How will England play?

Given the squad we now have, the formation and 'best lineup' seem fairly obvious, incontrovertible: the side picks itself. Pretty much everyone is expecting England to look something like the team above during this World Cup. 

But... Tuchel likes 'surprises'; and I think - I fear - he may have a few in store for us.

This wouldn't be a bad team, by any means. If it works, it should be well capable of progressing far into the tournament, maybe even winning it. It has good balance, good pace, and a fair amount of experience - despite the low average age.

Reece James can readily invert into a holding role in the middle, as he so often has for Chelsea this year (although Tuchel, in the past, has scoffed at the idea of him being a 'midfielder'; I hope he's been convinced otherwise now), which would allow Declan Rice to move further forward to support the attack. Harry Kane is likely to drop back into the '10' space, or even a bit deeper (though I doubt if he'll retreat all the way back to his defensive line, in the manner of the later Toni Kroos, as we've often seen from him at Bayern this year), allowing Jude Bellingham to play a little ahead of him as a 'false 9', or to roam freely wherever he will to pick up the ball and encouraging Rashford or Saka to drift into the central space. In theory, I think that could work very nicely.

However, Morgan Rogers is such a 'golden boy' of Tuchel's that I think he will be shoehorned into the starting eleven somehow. Letting him come in off the left-wing, in place of Rashford, would perhaps make the most sense, as that is how he's mostly played at Villa this season. But I think Tuchel may fancy him in the No. 10 slot, and keep Bellingham in reserve as a 'super-sub' (and I'm not sure how well Jude will take that; he does have a bit of an ego on him!). There is also a possibility that John Stones may be favoured over Ezri Konsa, for his experience. Again, I think that's non-ideal. Konsa has played well enough to have earned a regular start, and I feel we ought to be concentrating on building up his partnership with Guehi (they have played remarkably little together as yet). And I suppose there's an outside chance that Gordon might be preferred to Rashford on the left, though this seems very unlikely to me; Rashford's recent form should guarantee him the start (while Gordon's club form this year frankly makes his inclusion in the squad at all highly questionable).

There is one further possible variation, which I'd approve of, but which I fear Tuchel may consider 'too risky'. That would be to designate Kane openly as the 'No. 10' and play Ollie Watkins ahead of him as the central striker. I think that might work even better; although I'd be loathe to sacrifice Bellingham to facilitate this.

This is pretty much the formation and approach I would have favoured. I have been saying for a decade now that Harry Kane is really more of a 'No. 10' than he is a 'No. 9' (we are spoiled that he's so good in both roles), and that we need to play him deeper to get the most out of his exquisite passing. And I really like the idea of playing another forward ahead of him, to give him more freedom to wander around the pitch. And I'd like to try playing Bellingham deeper also, alongside the pivot (I'd happily sacrifice Declan Rice for that; great though he is for Arsenal, I think he's entirely expendable for England). Bellingham is a capo carismatico, an inspirational figure who lifts all those around him; and he has that magical ability to come up with a game-changing moment out of nothing. We need him on the pitch.

I would have fancied playing narrower wide attackers: Eze and Palmer flanking Bellingham or Kane. The amount of rotation and creative passing you could have got from that combination of front players might have been breathtaking. 

But I can see that this is a team built for Harry Kane. And the one asset our Harry has always lacked is pace; so, he needs to be supported by very quick wide players who can break down the flanks to try to produce crosses or cutbacks for him, or run through the middle on to the long through-balls he can play from deeper in the midfield.

[Just before the tournament started, Conor McAinsh of Football Meta, one of the best analysis channels on Youtube, dropped this video that goes into a bit more detail about how Tuchel wants England to operate - but essentially affirms my outline above.]

This, I fear, may be the set-up's most dangerous weakness as well as its main strength. This system could work so well with Harry Kane; but I'm not sure how it will function without him. And we really need Harry at his best to get the most out of this. And there is a danger that, after such a long season with Bayern, he may be a bit rundown physically and mentally - a bit knackered. Harry, alas, has never really 'turned up' for us in a major tournament yet. (Yes, he's banged in a decent number of goals against very soft group opponents. But he's looked increasingly anonymous as the tournaments have progressed - often leading to calls in the press for him to be dropped. And this time.... we don't have a soft group.) If that happens again, if he's operating substantially below his peak - or he picks up an injury and isn't available at all - I don't know who else can step up and lead this team. I rather fear things might all unravel rather quickly if Big H isn't on top of his game. So,.... let's hope that he is.

Come on, England!

Not quite what we wanted...

 

When Thomas Tuchel selected his first England squad 14 months ago, I observed that the England manager's job is a thankless task, and that invariably every fan will have his own perfect selection in mind and will carp at every variation from that Platonic ideal, however trivial.

However, the just-announced World Cup squad has a few oddities in it that are so egregious, it has got the majority of England fans not just mildly irked, but seriously dismayed, even outraged.

I don't take issue with as many of the choices as some (the compiler of the 'Rejects XI' above cannot seriously have supposed that all of them were going to get a call-up??), but I fear there are a few really big errors in it - which may cost us dearly in the tournament.

So, I'll quickly run through my take on the good, the bad, and the ugly of Thomas Tuchel's picks...

Expected, justified omissions

Not even Nick Pope's mum thinks he's one of the best three goalkeepers in England any more; and his club manager no longer seems sure if he's even better than Aaron Ramsdale - so, there's absolutely no surprise that he didn't make the cut (especially after a season disrupted by injury). The goalkeeping line-up is surely the one part of the squad where there's really no controversy at all.

Trent Alexander-Arnold, rightly or wrongly, was already being sidelined at England under Southgate; and Tuchel immediately made it clear that he has no interest in using him. I think - somewhat controversially - that this is the correct decision. For me, Trent is player whose excellences occupy a very narrow spectrum, and who thus needs to have a team built around him if he is to flourish (he needs hard-working midfielders who will cover for him when he's caught out of position defensively, and very quick forward players who can exploit his long balls over the top). Klopp was able to do that at Liverpool; but I don't think an England manager can.

Harry Maguire, I've said on here before, is 'yesterday's man'. He's given excellent service to England over the years, and he's still a fine player. But he's obviously not our first-choice starter any more; and I fear he's too big an ego to accept merely a back-up role in the squad. Likewise, Luke Shaw, although he has - surprisingly - been an ever-present for Manchester United this season, has clearly declined a bit in fitness from his peak a few years ago, and no longer looks like an obvious prospect for us at left-back... even though that is, currently, the position in which we have perhaps the thinnest cover.

Phil Foden is a bit of an unfortunate omission, but not an unexpected one. He doesn't seem to be securely in Pep's favour, and has played less than 2,000 Premier League minutes this season. I fear that his confidence has been broken by his manager's lack of trust in him (and/or that there may be reasons, unknown to the public, why that lack of trust is justified...). And alas, he's never really managed to make his mark with England, and he had a particularly ineffectual tournament in the Euros two summers ago. In an area of the pitch where we are rather spoiled with an over-abundance of talent to choose from, it really is not surprising that he didn't quite make the cut.

Unfortunate omissions

I was a little bit of a sceptic about Levi Colwill a couple of years or so ago, but he impressed me enormously last season, and I think he could become a mainstay of the England team. For that reason, I would have been tempted to make a place for him in this squad, even though he's unlikely to start, and is probably going to be a little ring-rusty after his long injury absence. I also think we need a specialist left-back as cover for Nico O'Reilly, and that slot really ought to have gone to Lewis Hall; he might not have the adaptability of Spence or Livramento, but he is more consistent, and offers much more of an attacking threat.

Jarrad Branthwaite and Myles Lewis-Skelly (and perhaps also Rico Lewis) will no doubt enjoy an England career at some point, but unfortunately they just haven't had enough first-team minutes this year to be in contention for this squad.

Adam Wharton and Alex Scott are perhaps too young and inexperienced to be relied upon yet as regular starters, but they are outstanding prospects for the future, and I would have liked to see space being made for at least one of them in this squad. I think that space could have been easily created by taking one or two fewer defenders.

Harvey Barnes, many people would say, has done enough this season to be considered for a call-up. It is unfortunate that Eddie Howe never seems to view him as an automatic starter, even when he's in hot goalscoring form, but he really has looked a much better prospect this year than his teammate Anthony Gordon; and, given that he's only likely to be called upon as a late substitute when we're chasing a game, his pace and finishing could surely be very valuable to us.

