Once again, at the 12th attempt since 1966, it wasn’t to be for England at the World Cup. For the second time in three World Cups, the Three Lions crashed out in the semi-finals. But would they have won it anyway? Let’s investigate…

By Tom Hancock

Were England even that bad at the 2026 World Cup?

“I still think we can show how good football players we are,” said England boss Thomas Tuchel after the deeply frustrating semi-final defeat to Argentina – when the Three Lions led, only to sit far too deep and invite pressure which ultimately paid for their great rivals, who turned the game on its head late on. “I think that is still in us as I see it in training and in every camp.”

For all Tuchel’s belief, and for all the evidence of how slick this England team can be under him, the Three Lions were rarely at their fluid best during the 2026 World Cup – until they let the handbrake off in the third-place play-off against France (a sign they had, up to then, been playing under intense, perhaps internally stemming, pressure?).

But for all their lack of fluidity, England were, on the whole, one of the most potent attacking threats in the tournament. Only five teams finished with more Expected Goals (xG) per game, with England going along at an average of 1.78 across their eight matches – and, even if we ignore the anomaly of the third-place play-off, only two other teams who made it as far as the semis (France and Argentina) scored more goals per game than the Three Lions (2.0). 

And, scoring 20 goals from 14.3 xG overall, England were statistically the most clinical side in the competition. Their star duo of Jude Bellingham and Harry Kane rose to the occasion as one would expect, finding the net seven (the most by any England player in a single World Cup) and six times respectively. Their combined output made history: never before had multiple Three Lions players scored four or more goals at the same World Cup.

Creating and finishing chances wasn’t the issue for England; the issue was how difficult they made it for themselves by giving them up at the other end.

Tuchel’s side gave up 9.3 xG (the most at the tournament outright) at an average of 1.17 per game – placing them joint 18th out of 48 teams on that metric. They faced 12.38 shots per game, ranking 25th.

England were porous, keeping only two clean sheets – in the group draw with Ghana and win over Panama – and conceding at a rate of just over a goal a game up to and including the semi-final loss to Argentina. Twice they let in the first goal (albeit they battled back to beat both DR Congo and Norway 2-1 in the last 32 and quarter-finals respectively) and three times they surrendered a one-goal lead (twice in the opening 4-2 victory over Croatia and once more, ultimately to far greater cost, against Argentina).

That evident defensive vulnerability both vindicates Tuchel’s decision to shut up shop against Argentina and justifies the intense criticism of it.

On the one hand, Tuchel had seen his side hold out for one of England’s greatest wins with a brilliantly resilient, backs-to-the-wall job against Mexico at the Azteca in the last 16 – playing with 10 men for most of the second half, no less. England enjoyed similar success in the quarter-finals as they completed their comeback from 1-0 down to lead Norway 2-1 early in extra time then shut up shop to see the game out. An integral figure in both triumphs was new Three Lions cult hero Dan Burn, who was thrust into the action to put his body on the line once more in the semi (though he eventually found himself playing as a makeshift target man after it had all gone horribly wrong in Atlanta).

Two one-goal leads successfully defended in two very different sets of circumstances – so why wouldn’t Tuchel do the same after Anthony Gordon had fired the Three Lions in front against Argentina?

Well, for starters, despite the positive outcome on both occasions, England had ridden their luck to hold on in each of the previous two rounds. And it should have been obvious Argentina – who had mounted an epic recovery from 2-0 on 79 minutes to beat Egypt 3-2 in the last 16, inspired by a typically talismanic Lionel Messi – would throw far more at them than Mexico or Norway.

And so it proved as Enzo Fernández and Lautaro Martínez made England pay for their negativity. Tuchel said after the game that controlling possession was “not in our DNA like it is in the Spanish DNA or the Argentinian or Brazilian DNA” – but to have only 12% of the ball between Gordon’s deadlock-breaker and Fernández’s equaliser took things to an opposite and catastrophic extreme. 

“We were not active enough,” Tuchel lamented when asked about the move to sit in a low block. “We just became too passive, and Argentina, by the way, found another gear and they found the total flow.”

England might at least have come close to finding that “total flow” themselves if Tuchel had taken different decisions both in that game and throughout the tournament – not least making much more use of Bukayo Saka, who had Three Lions fans tearing their hair out as to why he’d seen so little game time – despite, by his own admission, being fully fit – with a hat-trick against France. In Bellingham and Kane, England had two of the world’s very best in their respective roles at the sharp end of the pitch – think what more they could have done with Saka consistently in support.

But we could analyse and scrutinise from now and England’s next shot at glory, Euro 2028. Let’s answer arguably the biggest question of the moment.

Would England have won the 2026 World Cup anyway?

Even if everything had gone perfectly – the right-back position hadn’t been seemingly cursed; Tuchel had been able to settle on his best line-up to a greater extent; they’d pushed on against Argentina – and England had reached the final against Spain, would they have won the World Cup? In a word: no.

