Thomas Tuchel is not hiding from the criticism following England’s painful World Cup semi-final defeat to Argentina.

The Three Lions entered the tournament dreaming of finally ending their long wait for another major international trophy, but their journey ended against a more experienced Argentine side that knew exactly how to punish England once the momentum of the game shifted.

Tuchel has accepted full responsibility for the result, describing the defeat as a “scar” that he and his players will have to carry. However, taking the blame has not stopped questions about his tactical decisions, particularly his approach after England fell behind.

Critics have questioned why players capable of offering greater creativity and attacking intent, such as Bukayo Saka and Noni Madueke, were not given more prominent roles when England needed to change the game.

Instead, the team became increasingly cautious, allowing Argentina to take control and eventually score the goals that ended England’s hopes.

Now comes an uncomfortable question for the Football Association: should Tuchel remain in charge for another cycle?

Tuchel knows his choices will be examined for months.

The England manager defended his tactical thinking after the defeat, arguing that decisions made during matches are based on instinct, experience and what coaches observe from the touchline. He also rejected the idea that alternative substitutions or formations would automatically have produced a better result.

That explanation, however, is unlikely to satisfy everyone.

England’s approach after conceding the opening goal has become one of the biggest talking points. Rather than becoming more aggressive and forcing Argentina onto the defensive, the Three Lions appeared to retreat.

That was always going to be dangerous against the defending champions.

Argentina possess the technical ability and tournament experience to exploit opponents who surrender territory. Once England allowed them to dictate the rhythm, the South American side found the confidence and space necessary to unleash their attacking quality.

The absence of greater creativity also raised eyebrows. However, Tuchel insists he has no regrets.

He believes making a change was necessary and stands by the decisions he made under pressure. For him, regretting the outcome is different from regretting the thought process behind it.

That distinction may be understandable from a coach’s perspective, but supporters will inevitably wonder what might have happened with a more proactive approach.

The debate surrounding Tuchel cannot be reduced to one match.

England reached another World Cup semi-final, an achievement that demonstrates the team remains among international football’s strongest sides. At the same time, simply reaching the latter stages is no longer enough for a squad carrying expectations of winning major trophies.

Tuchel himself recognizes that gap.

He pointed toward Argentina’s experience of winning together and suggested England still need to improve their ability to impose themselves during high-pressure matches.

There is some merit to that argument.

Argentina have built their winning culture over several years. England, despite consistently reaching the latter stages of tournaments, are still searching for the final ingredient required to turn promising campaigns into trophies.

The question is whether Tuchel is the right coach to find it.