Questionable, but possibly justified inclusions

Tino Livramento undoubtedly has a lot of promise, but he has had too many injury problems this season (and is injured now - so might get replaced in the squad), and just hasn't had the opportunity to establish any settled form. His clubmate Lewis Hall looked a far stronger candidate to me; one suspects Livramento has only got the nod because of his ability to operate on either flank. This was presumably the decisive factor in Djed Spence's favour too. I have been impressed with Spence's development over the past couple of seasons, but I worry about his mental state after the appalling season Spurs have suffered; 'failure' can be contagious, and I would be very wary of bringing in players from relegated clubs (or clubs that have been floundering in that mire; I'm writing this the day before the season finale, so don't know if Spurs managed to escape the drop). I've said before that I like Dan Burn for his adaptability and his attitude; but he hasn't been a regular starter with Newcastle this season, and when he has played, it's been most often as a centre-back; when he has had a start at left-back, he's looked much less composed than he did a couple of seasons back when he was playing the role regularly, and has often been found out for pace. I can see taking Burn as a makeweight, because he'll be an inspiring presence off the pitch, and can provide emergency cover anywhere across the back-four (and possibly even in central midfield); but he does look perhaps the weakest of the defensive picks, and if you feel - as I do - that we're taking too many defenders, he's probably the one that should be cut. Though I really don't think we need both Livramento and Spence - so long as there are no lingering question-marks over Reece James's fitness.

John Stones is presumably included for his experience, and his adaptability (able to fill in at right-back, in an emergency, or even as a holding midfielder). And it's interesting that Tuchel apparently cites 'training data' as reassuring him in this choice: presumably his fitness levels appear to be strong, even though he's almost inevitably going to be short of full sharpness after playing so few competitive minutes this year. Though it seems a rather risky call, I can see the need for including someone with significant tournament experience in what is, mostly, a very young squad. The worry, I think, is that Tuchel likes him so much, he might actually be thinking of starting him. For me, Guehi and Konsa have established themselves as deserved first-choice starters, and we should be concentrating on building their partnership - one which could become the backbone of the team for the decade ahead.

Anthony Gordon has pace, aggression, adaptability; at his best, he's certainly an asset to the squad, and so I can see why Tuchel has stood by him. But he has had a very ropey season at Newcastle, rarely anywhere near his best; his club form does not justify his inclusion at the moment.

Bizarre inclusions

Jordan Henderson is now slow and injury-prone, and has only featured for Brentford half the time this past season. He surely can't be considered for anything more than the occasional token 10-minute run-out in internationals. And if he's been included simply for his dressing-room leadership.... surely we could have brought him along as a 'coach', rather than wasting a squad place??

Ivan Toney has been scoring for fun in the Saudi Pro League - but does that really count for anything? The overall competitive standard in that league is so low that your gran could probably score goals there. He surely can't have been included just for his penalty-taking prowess,... can he? Dominic Calvert-Lewin and Danny Welbeck must be scratching their heads in dismay: they've both had outstanding domestic seasons and notched some good goals against proper defences. There might be reasonable question-marks over their consistency and resistance to injury, but on recent form they should certainly have been in consideration. I think the last forward slot should have gone to the outstanding Jarrod Bowen. The only possible logic I can see for this choice is that Tuchel may be considering using Kane in a deeper position and starting Watkins ahead of him as the central striker; and, if so, you can see why he'd want another forward of closely similar profile to Watkins as a back-up for him. (Though in that case, I would still have gone for Calvert-Lewin.)  We shall see.

The really culpable errors

James Garner has had an outstanding season, and is clearly now our second-best holding midfield option; therefore, he was, I think, an absolutely essential pick as back-up for Elliot Anderson - and if Anderson should get injured, his omission might become one of our biggest regrets.

Morgan Gibbs-White has looked our most versatile and consistent central midfielder for the last few seasons; and I would have taken him to America ahead of Declan Rice (yes, I know what a great season he's had - but I stand by that: Rice is a jack-of-all-trades player, remarkably good at almost all aspects of the game.... but not quite the obvious first-choice for any one role or position) or Morgan Rogers, and certainly ahead of Jordan bloody Henderson.

Jarrod Bowen, I think, deserves a place for his workrate and his attitude, as well as for the fact that he offers a rather different profile to anyone else we have up front. I think that difference of style could prove valuable in games where we're still chasing a late goal. And in games (hopefully the majority!) where we're just sitting on a lead for the last 20 minutes, we can rely on his tenacious pressing to hinder an opponent from coming back at us. If he were being passed over for an obviously superior player, a player with an outstanding goalscoring record this season, then the decision would be less baffling; but to take Ivan Toney instead...?? That is a WTF?!

And of course, the really super-colossal blunder is leaving behind Cole Palmer - who is, quite simply, our best player,... and probably, in fact, the best playmaker in Europe. Tuchel's only proffered explanation seems to have been that "we don't need five No. 10s". No, indeed; but we probably do need to take at least three of them. And Palmer is by far the best of the candidates. Moreover, it is perfectly possible to play two '10s' (or 'false 9s') alongside each other. And most of our players who fit this role, like Palmer himself, are also able to operate a bit wider, coming in off the flanks; or, in the case of Bellingham and Gibbs-White, to play a bit deeper in central midfield. And ironically, two of the nominal No. 10s Tuchel has chosen... aren't really No. 10s at all: Bellingham is a sui generis play-anywhere-and-everywhere player, who's probably at his best breaking from deeper positions as an occasional late box-crasher; and Rogers, for Villa, generally starts out wide, and drifts into the half-space to attack the box, rather than dictating play from central areas. So, that 'too many to choose from' argument just doesn't hold water for me; there must be some other reason why our gaffer doesn't like him. But whatever it is, I think he's wrong; and this is the one selection decision that might cost us our chance of winning the tournament.

And finally.... my TWO unpopular exclusion suggestions!

Morgan Rogers and Declan Rice. Yes, I know, they're outstanding players, and I'm sure they'll do a decent job for us. It is looking rather as if Rogers, in fact, may be so favoured by Tuchel that he might be the preferred starter in the No. 10 role - even at the expense of Bellingham! But for me, he's just not quite good enough: he's had long spells at Villa - not just long passages in a game, but long runs of games - where he's been very ineffectual. He's not as good as Palmer or Eze at threading balls through into the box, he's not as good as Mainoo or Gibbs-White at carrying the ball forward through the midfield, he's not as good as Saka or Rashford at coming in off the wing to shoot at goal. And I wrote at some length about Rice the other day: I admire his qualities, but for me he's better as an attacking midfielder (and he just isn't going to get in contention there, because we have such a wealth of other talent - to the point where we can consider omitting the likes of Palmer and Foden and Bellingham!!); he has his shortcomings as a holding player, and for our central midfield positions, I'd much prefer Anderson and Garner, Mainoo and Wharton, Gibbs-White and even Bellingham.

It's not a terrible squad. And it's not that unexpected (apart from the omission of Palmer, and perhaps of Bowen). Let us cross our fingers and hope for the best!!!

What is Declan FOR....?

 

More than 18 months ago, I did a lengthy piece here on the blog about why I was unconvinced that Trent Alexander-Arnold could usefully fit into the England set-up. Now, I'm going to risk even greater derision and disparagement by attempting to make a similar case about Declan Rice. (In fact, I recall that I already did so, in outline, in a post from last Spring about my thoughts on the likely development of the England squad under the first few years of Thomas Tuchel's stewardship.)

And as with Trent, it's largely about him not being a style of player who fits any need I can see in the England team. He is undoubtedly a very, very good player; and he's found a very particular niche in the current Arsenal team - where he has come to seem essential to their success. But that does not mean that he would also be essential - or even necessary or useful - to England's success at this summer's World Cup.

I said in that earlier post, actually, that I could see Rice retaining a place in the squad for his value as a utility player and his off-field leadership. But I've shifted my view on that now. And again, it's not for any reason to do with his attributes; I still rate him very highly for those qualities. But I am increasingly convinced that - in an ideal world - he wouldn't any longer be a starter for us. And I fret that he might be too big a personality to accept merely a bit-part role in the squad, to play the dressing-room cheerleader as selflessly as someone like Conor Coady did. Even if he would, there's a greater fear that his presence would nevertheless have a disruptive influence by acting as a focus for any public and media discontent with our performances; I can foresee that if Rice were with the squad - after the season he's just had for Arsenal - there would be constant lobbying from others to reinstate him in the starting line-up.

