Let’s talk about something I feel is very important for understanding the current state and evolution of football. It’s a good moment to use Paraguay and Japan as examples of how much teams have improved defensively nowadays. Paraguay in a 4-4-2 and Japan in a 5-4-1 are probably two of the clearest representations of the most common low and mid-block structures in modern football. There are two main reasons behind this defensive improvement: better coaching and improved physicality and athleticism in players. First, any coaching staff today has enough tactical knowledge to organise a strong defensive block. If it’s not the head coach, it will be an assistant or an analyst. Even players themselves now have a much greater tactical understanding than in the past. It’s not only about the formation; they can also execute specific game plans to counter teams that use positional structures, like Paraguay did today against Germany. Second, modern players are elite athletes. They can cover far more space than before. If a player receives between the lines, midfielders are now able to recover and re-establish the structure much faster. Centre-backs are also much more capable of defending wide spaces and shifting across, compared to a few years ago. This significantly reduces the amount of space available. If you want to break a low block centrally using positional principles, you need not only quality but also very strong coaching ideas or patterns. Coaches like Flick, Pep, or De Zerbi are excellent at building mechanisms to attack these spaces. However, in national teams there is not enough time to fully develop these ideas. Even Nagelsmann, who I think is very strong in inside combinations, has struggled in this World Cup to consistently break low blocks. The success of teams like Colombia or Argentina in this World Cup comes from their ability to access central areas by using multiple midfielders in their line-ups and adopting a more relationist and less positional style: greater mobility between players, focusing more on dynamic advantages than positional ones, the use of deception to play progressive passes, or forwards dropping deep to connect play. If you can achieve that without becoming disorganised out of possession, you can dominate games through the centre, the most difficult but also the most rewarding area of football. Defending is generally easier than attacking, for the same reason that destroying something is easier than building it.

Let's talk about England. Thomas Tuchel intentions on wide progression, physicality and crosses. We can like Thomas Tuchel's approach more or less, but one thing is clear: he is fully committed to his ideas and he will die with them. England's attacking game is built around wide rotations, delivering crosses into the box, and prioritising physicality and directness over creativity and technical play between the lines. The player profiles he selects reflect that philosophy. Tuchel is simply not interested in progressing through central areas as a primary attacking route. When opponents also remove England's main mechanism for central progression, Kane link up play, the game becomes even more predictable. DR Congo, for example, they defended in a 4-1-4-1 with one midfielder positioned in front of Harry Kane, just as Ghana did previously. The objective was clear: deny Kane the space to drop deep and connect play. Once that option disappeared, England naturally progressed almost exclusively through the flanks. Out of possession, England also showed some vulnerabilities. Whenever DR Congo attempted to build from the back, they were able to progress on several occasions. Their first line created a 4v2 with the goalkeeper, the two centre-backs and the #6 against Kane and Bellingham. The full-backs positioned themselves high, forcing England's wingers to drop deeper and creating even more space during the build-up. Declan Rice occasionally stepped out to help, but at other times held his position, leaving the impression that England are still not entirely committed to pressing man-to-man in these situations. One of the biggest differences between Tuchel and someone like Julian Nagelsmann lies in their intentions. For Nagelsmann, attacking wide is often the consequence of failing to progress centrally. Under Tuchel, attacking wide is the starting point. England are deliberately prepared to reach wide areas, deliver crosses and attack the penalty area with numbers. That is why players like Jude Bellingham become so valuable, given his outstanding timing and ability to arrive in the box. This also helps explain why Tuchel has not relied on players such as Phil Foden or Cole Palmer. It is not necessarily about their quality, but about the fact that his model does not prioritise central combinations or progression through the inside channels. In many ways, there are clear similarities between this England side and Arsenal. Both place great emphasis on wide play, sustained pressure, attacking crosses, winning second balls, and creating chances through territorial dominance rather than intricate combinations in central spaces. To be fair, England created enough chances to win comfortably. Mpasi produced an outstanding performance in goal for DR Congo. Matches like this are often decided by a cross into the box, a second ball, a set-piece or a high regain immediately after losing possession. What you are unlikely to see from this England team is a goal created through great combinations in tight central spaces, that simply isn't the priority of Tuchel's attacking model. England now travel to the iconic Azteca Stadium to face Mexico in what promises to be one of the standout fixtures of this World Cup.