Thomas Tuchel shouldn't try to coach like he's English. The past teaches us that

New York Times

20-03-2025

England's appointment of the third foreign manager in their history has brought the familiar and somewhat irrelevant questions. How much time is Thomas Tuchel spending in England? Will he sing the national anthem? Does he, deep down, care like those of us who have experienced decades of hurt?
The more appropriate question is about what Tuchel is tasked with doing. Winning the World Cup in 2026, sure. But is Tuchel's appointment intended to bring a foreign outlook to the England national side, or should he adjust his approach to suit the English style of football?
Advertisement
It's a pertinent question, because the confusing thing about England's football style over the last 30 years is that the two previous foreign managers, Sven-Goran Eriksson and Fabio Capello, have been stylistically the most 'English'.
In terms of formation, for example, both largely favoured an old-school English 4-4-2. In terms of personnel, both were peculiarly obsessed with Emile Heskey, who was largely out of favour in the intervening period under Steve McClaren. Neither Eriksson nor Capello seemed particularly determined to evolve the style of play and make England a more cultured footballing side.
That wasn't entirely illogical. Eriksson was from Sweden, whose football style was largely inspired by English football; he often cited two English coaches who had moved to Sweden, Bob Houghton and Roy Hodgson as his inspirations.
'In Sweden in the 1970s, 4-4-2 was something completely new,' Eriksson later recalled. 'The system was based on the English model.'
By and large, Eriksson continued this approach throughout his career. 'I remember asking Paul Scholes one day, 'What's Eriksson got?'', wrote Sir Alex Ferguson in his autobiography. 'Scholesy could shed no light.' It's not that Ferguson thought Eriksson was a bad manager, more that he wasn't sure he was offering anything new.
That wasn't the case for much of his career, because Eriksson generally went around Europe and had success by replacing man-marking with zonal defending in a 4-4-2. But as Eriksson himself later said of the England job, 'This was the first time I did not need to explain my footballing philosophy to a new team; 4-4-2 and zonal marking were terms well ingrained in English football's vocabulary. That was helpful.'
Granted, Eriksson did try moving away from that system at times — with a diamond midfield and then with David Beckham as a deep-lying passer in a 4-3-3. On both occasions, he reverted to his favoured system quickly.
Advertisement
Similarly, Capello was an old-school manager who followed in Arrigo Sacchi's footsteps at Milan with a zone-based 4-4-2 when many Italian managers favoured man-marking with a three-man defence. Jamie Carragher spoke about how he was lured out of international retirement specifically to work with Capello, having grown up admiring the defensive quality of his old Milan side. But he was 'disappointed' by the lack of detail in Capello's approach, compared to what he was accustomed to under Rafa Benitez at club level. Capello went back to basics.
On the other hand, Terry Venables was probably the most adventurous and flexible manager England has ever had. Glenn Hoddle was initially fixated on a Christmas tree formation and, although he moved away from that plan, had England playing in a positive and flexible way. Kevin Keegan didn't care too much about tactics but was at least fundamentally attack-minded. McClaren was renowned as a forward-thinking assistant manager, and upon taking the top job, experimented in terms of system — fatefully so, in the end.
Hodgson's downfall was not being too defensive, as many wrongly remember, but trying to use four attacking players in the same side at both World Cup 2014 and Euro 2016, and leaving the defence exposed. And Gareth Southgate, while infuriatingly cautious at times, was clearly tactically flexible and initially quite innovative — his use of Jesse Lingard and Dele as free No 8s at World Cup 2018 proved very effective.
This is, of course, overlooking Sam Allardyce's reign, which is fair enough considering he only lasted a single game. But otherwise, if you tried the footballing equivalent of a blind taste test, and had to pick out the two foreign managers solely from 'formation' and 'profile of players in key positions', you would struggle to get either correct.
Tuchel is different from Eriksson and Capello. For a start, he's worked in English football and knows the reality of the Premier League. And while there's arguably been a slight shift back towards somewhat 'traditional' English concepts in recent years — heavy pressing, inswinging corners, a focus on 'winning the duels' — he also knows he's dealing with technically gifted and tactically intelligent players. There's no need for Tuchel to over-adjust and get England playing in boxy formations and passing in straight lines, as Eriksson and Capello seemed to think was necessary.