I mentioned in that earlier post that I worried that, like Harry Kane, Declan Rice had been unfortunately pigeonholed by his physique. For me, he's always looked much more effective as a progressive midfielder, pushing up into the final third and trying to make things happen around the edge of the opposing box. But because he's so physically imposing, he's almost always been lumbered with a more defensive role in central midfeld. And yet the funny thing is that, despite his excellent reading of the game and his sometimes incisive tackling,... he's just not actually all that good at a pure holding role in the middle - at least not on his own. He was fine supporting Soucek at West Ham, or Partey, and now Zubimendi at Arsenal; but when he has to try to control that central space on his own - as he was during Partey's long absences a couple of years ago - he often gets found out.

And I'm afraid that the decisive emergence of Elliot Anderson and James Garner this season should effectively punt him to the sidelines of England selection. They are simply much better at the nitty-gritty of the holding midfield role than Rice is. I think their progressive passing is rather better too. (Arteta, with his obsession with 'control' in games, has not given Rice much leeway to develop the more creative aspects of his game. Much of the time, he wants to draw more on his defensive qualities, even when he's pressing forward. But even more of the time, he just wants him to sit a bit deeper and maintain possession by playing the ball sideways all the time.... It is not developing his vision for the more probing ball forward.)

There are other weaknesses in his game too. He's not great on the turn, not strong when receiving the ball under pressure, facing his own goal, not great at spinning away from a harrying opponent to open up the chance to start carrying the ball upfield. Kobbie Mainoo's way better than him in those aspects of the game. And if we're looking for someone who can put in an effective shift in deeper midfield, but still offer more creative potential through their range of passing, then... I think we have to try to start making use of Adam Wharton,... or Morgan Gibbs-White, or maybe Alex Scott.

For me, Declan Rice is a bit of a jack-of-all-trades type: he's very, very good at almost everything - but he isn't quite the best at any one thing. (Well, perhaps at set-piece delivery. But I don't think someone gets into the England team just for that. And we do have other excellent options there: Palmer, Saka, Foden, Gibbs-White...)

Also, I feel that his greatest strengths are probably in the attacking third - but he hasn't been given full opportunity to develop this dimension to his game in a very conservative Arsenal playing style where he's more often expected to be the gatekeeper than a lock-picker. And again, good as he is, is he really going to get in contention for one of our more advanced midfield roles - in competition with Palmer, Bellingham, Saka, Eze, Rashford, etc.??  Sorry, but I just can't see it.

It is particularly difficult to write this after Rice has had such an outstanding season - a season where he might in fact lift the two biggest trophies in club football. (I wrote this a few days ago, before we'd seen if the Gameweek 37 matches might settle the Premier League title race, or if Arsenal might somehow be letting that trophy slip from their fingers...)  I fully acknowledge that he's a great, great player, and that he's been playing sensational football this year. But he can be this great and still not quite be starting material for England: he's not our best holding midfielder (not even top three, I don't think), he's not our best option for a more creative central midfielder, and he's really not going to be considered among our top half dozen or so attacking midfield options.

So, absent an injury to Anderson or Garner or Mainoo or Wharton,... I wouldn't be taking Declan Rice to America this summer.

I'm pretty sure Tuchel will, and that he will probably start him alongside Anderson in a double-pivot. And I imagine that will work out OK; if... when we under-perform and crash out, it will probably be because Palmer or Bellingham or Kane or Saka, or one of the defenders, or even Jordan Pickford had a poor tournament, rather than some failing on Rice's part we could pin it on. But I still feel it would be a non-optimal selection, that our squad ought to be just that bit better without him.

Don't hate me, Arsenal fans. It's just an opinion.

A-spurning we will go!

 

I had thought that the England squad in the run-up to this summer's World Cup couldn't hold many - any?! - surprises. Thomas Tuchel and I seemed to be on pretty much exactly the same page in relation to the general approach and the particular selections. Heck, it had started to seem that, for once, maybe the whole country was on pretty much the same page: it looked as though the squad was essentially going to pick itself.

But where would be the fun in being the manager of England if you couldn't mess with people's heads just a little bit, stir up a bit of a kerfuffle among the punditry with a few.... surprising (baffling, irritating) choices of player??  And he's certainly done that with the current squad for the two warm-up friendlies against Uruguay and Japan over the next few days - effectively a 'long list' of 35 players, which will be whittled down into the 26 to go forward to the USA this summer. A few big names have been mercilessly spurned; while a few others have been given a slightly unexpected lifeline.

Nothing really too earth-shattering, but deserving of some brief comment, nevertheless.

And this is somewhat of a specialist topic of mine. Spurning, that is. Last month, atter being turned out of my current home with barely two-and-a-half weeks' notice by a bonkers landlady, I was left desperately scrabbling to find a new roof over my head in a matter of days. And the first four places I set my heart on... all spurned me. The nicest of them, in fact, initially accepted me; only 24 hours later was I sheepishly informed that the husband of the lady I'd spoken with had supposedly let the place to someone else behind her back on the same morning I'd gone for my viewing... With employment, it's become even worse: I have been turned down for every single job I've applied for in the last five years - must be several dozens of them now. At the end of last year, I somehow managed to get turned down for a trio of jobs in Myanmar; and, you know, it can't be easy to find folks who are willing to work in Myanmar at the moment, let alone who are able to relocate there at a moment's notice from a neighbouring country. (In fact, it's even worse than that: four quickfire spurnings for Myanmar jobs!! One of those employers actually invited me to reapply, and then blew me off again...)  And, my oh my, I've lost count of the number of women over the years who've told me something like, "Oh, I wish you'd asked me out sooner - but I've just started seeing someone else."

So,.... the spurned and I have... an affinity.

Here, then, a quick review of Herr Tuchel's latest spurnings (and non-spurnings)....

Goalkeepers

Unexpected inclusions: Aaron Ramsdale, Jason Steele

Obviously the three for the actual World Cup squad does 'pick itself' in this position: Jordan Pickford is an unassailable first choice, Dean Henderson is by some margin the 'best of the rest', and Jamie Trafford is the promising young pretender. I have no gripe with these additional two per se. In fact, I'm really pleased to see Steele getting some recognition at last (there is talk that he's being lined up to go to America as a member of the coaching staff or practice partner on the goalkeeping team, rather than a member of the playing squad); he's a player I've long admired; but, you know, he hasn't really been a regular first team starter in a dozen years or so! And Ramsdale, for me, is a nearly-not-quite kind of player: many excellent qualities, but somehow seems to lack the 'star power' to make that final step up in rank; and, given that he has only very recently - and perhaps temporarily - displaced Nick Pope as the starter at Newcastle, he's not bringing a lot of top-flight experience with him. I would have preferred to give a vote of confidence to Pope, or to give a first taste of senior squad involvement to one of the young up-and-comers like Matthew Young or James Beadle.

Unexpected spurnings:  Nich Pope

He has had a number of injury problems over the past few years. And he had made a few bad mistakes in recent games. But I suspect there's some other issue going on behind the scenes at St James's, some deeper injury issue or perhaps some kind of personal problem, because his performance level really didn't seem problematic enough to warrant dropping him - on the eve of a penultimate World Cup training camp. And Tuchel has included plenty of other players who are not current starters; so, that can't be the only reason poor Pepe didn't make the cut here. On ability and past experience, I feel Pepe deserved to remain a part of our squad - if only as a fringe selection who's never likely to get near a start (nor, with the rise of Trafford, even to make the final squad, in all probability); I fear there must be some other factor behind his exclusion.

Defenders

Unexpected inclusions: Harry Maguire, John Stones, Fikayo Tomori, Jarrell Quansah,... and Ben White!

I wouldn't dispute Maguire's inclusion on simple merit: he has been a giant of the England team for several years now; and he finally seems to be rediscovering something like his best form with Carrick's suddenly rejuvenated Manchester United. However,... I feel his time with England is past. Guehi and Konsa are now clearly, rightly, our default starting pair in central defence. And, after so many years of being the 'main man', I can't see Harry adapting to a peripheral 'cheerleader' role in the dressing room, in the manner of the extraordinarily selfless Conor Coady. Maybe it can be useful to have him involved at this training and preparation stage; and maybe it's a smart idea to keep him sweet, to keep him onboard, just in case we might need him as a starter in America because of injuries elsewhere. But I really can't see taking Maguire to the World Cup.... 

