised Tuchel didn’t hook Kane – one thing I really thought he’d improve on from the Southgate era was to recognise when Kane needed to be replaced in these big, draining knockout ties.
“Of course we wanted to go for the second goal,” Tuchel told the BBC last night. “But I had not the feeling that offensive substitutions would help. We stayed in our 4-4-2 but we became passive, more and more passive, we couldn’t win any balls, couldn’t keep the ball, so I think it was not a structural problem. We changed nothing after the [England] goal, but the match changed completely. Again, it’s no problem, I can understand it – these discussions are out there … there are a million coaches, after the game, who know it better.”
“That’s all on Tuchel last night,” emails Daniel. “Those who learn nothing from the past are set to repeat the same failures. I can accept losing when you’ve had a right good go but from 67 mins that last night we almost waited to be beaten.
“That being said, I said at the start at the tournament, we had our time in 2021 and 2024 but unfortunately we blew it. Both squads in my opinion were better than the current one. I can’t remember who said it on the Athletic podcast a few days ago, but they were right international football is about timing. We’ve had eight years of some good and very good players, maybe not world-class mind. For me and many, Italy at Wembley will always be the one that got away.”
Thanks Martin. Hello everyone.
Were England afraid to win? Did Thomas Tuchel get it horribly wrong, after getting so much right? Were Argentina playing for something deeper and more profound than football? And … who will the final on Sunday?
We can have a crack at all those questions and more after a momentous World Cup semi-final in Atlanta. Send us your thoughts on email.
Martin Pegan
Thanks for following along – and perhaps even starting your day – as we started to dissect England’s defeat and what comes next for Argentina. Luke McLaughlin will take the reins from here …
FA backs Tuchel in wake of England’s exit – reports
Under-fire Thomas Tuchel retains the Football Association’s backing after England’s disappointing World Cup semi-final loss to Argentina and looks set to stay on as head coach for Euro 2028, per PA Media.
The 52-year-old former Chelsea boss was named Gareth Southgate’s successor in November 2024 and was widely cited as having the necessary tactical acumen to go one step further than his predecessor, who lost in back-to-back European Championship finals as well as in a World Cup semi-final.
The German coach’s negative decision making has put him under intense scrutiny, but it is being reported that he maintains the FA’s support. Tuchel’s initial deal had only covered this World Cup but in February he signed an extension until 2028, when he fully intends to lead England into the home Euros.
Speaking after the Argentina loss, the head coach said: “I have a contract until the home Euros and I’m looking forward to that even like now it is difficult to look that far ahead.”
England flew back to their Kansas City base after Wednesday’s agonising loss in Georgia, where the FA chief executive Mark Bullingham praised Tuchel:
It is heartbreaking to be so close. The players and Thomas gave it everything today and the squad, coaches and staff could not have worked harder during the tournament. I would like to thank them all – and also give my heartfelt thanks to our wonderful fans here in the USA and at home. We felt your support every step of the way and we are all so disappointed not to go further.”
Thomas Tuchel might have delivered mixed messages after the semi-final defeat to Argentina, but our own Jacob Steinberg was clear in his thinking the England head coach had not earned a free pass.
This was a tale as old as time. There was a chance for England to push on after Anthony Gordon fired them ahead early in the second half, but they reverted to type. The mentality was passive and they looked scared to win. No one put a foot on the ball and offered control. Harry Kane? Invisible in another game. The midfield? Outplayed, outrun and outclassed by Alexis Mac Allister and Enzo Fernández. Thomas Tuchel? Outwitted by Lionel Scaloni, whose substitutions made a difference, and too quick to retreat when there was so long left for England to defend their lead.
Tuchel takes blame, but says ‘no regrets’
Thomas Tuchel had already shown this week he’s not someone who is prone to mere pleasantries after a game. The head coach shouldered the blame for England becoming too passive after taking the lead against Argentina, but at the same time said he had “no regrets”.
I don’t believe so much in an English thing and a curse or whatever. It’s repeating itself in different moments. It’s different coaches, different players, different situations.
What cost us today was that we were not active enough in any structure. I can understand these discussions are out there and of course a million coaches after the game know it better. You can discuss this with a million coaches. I have to make a decision on the pitch. It’s how I analyse the match and I take the responsibility.
At the moment no regrets.
pping has had enough time to analyse where it all went wrong for England:
“What surprised me most about this game was that I was surprised by it. I was surprised that Argentina started the shithousery in the first minute, when I should have expected it. It was smart, they went after the younger guys, the guys most likely to get thrown off by it, or see the red mist …
“I was surprised that Tuchel tried to hold the one goal lead, this wasn’t Mexico, we had seen the threat already. I was surprised Tuchel didn’t seem to grasp that Harry Kane isn’t fast enough to be the pressure relief for the low block, but you would rather have him on than off.
