Matt Maher: Thomas Tuchel might have a point about England's DNA

Even were he so inclined, you might have forgiven him a wry smile as the Three Lions went out to Argentina on Wednesday night.

Not so easy as it looks, is it Thomas?

After several tournaments where Southgate’s apparently limited tactical acumen was claimed a central reason for England not getting over the line, here were again, with the manager getting the brunt of the criticism.

Except this time, it is his successor Thomas Tuchel, recruited by the FA at no little expense, in the firing line.

Lauded as a tactical genius, who would provide England with the ingredient they had been missing, the German instead looked a long way short of his billing as his substitutions appeared to only exacerbate his team’s collapse against a Lionel Messi-inspired Argentina.

The fallout which follows England exits from major tournaments is rarely pretty. For all the public euphoria which accompanies a deep run into a tournament, for all the fatalism which sometimes feels a little too forced, an undoubted level of expectation dictates every failure will be met with recriminations and the search for scapegoats.

In many respects, it is fair enough. One of the best things about international football is success cannot be bought in the same way it is in the club game. You can’t spend your way out of trouble with a couple of big signings.

Yet money remains a huge factor and the English game has, over the past 15 or so years, spent tens of millions on the development of players.

To a large extent, it has worked. The past eight years rank as the most consistent in the history of the England team. Two of their four World Cup semi-finals and two of their three major tournament finals have all been reached in that period. The top line from last weekend’s column - Three Lions fans have never had it so good for so long - still stands.

But this is elite sport and ultimately, it is about winning trophies. The FA do not shy away from that. Their stated aim was to win this World Cup, so an inquest after falling short is not so much desired as needed.

That, in part, is what makes Tuchel’s comments in the wake of Wednesday’s defeat feel so pointed.

The immediate response is to view his suggestion that keeping possession and controlling a game was “maybe not in (England’s) DNA” as simply a classic case of a manager deflecting blame away from himself and onto his players.

He’d hardly be the first to try it yet, in these circumstances, with a nation still sore and a little angry, it might be politely described as a bold move.

What people want right now from the England manager is a little humility, an acknowledgement his decisions were, at least to part, to blame for the defeat.

To listen to some of Tuchel’s comments in the wake of Wednesday night, you almost get the impression he thought there was little he could have done to alter the outcome.

“No structure in the world could have helped us,” he remarked at one point.

Well, the logical continuation of that theme, is to ask why the head coach is actually employed?

Whether he likes it or not, Tuchel’s brand has been damaged and he needs to play the PR game.

On the flip side, it would be folly to simply dismiss his comments about England’s “DNA” out of hand.

After all, his chief complaint, about the inability of players to keep the ball when under pressure, has been a familiar one for years.

Sure, to hear a well-paid coach say it sticks in the craw. It doesn’t mean he might not have a point.

Did England really have a team good enough to win the World Cup? Even had they held on against Argentina, we would currently be writing about how they would be underdogs in the final against Spain, a team who in beating France on Tuesday night showed all the composure on control Tuchel’s men lacked 24 hours later.

Graeme Sounness made the exact comparison during an interview with Simon Jordan in which he questioned the ball-playing limitations of Declan Rice and Elliot Anderson.

England’s approach, meanwhile, had previously been criticised by former striker Michael Owen.

The latter took a fair chunk of flak after writing a column for a national newspaper, following the last-16 win in Mexico, in which he suggested the large-scale praise for England’s performance had been overblown.

Owen argued there was nothing particularly brave about the Three Lions defensive rearguard when down to 10-men in the wake of Jarrel Quansah’s sending-off.

“There have been too many moments when England have fallen into old habits,” he wrote. “We score, we drop deeper. We come under pressure, we surrender possession.”

He added: “Real bravery is wanting the ball when 80,000 people are willing you to make a mistake.”

Pilloried by jubilant fans at the time, Owen’s words now feel rather prophetic.

The trouble for the FA is such criticism, whether it comes from the manager or former player, cuts to something far deeper than merely tactics. It calls into question their entire strategy when it comes to player development and how they want an England team to play. Their central vision is being challenged.

That can be a frightening thing to confront when so much money has been spent yet, in the wake of another tournament which by their own admission has ended in failure, confront it they must.