https://arab.news/92ken
- The German’s decision to omit established stars could backfire, but he, and the FA, deserves respect for sticking to their guns
- Too often historically Arab nations have dismissed national team coaches ahead of tournaments, as Morocco and Saudi have done in 2026
LONDON: An England tournament squad announcement and a media meltdown are not new bedfellows.
There was something all too predictable about the furor — from the keyboard warriors as well as seasoned hacks — surrounding Thomas Tuchel’s World Cup squad announcement on Friday, which followed a series of leaks and frenzied speculation throughout the week.
That scrutiny centered less on the players who were actually named, and much more on the omission of household names.
In the hours since the squad was officially revealed, the focus has been on there being no Phil Foden, Trent Alexander-Arnold or Cole Palmer in the 26-man squad. Calls controversial enough to trigger the usual tidal wave of outrage from pundits, former players and social media tacticians.
But, much like his entire tenure in the one of the most pressurized jobs in world football, there has been something refreshing in the manner in which Tuchel has handled it.
He simply does not appear to care.
For far too long, England managers have operated under the crushing weight of English public expectation and, at times, brutal tabloid pressure.
Previous managers have often looked trapped between football decisions and media narratives. The so-called “Golden Generation” era became notorious for shoehorning famous names into the same side regardless of tactical balance. Managers frequently appeared terrified of the backlash that would follow leaving out a star player.
Squad selections often felt like uneasy compromises between tactical planning and national popularity contests. If enough on Fleet Street demanded a player’s inclusion for long enough, eventually that player usually found himself on the plane, regardless of the manager’s wishes.
Tuchel, however, seems determined to manage on his own terms. It may prove to be a disaster that brings a sharp end to his reign. Or, it could prove to be a masterstroke.
But what is already clear is that England appear to have a manager willing to risk being unpopular in pursuit of something more important; clarity.
International football has changed dramatically over the past decade, and so have England.
Tournament football is no longer simply about assembling the most talented 26 players available and hoping they click. Modern international success is built on structure, discipline and clearly defined roles.
The best recent examples all share similar traits. In 2018, Didier Deschamps’ France were often pragmatic rather than spectacular in winning the World Cup in Russia.
Lionel Scaloni built Argentina around balance and cohesion as much as the individual brilliance he clearly had at his disposal as they secured a third World Cup crown in Qatar.
Even Gareth Southgate, despite all the criticism he received during his time as Tuchel’s predecessor, restored stability to England largely because he established a unified environment and tactical identity after years of directionless chaos.
It was something that, but for some Italian “dark arts” in 2021 and Spanish brilliance three years later, would have ensured him a trophy and god-like status in England.
Tuchel appears to be taking that idea one step further.
His team selections since his appointment suggest that he values tactical and system compatibility. Tuchel’s approach feels colder, more clinical and perhaps more modern.
Whether bravely or foolishly, he is effectively telling England supporters: “Go with me on this, trust the process.”
The backing he has received from the Football Association also makes for a stark contrast with other nations ahead of this World Cup, most notably for Arab fans in Saudi Arabia and Morocco.
Both have been forced into major managerial changes close to the tournament, creating uncertainty at the moment stability is usually most valuable. Over the decades many other regional nations have discovered that so many of these late changes rarely bring quick solutions.
Certainly, such decisions can sometimes be necessary, but they also reveal the volatility and anxiety that can grip football federations under pressure.
Tuchel, by comparison, has doubled down. He has consistently reinforced the idea that this England squad belongs entirely to him. Every controversial selection now carries his fingerprints and every omission is his responsibility.
Players often respond positively to managers who project certainty, particularly in the compressed, emotionally intense environment of international tournaments. Doubt spreads quickly during World Cups and clear leadership matters.
But the danger is equally obvious.
If England reach the latter stages of the tournament, Tuchel will be praised and his choices will suddenly look bold and visionary.
If England fail early, however, the entire narrative will flip overnight, and every omitted player will become a symbol of managerial arrogance and stubbornness; a sign of a man out of his depth.
The difference between conviction and recklessness in football is usually determined by the finest of margins and crucial decisions, as we will discover over the next eight weeks of World Cup action.
For better or worse, Tuchel has removed the safety net of public consensus. “Good luck, Thomas. You’ll likely need it,” says this author.