Similar qualms might apply to John Stones. But I'd be happier taking him along in the summer, because of his versatility as an all-around 'utility player', able to fill in at full-back or even as a holding midfield player, if we get hit by some awkward injuries. Moreover, I don't think he's such a 'big personality' in the dressing-room as Maguire, and after being on the sidelines so much at City in recent years, he's more likely to be able to accept a peripheral role in the squad with quiet good grace, and even perhaps with gratitude. It's just a pity that he's had so few first-team minutes this season.

It's nice to see Quansah and Tomori getting a look-in; proof that going to play on the continent, although it might remove you from the consciousness of the English sporting press and the public, need not exclude you from the England manager's thoughts (although Tomori hasn't got much of a look-in since he moved to Milan five years ago...). Quansah, in particular; I've always felt that he showed a lot of promise; and I think Slot's abrupt rejection of him may prove to have been one of his biggest blunders (along with spurning Harvey Elltiott, and pissing Mo Salah off; and buying Isak straight after buying Ekitike; and buying Frimpong and Kerkez when there was no obvious place for them in the squad or the style of play; and...); it's been great to see him blossoming since his move to Leverkusen this year. However, you suspect they might only be getting this chance because of the recent injuries to Reece James and Trevoh Chalobah; and probably neither will actually go to the World Cup. [And poor Quansah has apprently been denied his chance now, owing to a thigh-strain.]

I'm glad to see Ben White involved again at last - even if it is only after a long list of injury withdrwals. After such a long, self-imposed exile, it may be impossible for him to fully integrate himself again and regain the trust of teammates and fans. But, frankly. if Reece James isn't fit, he'd be starting for me! Diminiutive, injury-prone Livramento doesn't yet quite have the experience for the biggest stage, I don't think; Djed Spence neither; and we're short of other options in that position.

Justified spurning: Trent Alexander-Arnold

I went into some detail around 18 months ago why I felt Trent was not enough of an all-round player to fit in most teams, including the England one. Unfortunately, my view still hasn't changed. And a difficult first season at Real Madrid hasn't been the best platform to recommend himself to Tuchel. This is the decision which is going to most inflame the punditry, no doubt; but I think our manager is spot on. Not all great players have a place in the national team; they need to be a good tactical fit with the rest of the talents around them - and I don't think Trent can be that.

Unfortunate spurnings: Jarrad Branthwaite, Myles Lewis-Skelly

Branthwaite, I suppose, just hasn't had many minutes so far this season. But unless he's actually got a current injury problem, I would have included him here. He is the most promising young left-sided centre-back in the country (the best, really; since Guehi isn't naturally left-sided, has just fashioned himself a quirky niche role playing in that position off his wrong foot), and so needs to be developed as a potential starter, regular first-back up in that position. Lewis-Skelly just hasn't been given any minutes by Arteta this season; but he made such a promising start to his England career last year, I think there should be a case for keeping him involved as much as possible - even if he's doubtful for inclusion in the final squad.

Midfielders

Unexpected inclusions: Jordan Henderson, Phil Foden, Anthony Gordon

Henderson, I suppose, is still useful to have around as an elder statesman, involved for his experience and leadership presence, in this expanded, 'training camp' squad; but it would be a bit of a travesty if he went to the World Cup as well, when he clearly seems to be incapable of playing regular top-level football in closely back-to-back games any more.

I suppose I'm glad enough to see some loyalty being shown to Foden and Gordon, despite their thus-far very underwhelming seasons. However, I do worry that there is some serious underlying problem with Foden that causes Pep to keep dropping him; and, if there isn't, I fear this lack of confidence from his manager may have broken him. He has consistently failed to make an impact on the international stage for some years; and I can't see him deserving another chance now, in a World Cup, when he's obviously not likely to get near a start ahead of Palmer and Bellingham and Eze. Although I like Gordon's pace and attitude, he's had such a lacklustre season so far that he probably ought to lose out to Madueke, and even perhaps his clubmate Harvey Barnes, in the final squad - unless he finishes really hot over the remaining seven games.

Unfortunate spurnings:  Alex Scott, Rico Lewis, Lewis Miley

I'm glad, at least, to see Adam Wharton get another call-up - although I rather fear that he'll be cut from the final 26-man squad. However, I think Alex Scott has been playing more than well enough for Bournemouth to merit inclusion again as well (he acquitted himself well enough in November's squad). Miley and Lewis, I suppose, haven't been getting enough first-team football with their clubs this year; but they are such outstanding talents that I would have liked to see them included in an expanded squad like this, to encourage their development for the future. If they can find a manager who will play them regularly, they should be in contention for the 2028 Euros, both terrific young players.

Culpable omission:  Morgan Gibbs-White

OK, this is the one selection in this super-sized squad that really gets my blood boiling. There is a strong case that Gibbs-White should be the first back-up to Palmer in the No. 10 role for us - ahead of Morgan Rogers or Phil Foden. He certainly deserves to be given the chance to make that case in this squad.

Forwards

Unexpected inclusions: Dominic Calvert-Lewin, Dominic Solanke, Marcus Rashford

Solanke I can see: I like his pace, workrate, and versatility. Even though he's only just back from a long injury, and is having a torrid time with Championship-bound Spurs,... I think he is a profile of player we probably need in the squad. And I suppose it's again nice to show some loyalty to Marcus Rashford, after good service to England over a number of years. But, after a promising start at Barca, things seem to have slowed down for him rather; and he really hasn't been scoring many goals for them. And for me, I'm afraid, he's always going to fall uncomfortably between two stools: he has many of the elements of a great winger and of a great centre-forward... without actually being either one. Calvert-Lewin I just don't get; yes, he's probably having his best season ever - but it's still not quite good enough: he's inconsitent, injury-prone, and just not 'international class'.

Unfortunate spurnings: Ollie Watkins, Danny Welbeck

These two very nearly earned the 'culpable' tag as well! I think the omission of these two - in favour of the far less impressive Dominics - could prove costly to our World Cup campaign. Watkins has had a very subdued season; but I think that's been mainly down to Villa's patchy form and lack of regular service to him. He's still been working hard for the team, and looking sharp on the rare occasions when  a decent chance has presented itself. He's a better complement to Harry Kane as a back-up option than any of the other contenders, I think; and he has a very promising rapport with Morgan Rogers, which could make the pair of them a dangerous substitution option in games where we're struggling to find a breakthrough. Welbeck has had a terrible injury record through the years, and, yes, he's getting a bit long in the tooth for international football now; but he's always been an outstanding striker, and he is having one of the best seasons of his career - he certainly deserved a chance here, over the perennially flakey Calvert-Lewin... or, probably, Rashford too.

So, not a terrible squad, by any means: very solid, and overall much as expected. But there are just a few rather dodgy choices - decisions that fill me with a slight unease about what might happen when it comes to naming the final World Cup squad.

One can't help a little snigger

 

I am English; and thus I inevitably feel a certain sentimental attachment towards English football clubs, and hope for them to do well in the continental competitions. But that's all it is: a weak impulse of sentiment. I have absolutely no time for blind nationalism, and in fact tend to react against any suggestion of it. Ultimately, I love good football more than anything else, and will always celebrate a deserved victory, even when it goes against the team I was at least somewhat rooting for. I won't be obstinately braying for English success at any price in the World Cup this summer; I'll quite happily accept it if - when - we get eliminated by a better team; and, ultimately, I'll probably be investing as much or more hope in the team playing the most attractive game during the tournament, and that's quite likely to be Spain or France or Brazil.

And hence.... while many of my countrymen are dismayed and despondent at this week's results in the First Leg ties of the Chamipions League 'Round of 16', I can't resist a little chortle. The 'junior' European competitions have been so diluted as to become a bit of joke, really - easily dominated even by bottom-of-the-table Premier League sides. But this year, the Champions League has seemed to be going the same way, with the usually major European powers mostly looking well below their best (only Bayern still giving cause for concern...) in the league phase. Even misfiring Liverpool had been able to look fairly dominant in Europe so far; even stuttering Newcastle and increasingy abysmal Spurs had qualified through the first phase with relative ease. It was starting to feel as though we'd surely be guaranteed two or three of the semi-final berths. But, oh boy, did things just change quickly!!

