FIFA World Cup 2026: England Tournament Thread [R]

Interesting dataset you quoted.
A nation that spends decades between 3rd and 7th in the ELO ranks probably shouldnt expect to enter WC's with expectations to win it. However it does indicate England could have reached the semi final or even the odd final on more occasions than we have done.

Englands biggest problem appears to be we always fail to beat our first elite opponent in WC knockout games, then a gap in tournament psychology and individual technique gets consistently exposed. Probably not a coincidence the two semi finals we made in 1990 and 2018, we got an easy draw to the semi's.

There are positive signs that things have turned for the better both under Southgate and our underage teams in recent years.
But I've always found it's the elephant in the room few are comfortable talking about. Which until we find a fix, it won't really matter where we sit in the ELO Rankings entering WC's, we will always be somewhere around a Qtr Final team.

 

I’m afraid you probably right on both counts but I really hope that however this World Cup goes Henderson gracefully retires at the end of it.

 

They always quite boring even with the actual characters of the squad.

 

I wouldn’t be shocked to see Quansah to come on for James at some point ahead of Livramento- Tuchel seems to rate his ability to play at right back.

 

A warm welcome for our Arsenal quartet 😁 pic.twitter.com/AZaIgvJsy9

— England (@England) June 7, 2026

 

🇺🇸 NEW: Thomas Tuchel reveals Declan Rice will be vice-captain at World Cup

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 But England boss can’t guarantee Jude Bellingham starting jersey

👇 Full story 👇https://t.co/LNBuDmcqJL

— Craig Hope (@CraigHope_DM) June 7, 2026

Rice is vice captain.

 

Here's Hendersons contribution to the qualifiers:

Opponent Played from (Score when he went on)
Albania (H) 82' (2–0)
Latvia (H) Start
Andorra (A) Start
Andorra (H) Not involved
Serbia (A) 81' (4–0)
Latvia (A) 59' (4–0)
Serbia (H) 65' (1–0)
Albania (A) Not involved

So that is only started in early games against the weakest nations. No involvement in other games, before they were decided. Except the last against Serbia as someone mentioned. For me this shows a very cautious Tuchel, that is aware of the risk of having Henderson on the pitch, say in cases where England is only up 3-0 against Latvia.

I don't see Tuchel go from there to having Henderson involved in a QF against Brazil.

Look, I hate the fact that he is in the squad, and also the squad in general, as much as anyone. And yes it does look thin in the midfield, and I would love it if one or more of Wharton, Scott or MLS (and anyone I might forgot) was there. But I think Tuchels plan here is to cover by using all those hybrids. Ie O'Reilly, Stones, James, Bellingham dropping deeper etc. I don't see Tuchel using Henderson in critical phases in matches. But he can be useful to fill some minutes if for example England is up 3-0 against Panama or Ghana.

 

Tuchel will not be using two separate XL’s on Wednesday.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ordon-in-search-for-round-pegs-in-round-holes

He still seems to be leaning towards Rogers starting vs Croatia.

 

He doesn’t say that anywhere, you’re guessing yet again with these articles. No one really knows but if anything from last night, he himself said he preferred the second half and you know Rogers didn’t play in the second half but Bellingham did. I would say Bellingham is surely in the box seat to start against Croatia but let’s see how the game on Wednesday goes.

 

Yes, I think Tuchel only started Henderson those two games just to see what footballing contributions he could have. Then he saw that and never started him again. For me Bowen was a candidate to be a real player in the squad. He got his chances and did not deliver.

 

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/foot...e=Sport&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1780856188
‘that mean Bellingham is still fighting Rogers for a starting spot in England’s opener against Croatia on June 17? “Yes, he is,” Tuchel said. “He’s one of the starters, he knows that, he’s one of the starters, but there are 14, 15 potential starters.

“And then there’s a special group, like a leadership group, and then the guys who finish matches for us and get the energy right and have more the role of setting the standards and accepting their roles of challenging [for places]. And these roles can always change, but in my head there are 15, 14 proper starters and Jude is one of them.”’

Just feels like Rogers might be ahead of Bellingham in Tuchel’s feeling. Also the bit about the finishes have to to set the standards sound very much like Henderson and even Burn could be seen as those will get on.

Also he will asses the Arsenal players before deciding if to start them or not on Wednesday. Let’s hope he decides some can start otherwise it might be Henderson/O’Reilly/Stones/James in Midfield and Watkins on the wing again.

 

Feels like it’s Tuchel’s feeling!

 

Croatia has so many aged but class players

we need to put them to bed early and get some legs in to rotate

it’s gonna be a long hot tournament

 

I read the article and from that and also how yesterdays game was set up, I feel Bellingham is the starter ...

 

That Croatia midfield/attack is so old

 

I thought Perisic was done after doing his ACL at 35 for Spurs, god knows how he got himself back to a decent level after that.