And the reasons are twofold: first, Spain proved themselves this summer to be on another level, dominating their way to a second World Cup crown, conceding a solitary goal along the way and restricting their opponents to a mere 10 shots on target.

Second, even in its most ideal and settled state, this England team is still flawed. It’s a work in progress (though to be fair, it has been for the last 60 years). Now, it’s about building on the positives and learning from mistakes ready to do it all again in two years’ time. That desire to end the hurt never goes away – and that’s got to count for something eventually, hasn’t it…?

(Images from IMAGO)

You can follow every game from every major competition in the world on FotMob – with in-depth stat coverage, including xG, shot maps, and player ratings. Download the free app here.

Add FotMob as a preferred news source on Google by clicking – here.

Manchester City’s new £116m midfielder is showing why he’s worth the money for England at the 2026 World Cup.

By Graham Ruthven

In discussion with former Manchester City teammate John Stones as Norway waited to discover whether or not their second goal against England would stand, Erling Haaland could clearly be seen referring to a “£150m player.” The player in question, of course, being Elliot Anderson.

Ultimately, Haaland was adjudged to have pushed Anderson prior to the corner kick that produced Norway’s goal to go 2-1 up. The City forward returned home on Monday having missed out on a place in the semi-finals while the “£150m player” in question is preparing to face Argentina on Wednesday.

Of course, Haaland exaggerated the fee Manchester City have paid to sign Anderson from Nottingham Forest with the 23-year-old swapping clubs for a reported £116m. Nonetheless, that is a fee that will put a target on Anderson’s back. It’s not just his new teammates debating the money involved.

When the World Cup is over, Anderson will pitch up at the Etihad Stadium as the third-most expensive signing in Premier League history behind only Alexander Isak and Florian Wirtz. City have smashed their club transfer record to land the England international who was also of interest to several other rivals including Manchester United.

They were right to be interested, and Manchester City were right to break the bank to sign him. Anderson’s performances for England at the World Cup have demonstrated how the 23-year-old is more than ready for the elite-level. He has been signed to be the centrepiece of Enzo Maresca’s new-look City side.

No England midfielder has averaged more accurate passes per 90 minutes at the 2026 World Cup than Anderson. Deployed at the base of the midfield, Thomas Tuchel has entrusted the former Forest player to be England’s pace-setter. The player who dictates the tempo and direction of their play.

Declan Rice was that player at past tournaments. With Anderson in the team, though, the Arsenal man has been freed up to perform the number eight role he performs so well at club level. Anderson has given England more security in the centre of the pitch, and not just in terms of his work in possession.

Out of possession, Anderson is a machine too. Against Norway, he covered 14.8km, more than any other England player, in stifling conditions. Only Djed Spence has racked up more defensive contributions per 90 over the course of the World Cup as a whole, giving England an extremely valuable barrier in front of the back four.

“It was so tough. So tough,” said Anderson after the quarter-final victory over Norway. Without the 23-year-old in the centre of the pitch, England might not have had it in them to make only their fourth-ever World Cup semi-final. “I was cramping up a few times [in extra time]. But the fighting spirit the lads have is amazing to be part of. The fans should be proud of the amount of fight and determination we showed.”

All of this should have the decision-makers at Manchester City feeling very positive about the transfer they sanctioned earlier this month. Anderson is perfect for the Etihad Stadium outfit, especially as they transition from the Pep Guardiola era to a fresh start under Maresca this season.

Some have questioned how Anderson and Rodri will fit into the same team. It’s true that Anderson’s role for his new side could be slightly different to the one he performs at international level for England in that the 23-year-old could be utilised as more of a number eight than a number six.

Alternatively, Anderson could take over from Rodri at the base of the Manchester City midfield in anticipation of the Spanish international departing the club in the near future. Rodri is into the final year of his contract at the Etihad Stadium and has been linked with a return to Spain. Real Madrid are believed to be particularly interested.

One way or another, City will surely build around Anderson for years to come. Their rebuild started 18 months ago with the addition of players such as Omar Marmoush and Abdukodir Khusanov and continued last summer as Rayan Cherki and Gianluigi Donnarumma arrived. Marc Guéhi and Antoine Semenyo also joined in January.

City, however, were lacking someone of Anderson’s profile. Someone who will permit Maresca to place an even greater emphasis on the use of possession and how Manchester City construct possession sequences from deep. Having Anderson servicing Cherki, Semenyo, Jérémy Doku and Erling Haaland will make them a better team.

Before joining up with his new club, Anderson has the not-so-small matter of a World Cup semi-final, and potentially a final after that, to handle. Argentina will test England like no other team has this summer. The “£150m player,” however, has already proved himself at this level. He has nothing to fear.

(Cover image from IMAGO)

You can follow every game from the World Cup on FotMob – with in-depth stat coverage, including xG, shot maps, and player ratings. Download the free app here.

Add FotMob as a preferred news source on Google by clicking – here.