Sign up for Miguel Delaney’s Reading the Game newsletter delivered straight to your inbox for free

Sign up for Miguel’s Delaney’s free weekly newsletter

As England flew to Doha this week, the buzzing players immediately returned to old squads, but not cliques. This team is “not built that way”. There is a real team spirit, and sources both inside and outside the camp say frankly that you will be hard-pressed to find a more united team at this World Cup. Perhaps it is England’s best asset over all others. It may, however, indicate a growing weakness. The camaraderie of the group comes from the fact that a core group has been together for so long, their bonds strengthened by the joy of an exhilarating journey. This World Cup squad actually only has five names that are different from the original 26 for Euro 2020, before two enforced changes. It raises two big questions that will frame England’s entire World Cup. The first is whether this team is past its prime. It’s not about age, it’s about the distinctive chemistry that defines all sides. Gareth Southgate has now been in charge for six years, which is a long time in international football, making him the fifth longest-serving manager at this World Cup. While of course it has ensured that the composition of the team has evolved in that period, there has been no break, no transition. It really is the same core that has been together for so long. The second question is whether that really matters – especially in a World Cup like this. It cannot be overlooked that recent history shows that it helps a lot. The last three World Cups have all been won by teams in their prime: Spain 2010, Germany 2014, France 2018. What was so special about each of them, and why they could be said to define a special era in international football, was that it wasn’t just group circles coming to that top. These World Cup winners represented the culmination of much larger projects, given how each of the countries had revolutionized their entire football infrastructure in previous years. It was really the wealthiest Western European countries that industrialized the modern production of talent. The models were made, which were rightly reproduced by the Football Association. This only sharpens the question of where England are at the moment. Because, in all the FA’s plans, the 2022 World Cup was marked as the target for when all the changes could take place. It was the long-term ambition. While England have certainly met their goal in terms of producing talent, with the amount of young players being the envy of Europe, the question is whether the current squad has quite kept up that pace. England feel like they should hit their best after Euro 2020, and in the same way that Spain did in 2010 and Germany in 2014, but they really don’t look the same. One of the lingering regrets from that tournament was whether that particular moment in time represented the peak for this team. The team has shown signs of getting stale this year. This was particularly the case in attack, with just four goals in six games to round off a miserable Nations League season. There is an argument that the departure fully exposed long-term concerns about Southgate, that he is too rigid tactically a manager, unable to expand when the team is not on form. Gareth Southgate arrives in Qatar under plenty of pressure (Reuters) From the coach’s side, the players and people around the team don’t think these games mattered. The games came at the end of nearly two years of non-stop post-Covid football, and there was just a general weariness. And tiredness, of course, can easily be confused with staleness. The results are similar. Meanwhile, this year’s programming challenges were so different. Southgate hasn’t just tried to work from international break to international break or tournament cycle to tournament cycle, but as part of that long-term plan, all with the Covid disruption and now this controversial mid-season World Cup. That’s why his team decisions were interesting, even if we can’t say they’re instructive. They are really hard to interpret according to any preconceived notions about Southgate. Some did seem overly loyal, especially on defense. Some, on the contrary, have clearly relied on the recent form. Some were total wildcards. All this together marks a real difference for Southgate himself. This is why James Maddison’s decision is truly one of the most drastic he has ever made on the job. This has nothing to do with the player’s sparkling form or ability. That’s because he was a manager who kept Jack Grealish on the bench for years, so he wasn’t prone to sudden changes. And yet here he is picking Maddison for a World Cup and talking about his start, having not picked him for any team for three years. All this for now can be seen in one of two ways. Perhaps it is indeed a sign that England are on the wrong side of a cycle where everything is no longer just about the manager’s initial beliefs and he has to second guess himself and turn things around to stop things going downhill . Jurgen Klopp had a similar one with Liverpool. It’s a theme almost entirely personified by Harry Maguire. It was the centre-half’s form in England that was hugely influential in his move to Manchester United, only his experience at Old Trafford took a toll on his performance, meaning Southgate had to make one of the few decisions criticized . It sums up how this is not as easy as it used to be. This happens the further you go. On the other hand, perhaps this is exactly the kind of prudence that is needed. The bottom line with England is that, while many talented players may be in the prime of their careers, the team has never been complete. Always overloaded in attack and out wide, but underpowered in central defense and midfield. Southgate’s every decision hinges on it. He must constantly compromise for the balance of the team. However, these compromises are sparking a debate over whether Southgate’s approach is getting the best out of the players. There is almost a counter-intuitive element to this and an apparent contradiction. It is precisely because England’s quality is so front-heavy that they feel the need to bolster the back of the team through sheer numbers. They need protection. This is inevitably at the expense of so many excellent forwards and creates a situation where more of the team’s limited players are in the starting line-up rather than real early talent. This has led to many criticisms that Southgate is overly defensive and rigid, but he can reasonably point to other reasons for this set-up. The England manager has made little secret of his use of a handbook containing acres of research into how tournaments are won. This meant they would be led by Portugal 2016 and France 2018. These winning teams had strong defensive formations with limited pressing and extremely talented strikers in relatively stable positions. This essentially explains Southgate’s three-man line in central midfield. It’s divisive, yes, but there’s no denying that it gives a team as talented as England a real chance. You only have to look at Southgate’s record. The nagging question is whether he gives England their best chance. There are dangers in relying on recent tournaments in such a way. Some of it may have been occasional. It’s undeniable that a limited Portugal had a lucky run in 2016, and it could be said that France had such overwhelming quality that it almost made Didier Deschamps’ approach questionable. There is also the danger of simply fighting the last war. The game is evolving. The majority of the best international teams now play the Holland-Spain passing-pressing game popularized by Pep Guardiola. This is how Italy won Euro 2020 and this highlights another point. Southgate’s approach is arguably why his tournaments have generally ended against the first-class side England have played. They outmaneuver midfield and that tends to be it. England have impressed on their way to the Euro 2020 final (Getty Images) The Euro 2020 victory over Germany cannot simply be discounted, of course, especially given the historical psychological significance. But it was at Wembley and against a manager, in Jogi Lowe, whose status had probably gone stale four years earlier. Germany are now showing the side they should be at Euro 2020. Hansi Flick has restored the cheer. It was one of the elements that felt remarkable in their Nations League game in Munich, even if the results were irrelevant. While the likes of Raheem Sterling and Bukayo Saka almost operated on tram lines, Jamal Musiala was constantly coming in, creating interchanges and corners that made it difficult for Germany to defend. There was movement and plenty of attacking points, unlike so many goals going through Harry Kane. Flick’s team were not in top form then, but offered optimism about what could be possible with the more intensive training a World Cup offered. There is a deeper idea, based on what the coach did with Bayern Munich. It’s hard not to wonder what Flick or Luis Enrique can do with this England team. Those two managers, who have both won the club treble, may be the ones Southgate should consider. This is why the question of where England stand in terms of collective performance is so timely. You can overcome such challenges if a team is fully fit, fully invested. And yet, regardless of the team’s development timeline, the timing of the tournament can be just as influential. It might make this whole thing moot. The limited preparation period and intense club schedule will leave even the best teams to catch up. The individual player form can…