 

Just the same quotes elsewhere as far as I can tell with it being the writers view of Livramento

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

England are ten days away from their opening match of the World Cup against Croatia. Although their 1-0 win over New Zealand on Saturday was internally viewed as a training exercise designed to build rhythm and acclimatise players to the heat and humidity in the United States, one of the recurring tactical motifs from Thomas Tuchel’s tenure as England head coach defined how England attacked at the Raymond James Stadium.

Since becoming England head coach, Tuchel has made clear that he wants his wingers to be positionally disciplined — often high and wide — and direct when they have the ball.

After the German’s first game in charge, against Albania in March 2025, the head coach criticised Phil Foden and Marcus Rashford, his wingers that day, for not being influential enough.

“We hope for more impact in these positions,” he said at the time. “More dribbling and more aggressive runs towards the box. In general that was missing. The chances come from the little runs behind the line. They were not as decisive as they can be.”

After watching the impact of the heat and humidity on players during the Club World Cup in the US last summer, Tuchel redeveloped his game model for England. Yet he still holds a steadfast belief that his wingers need to be direct so that England can accelerate the game when their opponents attempt to slow it down.

On Saturday, Tuchel used Ollie Watkins, a striker, on the right flank and Rashford on the left in the first half, but England’s dynamism in attack was poor. Part of that owed to the players around them. Jarell Quansah, for example, was playing at right back despite being a centre back by trade, and when New Zealand allowed the Bayer Leverkusen defender to have the ball he often dribbled infield and into the spaces that the No8 and No10s typically occupy.


“On the right side we were lacking width,” Tuchel said. “Players were coming inside and in many moments we were lacking 20 metres of the pitch and narrowing and slowing ourselves down.”

During the first water break of the match, Tuchel pointed out to his wingers that he wanted them wider and that their team-mates should be getting the ball to them quickly, to run and attack the full backs.

The wings are particularly important to Tuchel because New Zealand — and indeed, most opponents — tend to prioritise defending the centre of the pitch, by packing it with players in a compact shape.

But by overloading the centre, they leave spaces in wide areas. The challenge for England is to supply the wingers with the ball in advantageous positions so they can beat their opposing full back and get into the box, where they can cross or cut the ball back to Harry Kane or any other team-mates, as Tuchel explained, when reflecting on the improvement between halves.

“We played more from our positions and that’s why we played with more speed,” he said, after praising how his team produced “good penetrations into the box” in the second half.

“The first half we were out of position and it was a bit too much freestyle [positionally] and that slowed our game down and made it difficult to counterpress because we were not in the positions we wanted to be when we started attacking.

England improved in the second half after Tuchel changed his XI, bringing on Rio Ngumoha and Reece James on the right flank, and Anthony Gordon and Tino Livramento on the left.

James, playing in his normal position, gave England the ability to progress the ball upfield through his passes into Ngumoha, who constantly ran at the opposition full back. This positional refinement, allied with Elliot Anderson dropping between the centre backs and then slipping passes between the lines demonstrated the value of structure, clear roles and the importance of players that match the exact brief of their role. Ngumoha, the 17-year-old debutant, looked well suited to doing that. Unfortunately, he is not in the World Cup squad, and although Tuchel can call up one more player as a late injury replacement, Ngumoha is not eligible because he was not included in the original 55-man provisional squad submitted to Fifa.

Livramento and Gordon played alongside Dan Burn at left centre back in the second half, and Tuchel said the natural familiarity the trio have from playing together at Newcastle United meant “they have it a bit easier”.

Despite being right-footed and playing on the left, Livramento produced a strong performance, rotating positions with Gordon fluidly and using his runs into the attacking third and quick, sharp passes into midfield to inject pace and dynamism into England’s play. Sometimes Gordon pulled wide while Livramento ran inside and, more conventionally, Livramento went high and wide as Gordon moved infield.

Livramento’s versatility and physicality give him a good chance of starting at full back in the coming weeks, even with Nico O’Reilly and James the present first choices.

Tuchel has had his eye on Livramento for some time. Last summer, before the Under-21 European Championship, which England won, Tuchel spoke to Livramento and told him what he wanted him to do at the tournament and the experiences he wanted him to develop, all with a view to playing for the senior team. Few, if any, others had such instructions from Tuchel. Even Anderson, who has become England’s first-choice No6, was not given that kind of direction.

The difference in performance between the first and second halves only underscored the importance of selecting players in the position that they are most comfortable and the impact of deploying a conventional wing dynamic on a team’s attacking performance.

 

Interesting stats. I was going to ask you if you knew the rating of the winners of each tournament. Thought that was lazy and unfair so went for the slightly less lazy option of asking AI. I have not corroborated this.

"Based on historical World Football Elo Ratings data, here are the Elo ratings and rankings for every FIFA Men's World Cup winner at the start of their respective winning tournaments.

Note that specific numeric ratings (e.g., 2050) fluctuate based on the calculation model used by different sources (such as eloratings.net vs. FiveThirtyEight), but the rankings derived from these ratings are consistent across major datasets. Where specific numeric ratings are historically recorded for the start of the tournament, they are listed below.

Early Tournaments (1930–1950)

• 1930 Uruguay: Ranked 4th (Rating approx. 1780–1800 range). They were behind Argentina, Hungary, and Austria but benefited from home advantage.
  