Admittedly, only Newcastle were playing at home in this first batch of games. And our boys did get the rough end of the draw, with opponents of the status of Real, Barca, PSG, and Atleti being pitched against us so early in the knockout phase. (Though at least we were spared Bayern! And, frankly, on these performances, I'm not sure any of our teams would have fared that much better against Bodø/Glimt, Sporting, or Atalanta...)  But three of our six contenders were not just beaten but absolutely spanked, while Liverpool went down to the not-that-daunting Galatasaray, and even the mighty Arsenal barely scraped a draw against Leverkusen (and that only because they were the late beneficiaries of probably the worst penalty decision we've seen in the competition this season!). That is surely one of the worst nights for English football in Europe ever!!

But I am accepting this dreadful set of results calmly, stoically. I actually welcome them as a deserved corrective, a useful rebuke to incipient hubris. It can really do no harm to our clubs, or to the national game, or to English football fans in general.... to be brought back down to earth, to be shocked out of the arrogance and complacency that were starting to grow in us in regard to the European competitions.

And all is not yet lost. I'd still fancy Liverpool and Arsenal, and perhaps Newastle too to be able to pull off a win over two legs. And if anyone can pull back back a three-goal deficit against a team as big as Real Madrid,.... it's probably Pep's City.

It ain't over, as they say, until the Fat Lady sings....

To dream the impossible dream...?

Every four years (well, every two years...), Englishmen have to try very hard not to get their hopes up about our chances in the next big international tournament.

But this time, not only do we have a really exceptional crop of young players to choose from, we also seem to have a manager who may know what he's doing....

Top Youtube football analyst Adam Clery puts forward this bold thesis that, quite apart from tactical insight and astute man management, Thomas Tuchel might be unique among recent England managers in having the cojones to leave out some of our starriest players in order to achieve a better balance in the side.

I find it difficult to disagree too much with any of Adam's ideas - because he's a very shrewd observer of the game, and also an irresistibly likeable, down-to-earth chap. I'm kind of 50/50 on this one, though. I approve of the general point (it's exactly what I said when Tuchel first took over, about having the courage to regard no player as a sacred cow); and I'm very excited about the stability Elliot Anderson suddenly seems to be giving our central midfield. But you have to be a little bit wary of getting over-excited about our smooth progression through a particularly puny qualifying group (even teams that have looked vaguely threatening in recent years - Serbia, Albania - suddenly weren't again!!).

And I am not completely convinced about the current personnel - or the the notion of omitting major talents for this to become our regular starting lineup. I'd probably prefer to build for the next 10 years around Palmer and Bellingham (and Saka and Eze...), rather than go with a bunch of slightly less stellar options who 'fit better with Harry Kane' (for this one tournament!). But it's certainly something to think about.

He's back!

Like many football fans, I've been feeling rather bereft over the last few weeks - since the unhappy news broke that Adam Clery was quitting the FourFourTwo Youtube channel that he'd made essential viewing over the last 18 months.

Now it's emerged that, in partnership with The Independent newspaper, he's launching his own Youtube venture, The Adam Clery Football Channel (ACFC), where we'll be getting more of the chirpy, irreverent tactical analysis videos we've come to love. (It looks like he might still be working with FourFourTwo occasionally as well - but on more 'magazine'-type pieces, mini-documentaries rather than game analysis.)

I'm pleased to see that his first posting on the new channel concurs with my own positive impressions of Thomas Tuchel's debut in charge of England....

For those who don't know.... Adam is, as we say in Britain, a top bloke: unpretentious, down-to-earth, a regular guy - but also very shrewd about his football. He's become the 'gateway drug' for tactical analysis videos. There are other guys out there who will go into more detail about particular patterns of play, or how a team seeks to morph its formation between different phases of possession and so on; but if you just want to understand why Team X is doing so well recently, or how Team W has fallen away, or why the weekend's Y-Z derby game ended as it did... Adam's your man. He's brisk, breezy, accessible - with just the right amount of silly, self-deprecating humour to help hold your attention across a discussion that will often stretch to 12 or 14 minutes or so. His videos - sometimes on teams, sometimes on individual players, but mostly breaking down particular big game outcomes - are always both entertaining and enlightening, and I cannot recommend them highly enough. Do go and check them out.

The engagingly daft little 'teaser' vid for the new channel that he posted a few days ago is a fine example of the man's unique style.

Are we not ENTERTAINED?

 Well, YES - I think we are!

At least if we're not Roy Keane - who only rated England's performance against Latvia as a 'C+'. But he is a curmudgeonly so-and-so, and slightly untethered from reality. And not an England fan!!

I'm more inclined to give our first two outings under Tuchel a solid 'B' score,.... very nearly a  'B+'.

Albania and Latvia aren't terrible sides; and they defended very resolutely (their keepers both had excellent games). It's fatuous to expect any longer that the smaller nations are invariably going to be a pushover, ever ripe for a 5-0 spanking. Dominating possession, creating plenty of chances, and ultimately coming out comfortable winners in both games is all that we could have wished for.

No, we didn't produce scintillating football - but you can't do that when the opponents just camp in front of their penalty box for most of the game. We did produce effective football: calm, patient, thorough - successful.

Even more encouraging was the clear evidence of a new approach from the new manager. Under Southgate, the national side had often seemed to lack any clear 'identity'; indeed, in the last Euros, the players often appeared to have not much idea of what they were supposed to be doing. Here they clearly did understand the system they were supposed to be playing, they bought into it, and it worked.

I'm particularly pleased to see that Tuchel was following the same kind of nominal 4-2-3-1 lineup I'd advocated last week, and largely the same personnel I'd predicted. I even liked the changes he made for the second game: not excessive - but thoughtful and useful: starting Bellingham deeper in midfield, giving Morgan Rogers a try-out as a No. 10.

I still have a few gripes and misgivings. I suppose Jordan Henderson and Kyle Walker were included for their 'dressing-room leadership' - but if they're not fancied as starters any more (and they certainly shouldn't be!), that seems a wasteful use of squad places to me. I'd rather see some more young players getting phased into the setup instead.

Reece James and Marcus Rashford seemed like 'charity case' selections to me. They didn't do badly, but... I feel they haven't yet played often enough and well enough for their clubs recently to merit an international call-up; they were being chosen on the basis of past glories and/or presumed future potential... and, I imagine, to try to give them a psychological lift by making a major show of confidence in them. A kind and noble gesture, I suppose; and it might work out,.... if it helps them to rebuild their careers and become valuable members of the national side again. But I'm very sceptical about the prospects for that: Rashford has always been too inconsistent, too mentally fragile; James, alas, too hopelessly injury-prone. I don't foresee any more of a future for these two with England than I do for the has-beens Walker and Henderson; and, as with them, I think their inclusion here was unfairly excluding other players who deserved a chance

And Levi Colwill?! That's a complete head-scratcher to me. I think the squad needed a specialist left-back as back-up for Lewis-Skelly; and at the moment that should probably be Tyrick Mitchell. And if he was viewed simply as a back-up centre-back, surely Jarrad Brandthwaite ought to be ahead of him in the pecking-order!

And where were Adam Wharton, Angel Gomes, Harvey Elliott? For me, those players need to become regular squad members soon.... and possibly regular starters within a year or two.

But heck, an England manager would be no fun if we could agree with everything he did, would he? Overall, I'm fairly impressed with Tuchel's debut; it's given England fans a lot of grounds for optimism.

If I ruled the world (2): the future of the England team...?

Apologies - I jest, of course. We wouldn't want to see the absurd cuts-for-the-sake-of-cuts that His Insane Dogeness is trying to inflict at the moment visited upon the England football team! And, while a new national manager sometimes needs a bit of 'new broom' ruthlessness, I don't see that as being such a pressing matter for Tuchel (yet). In fact, my current ideal of an England line-up (probably for the next Euros rather than the next World Cup) includes only a few changes from the team I suggested the other day for the recent World Cup qualifying matches (which wasn't too far from the ones Tuchel actually chose).

I am quite chuffed/relieved that The Gaffer didn't revert to three-at-the-back (as Gareth always seemed to when he was nervous about getting a result), and instead went with the sort of 4-2-3-1 structure and roughly the balance of personnel I'd suggested.