Advertisement
Rather than former England managers, Tuchel's model for his approach is actually a current England manager. Sarina Wiegman has succeeded as England Women manager by being unashamedly true to her own philosophy, familiar to other Dutch coaches.
Tactically, she overhauled the playing style and demanded that England became more cultured. She favoured Mary Earps in goal, ahead of better shot-stoppers, because of her distribution. She made the technically gifted but physically slight Leah Williamson, previously a squad player without a defined position, her captain and key centre-back. She made Keira Walsh, a Spanish-style deep playmaker, the heart of her side. She's picked strikers for their link play as much as their ability in the box, and even when she's had two in-form centre-forwards, has resolutely fielded only one.
When things go wrong defensively, Wiegman routinely complains that it's because England haven't kept possession well enough.
This has been successful, in part, because English players are now accustomed to playing in positive football sides, based around possession and pressing. They no longer play old-school football, and there's no reason for a foreign manager to come in and try to act like an old-school English coach.
Indeed, it shouldn't be forgotten how fortunate England are to have two coaches who have won the highest prizes in Europe before taking charge: Wiegman the European Championship, Tuchel the European Cup. Granted, Spain have won the Women's World Cup and men's European Championship in the past two summers with relative unknowns. But then, Spain already had their philosophy. England usually need a steer in the right direction — and not a foreign manager who simply conforms to English ideas.
But, so far, it seems Tuchel evidently doesn't see things that way. 'It needs to reflect the Premier League,' he said of his anticipated football style at his first press conference. 'The Premier League is a very physical league, it's a very demanding league, a very direct league. We should be brave enough to play like an England squad, and not try to copy other styles too much. It should reflect the values of the country, and the strongest league in the world. We shall try to implement a direct style, an attacking style, and we will try to increase the intensity in our game.'
There's a balance to be found. England probably won't tiki-taka their way past the best opponents, in part because of the lack of top-class midfield options. 'Direct style' presumably means an emphasis on breaking quickly, rather than playing long balls up to Harry Kane.
Advertisement
But England have spoken about having a physical league for decades, and have regularly turned up to tournaments and found themselves unable to compete physically — precisely because their league is so draining and they're running on empty. With temperatures at World Cup 2026 likely to be very testing, England need to be capable of playing, and dominating, at a slower tempo, too.
If Tuchel is to fail, it might not be for footballing reasons. Tuchel is more likely to encounter significant problems with the press than with gegenpressing. Both Eriksson and Capello were startled by the off-field challenge of managing England and their downfalls ultimately had little to do with footballing matters. This isn't exclusive to foreign managers, of course. Hoddle had to resign for comments made in an interview, and Allardyce was undone by a newspaper sting operation.
No other major footballing nation's press manage to get rid of so many international managers. Perhaps the hostile days of old are over, and the relationship between team and media seems to have improved in recent years. But it was rather convenient that Cole Palmer's injury allowed him to call up Morgan Gibbs-White after the somewhat exaggerated outcry over his initial omission. Maybe Gibbs-White was genuinely next on Tuchel's list, or maybe he was keen to avoid a lengthy furore in his first international window.
An unusually short 18-month contract means Tuchel doesn't have much time to comprehensively re-model England — but that's fine, considering this is a side that has reached the last two European Championship finals, and semi-final and quarter-final in the last two World Cups. More modest tweaks are required. But England do need to be more assertive in possession, and in particular, more tactically flexible within games.
Tuchel's sides have generally been impressive in those respects, and much as he's keen to speak about England's traditional strengths, he shouldn't overlook his own.