Top News

Thomas Tuchel came agonisingly close to making it two from two — two games, two substitutes scoring. When Nico O’Reilly’s header smashed against the crossbar, the ball conveniently dropped to Harry Kane. “Ninety-nine times out of 100,” Tuchel said, Kane would have buried that chance. Had he done so, the manager’s tactical substitutions might have been hailed as decisive. Instead, Kane sent his shot over the bar.

As things stand, England have benefited from just one goal off the bench during this World Cup — Marcus Rashford’s late winner against Croatia. Yet, as Ghana held England to a stalemate, the slim margins highlighted flaws in Tuchel’s approach to building squad depth from the bench.

Tuchel’s plan often involves like-for-like changes. On the left flank, Anthony Gordon and Rashford share similar attributes, and substituting the Mancunian for the quick Merseysider worked effectively against Croatia. On the right, Bukayo Saka and Noni Madueke even play for the same club — with the 2025 signing serving as an understudy to Arsenal’s homegrown winger for both club and country when Saka is fit to start.

Midlanders Jude Bellingham and Morgan Rogers share not only roots but friendship. While the Aston Villa attacker may not possess the same calibre as Real Madrid’s star, Bellingham’s return to the side appeared to rely on mimicking Rogers’ No. 10 role from earlier in the season.

As for the backup forwards, Ollie Watkins and Ivan Toney are not exact replicas of Kane, but they are rarely seen on the pitch. “Does Argentina depend too much on Lionel Messi and France on Kylian Mbappe?” Tuchel asked rhetorically. “It’s normal. They are world-class players who produce world-class moments.”

However, the weakness in the setup emerges when England fail to take the lead. When Plan A falters, is Plan B simply a repetition with fresh legs? Tuchel omitted players who bring a different skillset. Phil Foden and Cole Palmer could be described as creative mavericks, though their underwhelming club campaigns likely cost them a place in the squad. Both explanations hold weight — even as Morgan Gibbs-White, after scoring 15 Premier League goals, could feel his efforts warranted selection. Still, Foden and Palmer remain among England’s most gifted players.

Palmer’s ability to change a game off the bench was evident during Euro 2024, following a brilliant club season. His late goal in the final alone might have justified his recall to the national side.

Tuchel chose not to overload his squad with No. 10s, wary that too many would lead to difficult selection choices. The final slot as a third playmaker, which might have gone to Foden or Palmer, instead went to Eberechi Eze — talented, no doubt, but less likely to alter a game at the highest level.

With squad limits extended to 26 players, England arguably had room for a wildcard. The closest they came was the inclusion of O’Reilly — a converted midfielder-turned-left-back known for his late runs into the box, a distinctly unconventional option.

England’s issues were both personnel-based and tactical. “I don’t think we become predictable with wide wingers,” Tuchel maintained, though evidence suggested otherwise. His preference for touchline-hugging wingers explains why Palmer, more of an inverted forward, didn’t fit the mould.

Tuchel himself admitted England produced “repetitive attacks”, which captured part of the problem. The team lacked variation and central creativity. A true playmaker could have been key to unlocking Ghana’s resilient defence.

Tuchel also left out Adam Wharton, England’s best deep-lying creator, choosing instead Jordan Henderson and Kobbie Mainoo. Twice — first in his initial squad, and again after Tino Livramento withdrew — he overlooked Trent Alexander-Arnold, arguably the most inventive right-back available, ultimately opting for Trevoh Chalobah.

The result was a team built for uniformity rather than variety. England’s second XI mirrors the first, only with lesser quality.

Other nations have taken a different approach. France, for example, boast a wealth of attacking options, but Didier Deschamps intentionally included players like Rayan Cherki and Jean-Philippe Mateta — both stylistically distinct from the starters.

Tuchel, in contrast, appeared to prefer consistency across his lineup. Yet against Ghana, England might have benefited from Wharton’s incisive passing, Alexander-Arnold’s teasing deliveries, or Palmer’s long-range shooting.

When England looked to the bench in search of inspiration, the spark they needed was missing — because the players who could have provided it were left at home.