However, I said in that earlier post that I think the major challenge for the England boss at the moment is tiptoeing through the selection conundrums posed by having an over-abundance of talent at his disposal.... at least in the midfield positions. 

And I fear that it is a natural problem of the England job - probably of any national team manager job - that a large number of players have become so well-established in the side that it seems unthinkable to replace them: a new manager will generally keep picking most of the same players as his predecessor out of inertia, out of habit, out of fear. And that's what I think we need to guard against. No player should be considered sacrosanct. Not Kane, not Pickford. Not Saka, not Rice. Not TAA, not Foden. Hell, not even Bellingham or Palmer. (Although, actually, I would consider those the two absolutely essential picks, whenever they're fully fit and in form.) If there are questions about their form or fitness, about their aging, about how well they fit into the tactical plan for the next game,.... or there are just some emerging players who deserve a chance,..... then even those most honoured names should be gone - at least dropped to the bench for a game or two, if not gently eased out of the squad altogether. It has to happen to everyone eventually; it usually happens to the bigger players rather too late.

I've said on here before that I've grown into a major sceptic about Trent Alexander-Arnold's value to England (as Sir Gareth generally was too; I didn't think he was right about much, but perhaps he was about that). He's a serviceable but not great full-back (a serious lack of pace and an occasional disinclination to work are big problems); and he hasn't yet developed into a full-time midfield player. And his trademark long balls over the top aren't going to be of much use when he doesn't have super-quick and super-skillful forwards like Mo Salah to run on to them....  I would love to see Trent develop his game at Madrid, play regularly in midfield and become a commanding deep playmaker. But even if he does, I'm still not sure how he'd really fit into the likely setup with England (not as much pace in the attack to feed off those kind of balls, more of a preference for patient build-up through the middle...). As a full-back, I just don't think we need him.

However, he might be saved for a while by the shortage of obvious alternatives. While we've had a lot of good options emerge at left-back, over on his side of the pitch the pickings are much more sparse. I really hope Ben White can get over his snit with England and make himself available again; I think he would be by far our best option currently. Failing that, I wonder if Myles Lewis-Skelly could operate as well on the right as on the left. (Or, failing that, maybe Rico Lewis? Although I see him as really more of a midfielder than a full-back, and I think his slight stature - at the moment - undermines his defensive effectiveness.)  I suppose Aaron Wan-Bissaka may be coming back into the frame too, with his recent impressive performances for West Ham; but, while there's no doubt that he's one of the best one-on-one defenders in the Premier League, there's a long-standing question-mark over his attacking abilities (I think, somewhat exaggerated, unfair; but it is a perception he needs to displace if he is to get back into the international reckoning); and I've always fancied he'd do better as a centre-back anyway....  Tino Livramento or James Justin might do OK as back-up, but they haven't yet looked quite international class to me. I suppose Djed Spence and Harry Toffolo could be in the mix as well.

Tuchel's 'favourite' at right-back looks as though it's going to be Reece James, who impressed him favourably during his brief time in charge at Chelsea. And there might be a wave of popular support behind that pick for a while, after his impressive free-kick goal last night. But his injury record is a huge red flag, unfortunately. I don't think he should really be back in the international reckoning until he's been showing consistent top form for several months (and he's frankly looked pretty poor in recent outings for Chelsea; where Maresca looks as if he might be converting him into more of a midfielder anyway) and gone free of any muscle problems for a similar duration (so, call me at the end of the year....). Actually, I don't think even getting back to something like his best of a few years ago, before the long run of injuries, would be enough; he really needs to start producing world-class form for a 25-year-old defender who's continued to learn and develop over the last few seasons. Losing so much playing time from your peak development years in the professional game - I doubt you can ever fully make that up: it's pretty unlikely now that he'll ever be more than a shadow of the player he could have become. So, as with Trent, I'll happily wait and see on that one. And if he can stay healthy and start showing top form again, I'd much rather have him than Trent as a right-back - because he's a top defender, as well as offering a huge attacking threat. But I'd prefer Ben White to either of them.

As I said the other day, I think PIckford has got a lock on the goalie slot. Henderson is probably the best of the rest currently.

Similarly, Guehi and Konsa have quickly established themselves as our most commanding central defenders. I think Stones will still be in the reckoning for a while, because of his experience, and because of his composure on the ball (Pep has successfully converted him into a midfielder in the last couple of seasons, and that versatility is useful to have); but obviously his injury record is a huge problem. Maguire, I think, with so little club football in the last few years, must be thanked for his excellent service to the national team... and quietly let go. I think Jarrad Branthwaite must be very close to getting the nod over Guehi or Konsa. And I was glad to see Tuchel finally giving Dan Burn a chance; he, I think, will be a great squad player for a few years (will absolutely die for the shirt, and can probably do a job at full-back or in holding midfield, if needed - but probably not a regular starter). Tomori, and perhaps Chalobah or Quansah (or Max Kilman? apparently his hopes of switching his national allegiance to Ukraine have been rejected; he's lost his way a bit at West Ham, but looked a hell of a player at Wolves) look like decent back-up options.

At left full-back, I think Lewis-Skelly is already a clear favourite for a long tenure. Although Lewis Hall had started to look good with Newcastle before his injury. And Luke Thomas, Tyrick Mitchell, Taylor Harwood-Bells, and perhaps even Leif Davis (great going forward; not so convinced about his defensive qualities...) might all stake a claim as a back-up choice. And perhaps Ben Chilwell might get back in the frame too; I've always rated him very highly, but the ridiculous succession of injuries he's suffered in recent years (and Maresca apparently not being impressed with him?) have really derailed his career, and I fear it will be difficult for him to come back from this position. That, of course, goes even more so for poor Luke Shaw: a great player on his day, but he's spent most of his career in the treatment room; and so he doesn't now feel like someone you could rely on for a major tournament (yes, he's fit now - but for how long??).

Up front.... Kane should not be a sacred cow. Despite his tournament-leading goal hauls, he really hasn't done that well for us in most of our big games (anyone who picks up a few goals early on by virtue of having a fairly soft opening group will be a Golden Boot contender at a major tournament); in fact, he's usually looked miles below his best - sparking speculation that he's been carrying an injury of some kind, or suffering the effects of cumulative exhaustion after a long season; he's even faced calls to be dropped in some sections of the press. In the last Euros, he was really quite poor in the later games, not only offering little goal threat but giving nothing in leading the press either; the argument for replacing him with Watkins started to look overwhelming - but it didn't happen, because he's Harry Kane. That's the kind of thinking I hope Tuchel can break away from, if the need arises again. I also think it's quite likely that Harry will start to age out quite quickly in the next season or two, and it might be convenient for all concerned to plan for the 2026 World Cup being his international swansong. Harry's great tragedy for me is that because he's such a big lad and such a handy finisher, he's been typecast as a traditional No. 9 for his whole career - where actually he's more of a No. 10-with-above-average-goal-potential. I've often said that I'd like to see him playing permanently a bit deeper in that lynchpin creative role, perhaps - at least occasionally - with another striker like Watkins leading the line ahead of him. Sparing him the physical toll of constantly bumping up against hulking central defenders might add a few more years to his top-flght career.... And we really need to make more use of his exquisite passing.

Not that we have a great deal of alternative to Big H. I like Ollie Watkins, but he's already in his late twenties, and he's a solid 8-out-of-10 kind of striker rather than an obvious world-beater. Solanke's finishing isn't quite at the same level as Watkins's (yet; maybe he can still develop a bit), but he'll work hard for the team, is excellent in leading a high press  Toney I never rated that highly (and he's effectively retired from top-flight football by taking the Saudi money; you can't expect to keep your sharpness at the highest level when playing in such a low-quality competition); we haven't heard much of Tammy Abraham the last year or so; and I don't think poor Dominic Calvert-Lewin's career can now ever recover from one of the longest goal-droughts in history. We don't seem to have any Isak or Gyokeres or Sesko waiting in the wings (maybe Liam Delap, in a few years?? is that it??). But perhaps this does give us the opportunity to move away from a conventional striker for a while. Spain won tournaments with a strikerless system a decade-and-a-half ago; with our current similar super-abundance of attacking midfield talent, this looks like the time for us to give it a try too. And it may be the best use of Jude Bellingham: he's adaptable enough to play as an outright No 9, but I think will probably function best as a kind of 'false 9' or a highly mobile 10 who breaks into the box a lot.