  
• 1934 Italy: Ranked 4th (Rating approx. 1850). Italy was slightly behind Austria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia but won as the host nation.
  
  
• 1938 Italy: Ranked 1st (Rating approx. 1920–1940). Italy entered as the clear favorite and defending champion.
  
  
• 1950 Uruguay: Ranked 17th (Rating approx. 1736). This remains the lowest-ranked winner in history. They entered the tournament with a rating near 1736 and finished with ~1871.
  

Mid-Century Dominance (1954–1974)

• 1954 West Germany: Ranked 8th (Rating approx. 1850–1880). Considered a significant upset against the heavily favored Hungary (who held the highest Elo in history at the time, ~2160).
  
  
• 1958 Brazil: Ranked 3rd (Rating approx. 1900–1930). Brazil entered behind Hungary and Argentina but emerged as champions, marking the start of their golden era.
  
  
• 1962 Brazil: Ranked 1st (Rating approx. 2050+). Brazil entered as the clear favorite and successfully defended their title.
  
  
• 1966 England: Ranked 3rd (Rating approx. 1900–1930). England was behind Brazil and Hungary but won as the host nation.
  
  
• 1970 Brazil: Ranked 2nd (Rating approx. 2000–2030). Brazil was slightly behind England in some pre-tournament models but is widely considered one of the strongest teams ever.
  
  
• 1974 West Germany: Ranked 2nd (Rating approx. 2000). West Germany was just behind the Netherlands but won on home soil.
  

Modern Era (1978–2002)

• 1978 Argentina: Ranked 9th (Rating approx. 1850–1880). A surprising win; Argentina was well outside the top 5 favorites.
  
  
• 1982 Italy: Ranked 14th (Rating approx. 1800). One of the lowest-ranked winners, Italy was not considered a top contender.
  
  
• 1986 Argentina: Ranked 10th (Rating approx. 1850). Despite Maradona's presence, Argentina was not the top-rated team entering the tournament (France and Brazil were higher).
  
  
• 1990 West Germany: Ranked 2nd (Rating approx. 2000). West Germany was a strong favorite, just behind Brazil.
  
  
• 1994 Brazil: Ranked 4th (Rating 2101 in some datasets, or approx. 2050 in others). Brazil was a top contender alongside Germany, Spain, and Argentina.
  
  
• 1998 France: Ranked 4th (Rating approx. 1950). France was behind Brazil, Germany, and Argentina but won as the host.
  
  
• 2002 Brazil: Ranked 10th (Rating approx. 1900). A surprising result where Brazil was not a top-5 favorite; France (the defending champ) was ranked #1 but failed to advance past the group stage.
  

Recent Tournaments (2006–2022)

• 2006 Italy: Ranked 7th (Rating approx. 1900). Italy was outside the top 5 favorites (which included Brazil, Czech Republic, Netherlands, France, and Argentina).
  
  
• 2010 Spain: Ranked 2nd (Rating approx. 2050–2080). Spain was a top favorite, just behind Brazil.
  
  
• 2014 Germany: Ranked 3rd (Rating approx. 2030). Germany was behind Spain and Brazil but won decisively.
  
  
• 2018 France: Ranked 7th (Rating approx. 1950). France was outside the top 5 (which included Germany, Brazil, Spain, Argentina, and Belgium) but won comfortably.
  
  
• 2022 Argentina: Ranked 3rd (Rating approx. 1860–1880 at the start of the tournament due to a slump in 2018-2019, though they rose to #1 shortly before the cup). Correction: In the specific Elo model used for historical consistency, Argentina often ranks 3rd or 4th entering the tournament, behind Brazil and Belgium/France.
  

Summary of Trends

• Favorites Win Often: roughly 63% of winners were ranked in the top 4 at the start of the tournament.
  
  
• The "Top 10" Rule: Nearly 90% of winners were ranked within the top 10 at the start of the tournament.
  
  
• Biggest Upsets: Uruguay (1950) at #17, Italy (1982) at #14, and Argentina (1978) at #9 are statistically the most surprising winners based on pre-tournament Elo ratings.
  
  
• Host Advantage: Many winners (Uruguay 1930, Italy 1934, England 1966, West Germany 1974, Argentina 1978, France 1998) benefited significantly from the host nation bonus inherent in Elo calculations. "
  

Interesting stuff and the best rated team pre-tournament rarely wins. What you should expect from a knockout tournament really.

The reason I think England have under performed is the lack of Euros success. 1 World Cup would be a reasonable return if we had also won a Euros.

Looking at your list there is also an argument that a team entering a knockout tournament 8 previous times rated in the top four ought to have won twice and definitely should have made the semi finals more often. The two times we lost in semi-finals we were ranked outside the top four!

Nothing we can do about the past, except learn from it.

 

Sorry mate but I don’t know where you interpret from those quotes that you feel Rogers is ahead of Jude. Am I missing it?

 

Use removepaywall website, then paste the URL in and I think Link 3 consistently will work for you.