“I was surprised that there was no review of the goal – Messi clearly caught Spence late, and the usual completely irrelevant bollocks – no intent, a coming together, limping on the wrong leg, etc. When we’d seen VAR rewind to the previous days training to find a foul in the build up to other goals. I was also surprised by how many people thought Messi had a great game. He was largely invisible, in the pocket of Spence/Anderson/Rogers, etc. He had more meaningful touches on England players than the ball.
“Mostly I’m surprised that I keep coming back, only to fall out of love with what the game has become … See you in two years for the Euros. Maybe. Might just go back to watching the local club.”
It will of course be tough for the England players, and broader camp, to come to terms with giving up a 1-0 lead and a spot in the World Cup final in the dying stages of their semi-final against Argentina. But the pain is likely all too familiar for them and their fans.
David Wall is among the first to write in and presents an admirably considered view: “A number of people have said this, but I think this is more disappointing than previous defeats at a similar stage in tournaments. Southgate was criticised for not acting and making changes to stop England becoming more defensive and passive after they went ahead in games. But here Tuchel made a conscious choice to become more defensive and passive after they went ahead.
“Rather than being unable to stop us edging back to the edge of the cliff he actively lowered us down over the edge to cling on by our fingertips. He seemed to assume that because that approach worked against Mexico and Norway in very different conditions [i.e. with 10 players or in exhausting heat and humidity] it would work here. His post-match interview didn’t seem to recognise that. Perhaps that’s just because it was immediately after the final whistle but if we’re going to do better in the next Euros then he needs to so he doesn’t make a similar decision again.”
The Argentina players could not resist doubling down on their triumph over old rivals England as they celebrated their World Cup win with a banner saying “Las Malvinas son Argentinas”, making reference to the 1982 Falklands war. Lisandro Martínez and Giovani Lo Celso held up the banner, grinning, and waved to fans in the stands.
Fifa’s stadium code of conduct bans “banners, flags, flyers, apparel and other paraphernalia that are of a political, offensive, and/or discriminatory nature” inside stadiums, so expect to hear more about this one either way.
The emotions were the polar opposite in Argentina including in Buenos Aires where tens of thousands of fans flooded the streets to celebrate the side’s win over England.
Some screamed, others cried – and the most frenzied sprinted shirtless through the streets, their bodies painted in blue and white national colours. Young men and women scaled lamp-posts and traffic lights, waving Argentina flags in a collective eruption of joy.
The England captain had little influence on the game against Argentina and fell well short of his usual high standards. Barney Ronay pulled no punches in saying, “Harry Kane basically did some light cardio quite close to a World Cup semi-final”.
Kane then had to try to find the words to explain the defeat and the heartbreak that the players and wider England camp were feeling in the immediate aftermath, saying: “I think there’s not much to say. For now, everyone has to process what’s just happened.”
Barney Ronay was at Atlanta Stadium as Lionel Messi helped turn the game against England. The Argentina captain only occasionally breaks into a run these days. He often looks bored by what is unfolding around him. But it is hard to imagine Messi as anything other than the most impactful footballer on the pitch even as he is about to become the oldest outfield player ever to appear in a World Cup final.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. Well, not to this lot anyway. On a day of ceaseless rolling noise under Atlanta’s vast refrigerated dome, England reached the end of the road, the end of their own capacities at this World Cup, the end of the gears within this team. Mainly they ran into Lionel Messi, who wasn’t ready to be done just yet. Not like this anyway.
With 55 minutes gone England were actually winning this game, 1-0 up thanks to Anthony Gordon’s goal, the only real moment of clarity they produced all match. At which point they simply disappeared as an animate entity from the stage.
Lionel Messi will play in a third World Cup final at the age of 39 after helping to drag Argentina over the line with a pair of assists in their semi-final win against England.
But was Messi’s effervescent best enough to earn a perfect rating? And what score did England’s captain Harry Kane earn as his side failed to hang on to their spot in a World Cup final in the dying stages? Ed Aarons was at Atlanta Stadium marking the players as the action unfolded.
Jude Bellingham Fired up from the start, came close to losing his rag in injury time – couldn’t save England this time.
Anthony Gordon Has come of age at this tournament. Will never forget scoring in a World Cup semi-final.
There was pleasure and pain inside Atlanta Stadium and far beyond. Here is a little taster with a full picture gallery of shots from the England and Argentina semi-final below …
Preamble
Martin Pegan
And then there were two. Whether you’ve been celebrating Argentina’s come-from-behind triumph or commiserating England’s World Cup exit with a heavy heart, the focus will soon turn toward the final between the reigning champions and Spain.
But before we reach that point, there is still time to catch up on Argentina’s semi-final win against England, and all that happened and was said in the aftermath of yet another memorable World Cup clash between the bitter rivals.
And where better to start than David Hytner’s report from the thrilling match at Atlanta Stadium.
England’s destiny is tournament heartbreak. The only question concerns when it comes and how the fates will contrive to make it as painful as possible. This was an implausibly brutal new low.
If you have any thoughts on the World Cup semi-finals, early predictions for the final or just feel the need to vent – shoot me an email, or find me on Bluesky @martinpegan.bsky.social. Let’s get into it!