It's in midfield that we are most spoiled for choice, and thus it's here that it is impossible to avoid some controversy. I think Bellingham and the astonishing Cole Palmer are the only absolute shoo-ins (YES - the only two!!); we are astonishingly blessed to have two such world-leading talents in our national side at the same time. But it then becomes an enormous challenge to discover how to structure the team around them, how to get the best out of them. I think we might perhaps use a fairly regular rotation, where there is no invariable 'best eleven'; with Gordon, Saka, Elliott, and Eze being probably the most frequently called on.

Yes, the one new addition to the national set-up I'd like to see established over the coming year is Harvey Elliott. Of all the great emerging midfield talents we currently have, he is the one (along with perhaps Adam Wharton) who strikes me as being - like Palmer and Bellingham - not merely very, very, very good, but something extra-special, a true world-beater: every moment of every game, everything he does - he takes the breath away. Phil Foden, alas, only has that quality in fits and snatches; all of the other contenders - even Saka - do; they are not people I feel I could absolutely rely on to turn a game for us, even with a short outing off the bench (we've seen Palmer and Bellingham do that for England; Elliott has done it often for Liverpool). I know it's difficult to make the case for Elliott's promotion to the seniors when he's still not getting many minutes for Liverpool (I hope that will change next season, even if he has to move elsewhere...), but he is the new selection I'd lobby hardest for.... and, actually, I hope he might become another regular starter, alongside Palmer.

Amongst the wide options, I'd incline slightly towards Anthony Gordon, for his combative spirit and his versatility (with Newcastle, we've seen him regularly swap sides quite effectively, and sometimes play through the middle as a 9 or false 9 - he doesn't thrive in that role, but he's willing to give it a damn good go; he'll even sometimes play rather deeper in midfield). Saka, though brilliant, is a bit of a one-trick pony at the moment: he's very good in wide positions on the right, taking a defender on, and either driving to the line to try to produce a cutback or a square ball across the six-yard box, or cutting inside on to his left foot to try to crack off a shot himself. Superb at that - but that's all he does. Arsenal's over-reliance on him has made them very predictable in the last couple of seasons - and very weak without him. I don't want to see England fall into the same trap. I'd like to think that Saka could be just as effective switching to the left occasionally, or even coming into the middle, into the No. 10 space (but it's difficult for him to develop that potential when Arteta evidently won't ever consider playing him like that); ideally, I'd like to have my three attacking midfielders comfortable with freely rotating positions between them to keep the defending side constantly on the hop. If Saka can't offer that, I'm afraid (probably my most contentious suggestion here!!) he might have to be relegated to 'impact sub' status. And of course, we have a lot of new talent coming through in these flank roles too: Nwaneri, Barnes, Hudson-Odoi, Moore, Edwards, Chukwuemeka, Madueke...  (But a Rashford Renaissance?? No, sorry, I don't see that. I am open to being pleasantly surprised... But he's only ever been a fringe player for England; and his last few wilderness years have taken him a long way away from that fringe.)

Phil Foden, though I rate him very, very highly, is alas in danger of dropping out of the reckoning for England altogether, after repeatedly failing to make much impression in his international performances over the last two years (and having a pretty wretched time with City this year; I really feel Pep has ruined him, and he ought to look for a move elsewhere to re-energise his career). He clearly doesn't like playing out on the flanks and is not very effective there; but in the No. 10 space, he's clearly not quite as good as Palmer (or Bellingham!); or Elliott, who I feel could also be excellent in that central area; or probably Eze or Maddison (a bit of a 'forgotten man' in international terms at the moment, but surely deserves another chance - if he can persuade Ange to trust him with regular starts again...), either; or maybe even Gibbs-White or Rogers. It is the young man's tragedy that in another era he might have been the sole outstanding England talent in his position - but in the 2020s, he's not even clearly in the top three or four.

In central midfield, I would usually favour a pair - one more combative, one more creative. And, currently, Angel Gomes (excellent in his couple of runouts under Lee Carsley) and Adam Wharton look the pick of the crop for me. Although Curtis Jones is looking a very strong alternative, and I'm sure will be the regular back-up in that area. And in a couple more years we might have Archie Gray and Lewis Miley and maybe Alex Scott putting these three under a bit of pressure. Forest's Elliot Anderson is also starting to look another very strong contender for that engine-room role. (A few years ago, I would have fancied Everton's Tom Davies as a possibility as well, but he seems to have lost his way.)  This is my final - and for many, no doubt, the most outrageous! - provocation in these observations: I don't see Declan Rice as an automatic starter for much longer. As with Harry, I feel he's been typecast by his physique; but he's just not really a holding midifelder - he's much, much better in advanced positions (but, given our wealth of options for attacking, goalscoring midfielders, he's not likely to get a regular look-in there either...). When Arteta tried to play him 'in the hole' last year to cover for Partey, it just did not work out at all, and was the major reason for Arsenal's misfiring so badly in the early part of the season. (I have very similar reservations about Kobbie Mainoo. At least he's a bit more press-resistant than Declan: comfortable receiving the ball in deep positions, facing his own goal; able to spin around a pressing opponent and set off on a surging run upfield. But again, he's more of a very physically robust creative player than a stopper...)  I think Rice should remain part of the set-up - for his dressing-room leadership, and for his versatility (his game-reading and physical bulk make him capable of filling in as a centre-back or a full-back in an emergency; that can be invaluable in a tournament squad). And he's always likely to be useful to bring on for the last 10 or 20 minutes to close a game down and hold on to a lead (although I hope we won't be doing that as much in the future: bloody Southgate rarely looked like he had any confidence that we could win any game by more than one goal and would try to sit on a narrow lead even against a team like Slovakia.... Ugh!). But sorry, no, excellent player though he is, I don't think, in an ideal world, Declan Rice should be starting for England.

Hence, my vision of what our starting line-up should be starting to look like - certainly after the coming World Cup - is this:

As I noted for my thoughts on the current team, I imagine that Bellingham would in fact play rather deeper much of the time, sharing the Number 10 space with Palmer; and all of those forward players would hopefully be able to rotate positions fairly freely to keep the attacking threat fresh and varied. There is also the option, in some games, for him to start further back in midfield, replacing one of the pivots (though still likely to push far forward from time to time), making room for an extra attacking mdfielder like Saka or Eze to join the starting lineup, or a conventional forward.

I think that's a set-up that could accomplish a lot. Exciting times to be an England fan....

If I ruled the world

 

So, finally, the new man in the England job gets to pick a team and run a match....

But, of course, every other football fan in the country is imagining how they'd do it differently, including me.

In a way, I think injuries have made Tuchel's job a lot easier in this instance. One of the biggest problems England face is an over-abundance of talent in certain positions, and a challenge in trying to fit certain players together into the starting eleven (I fear a multiple repeat of the classic Gerrard-OR-Lampard dilemma which hamstrung our progress in the Noughties). With Alexander-Arnold, Palmer, Saka, and Mainoo all missing, that conundrum can be kicked down the road for a while.

Here's what I'd go with:

Pickford, obviously has made the No. 1 jersey his own. And I think Guehi and Konsa are looking like our strongest central defensive pairing for now (although Stones is still in contention, when fit again; and I imagine Branthwaite and Tomori will be providing some competition going forward; Branthwaite, for me, should have been in this squad, ahead of Colwill). Lewis-Skelly has made an outstanding debut for Arsenal this season, and looks our strongest option at left-back now (again, injuries really make it a forced choice); Livramento has been rather less convincing for Newcastle, but deserves a chance - ahead of Walker, who now appears to be past it. (I hope to god Tuchel hasn't included Colwill and Walker because they'd fit a possible back-three better; I really do not want to see us playing that system ever again!)

Rice and Jones are a fairly obvious double-pivot midfield, from what we've got available (though again, I would prefer Gomes and Wharton, and I don't know why they weren't selected this time).

Kane - for now - has to continue as the main striker. We have to see if we can find a balance of players to support him, who can compensate for his chronic lack of pace. With Palmer and Saka missing, the selection becomes more straightforward: Foden and Gordon on the flanks, and Bellingham in a free role in the middle.

The main variations I'd be intrigued to explore would be to have Kane mostly drop deeper, lining up more alongside Bellingham as a pair of '10s' or 'false 9s', perhaps inviting Bellingham to move into the centre-forward space on occasion; or... to drop one of the pivots (probably the less experienced Jones) and have Bellingham play in the centre alongside Rice, allowing Kane to occupy the No. 10 space on his own (mostly; I'm sure Jude would still push up there quite often!), while using Watkins as a more advanced forward. I think we need to make more use of Kane as a playmaker rather than just a battering-ram striker, and this could possibly extend his playing life by a few years too; and it would be useful to see if we can find a way of - sometimes - fitting him and Watkins into the same line-up. However, I suspect that these tactical riffs are both a little too bold for an initial outing - even against a team like Albania. Perhaps Herr Tuchel will become a little more adventurous and experimental over the coming monhs. I do hope so. (I may have more to say in a while about my ideas for how the England squad might develop going into the next World Cup, and beyond...)

The always amusing 442oons Youtube channel marked Tuchel's entry into the fray like this:

What is Trent FOR....?

I'm an admirer of the Trent Alexander-Arnold. Well, I used to be much more so, a few years ago. I acknowledge the case that he is a 'generational talent' - but I think he also has some serious shortcomings; shortcomings that have become more apparent in recent years. I rather fear that he has not developed much, if at all, as a player in that time. His gifts are still extraordinary, but they have not grown further; while his failings... perhaps have.

And, unfortunately, particularly from the point of view of the national team, I have become a bit of a sceptic about whether Trent really has a place in it. 

It is a common error - unfortunately shared by many England managers over the years - to suppose that in order to produce the best team, one must simply strive to incorporate all the most egregiously talented players. But I learned many years ago (I think this was the great secret of Brian Clough's extraordinary success in the 1970s) that creating a successful team is in fact a matter of finding an optimum balance between players with different skills profiles, different playing styles, different on-pitch 'personalities' - and that may often involve sacrificing some players who might in isolation appear much 'better' than those you might choose in their stead, because they just don't 'gel' with other players you want or need to make use of. (The great problem with the Gerrard/Lampard incompatibility which plagued the English national team through the Noughties was not that they were too similar in style [they really weren't!] or that they both wanted to play in the same position [it would have been perfectly possible to play them alongside each other in central midfield], but that they both expected to be the capo carismatico, the dominant personality on the pitch, the emotional heartbeat of the team - and there wasn't space for them both to be that. Successive England managers were afraid to leave out such popular and talented players, and so persisted in including them both - even though they evidently didn't function at their best when playing together. Thomas Tuchel, I think, is going to face a number of similar dilemmas; and I hope he will be braver in accepting that some talented players need to be omitted....)

The problem with Trent is that he is not really a full-back. He's not terrible at the role, he's got most of the attributes you need for it. But he's also lacking a few: most notably, pace. He gets skinned far too easily by nippy wingers up against him. And also.... I worry that he may be somewhat lacking in stamina, or desire to even try to get up and down the flank; he often just doesn't seem to be that bothered about recovering his defensive position quickly when he's pusheed a long way forward and his team have then suffered a turnover. And he has been encouraged in this weakness by having the Liverpool team built around this foible of his for the past several years: he hasn't needed to worry so much about the defensive part of his duties when he has such pacey central defenders as Van Dijk, Matip, and Konate alongside him, shoring things up. Indeed, for a long time the Liverpool approach was founded on having a very vigorous high-press which would often prevent turnovers in the opposition final third from leading to counter-attacks, and on having super-hardoworking midfielders - Fabinho, Wijnaldum, Henderson, Milner - who would stifle counter-attacks in the middle of the park,.... and move out wide to cover the space behind Trent or Robbo when they'd gone high up the pitch (sometimes even dropping back into the defensive line and temporarily taking over as the full-back). Trent, I fear, has been somewhat spoiled by this treatment. And it is rather unlikely that he'll find any other team - whether Real Madrid, where it seems certain he's bound next season, or England - who will be so extravagantly accommodating towards him.

What's more, it has become increasingly evident that Trent himself doesn't see himself as a full-back. Over the past year or so, he's done a number of interviews (like this one for the FourFourTwo channel) where he's suggested that he wants to play in areas of the pitch where he can "affect the play" more, where he can have a more decisive creative impact. He aspires to be a midfielder, probably a deep-lying playmaker in the mode of Andrea Pirlo or the later Toni Kroos. And he was transitioning to something of the sort last season under Klopp, when the sudden loss of the protective midfield screen necessitated some major tweaks in Liverpool's playing style - and it became too risky to allow Trent to maraud into the opposition half very often; instead, he started loitering in his own half, 'inverting' into midfield, playing just in front of his centre-backs and by-passing any attempt at a mid-block with his trademark long chipped balls over the top.

That's all fine when you're playing with Liverpool, who are a dominant team, almost always enjoy the majority of possession: Trent wasn't often put under pressure in that position - and would revert to the conventional full-back slot whenever the opposition did mount an attack. But if he wants to play in midfield permanently, he needs to add more elements to his game. He is excellent in his distribution, yes - one of the best long-passers in the world, no question. But a deep midifielder also has to take on defensive respoinsibilities: he needs to read the game well when the opposition are coming at him, he needs to be an incisive tackler, he needs to have a high workrate. Trent, alas, is rather lacking in those areas. When Southgate tried him out as a midfielder in the Euros this summer, it was a pretty unmitigated disaster. (That might have been largely a coaching failure - both in the specific game instructions, and in preparing him for the role. But still, he didn't cover himself in glory there.) I might question also whether he yet has the full range of attributes for the purely creative side of the job. Superlative long passing isn't enough; you need to excel in shorter passing options too; you need to be capable of dictating the tempo of the game by knowing when to play the ball early and when to hang on to it for a moment, by knowing when to play long and when to play short, by knowing when to play a risky forward pass and when to play it safe and keep possesion with a simple sideways or backwards pass.

Furthermore, even the sublime long-passing is very dependent on team context for its success. Trent has been able to forge a highly productive partnership down Liverpool's right flank with Mo Salah - who still has after-burners even in his thirties (and superb anticipation, and a magical first touch!); and the Reds are also blessed with more similarly pacey and skillful players across the front line: Luis Diaz, usually on the other side, Diogo Jota, when he's fit, and Darwin Nunez, when he's on his game. Those early balls pinged over the opposing defenders' heads aren't going to work without such receivers racing in behind to get on the end of them (even Liverpool seem to be using that tactic much more seldom this year; perhaps because Slot regards it as too risky, preferring more patient progression through the middle). Certainly for England, Harry Kane just hasn't got the legs to chase balls like that any more (if he ever did; probably not...); Watkins might, but he's hardly a speed-demon either. So, for the national team, I fear that Trent's one supreme - just about sole - asset becomes largely worthless at the moment.

Trent, I feel, still has quite a bit to learn about the game - at least, if he is going to successfully transition to being an out-and-out midfielder. And I'm not convinced that he's got the right attitude to learn those lessons. One of the things that's alarmed me most about him in the last year or two is a suggestion of complacency, even sometimes of arrogance about him; he is starting to talk about himself as if he is one of the greatest players in the world - without having yet quite earned that status. And when - occasionally - he has a bad game, it can be very, very bad: it's as if his concentration deserts him entirely, or his motivation; sometimes, just once in a while, he really looks like he just can't be bothered to, as the pundits like to say these days, put in a shift.

Trent has some breathtaking skills: his long passing, his early crossing, and his deadball delivery are amongst the best in the world. But that's about it: he doesn't have that much else going for him - pace, stamina, workrate, adaptability. He's not really a full-back - not a great full-back, anyway. And he's not yet a great midfielder. He falls uncomfortably between the two stools.

I'm unsure how well he'll settle into the Real Madrid side next year. I suspect he might find himself used as an impact player in certain parts of certain games, but not be favoured as an automatic starter. And since neither England football fans nor the England manager watch very much of La Liga, I think there's a danger that - however well or otherwise he does there - he will drop off the radar of the national team.

I really hope I'm wrong about this. I would love to see Trent enhance the defensive aspects of his game, and start to look like a convincing world-class full-back.... or a world-class deep playmaker. And it would be a crying shame not to be able to make use of his talents in the national team. But at the moment, I just don't see where he fits. You can't select a player just because he does a few things supremely well (how I've rolled my eyes over the last year or two at the ludicrous suggestions that James Ward-Prowse ought to be in the England squad just for his free-kicks, or Ivan Toney for his penalties...!); you need him to be able to do an all-around job in his given position - and I'm not sure that Trent can.