Thomas Tuchel remarked that he would follow the path of every international coach before him, which includes a ‘jab’ at Mikel Arteta and a ‘caution’ to all managers in the Premier League.
A proper Tuch
With the national anthem issue settled and skillfully avoided by Thomas Tuchel, the national media has needed to explore alternative methods of pulling headlines from the England manager during international breaks.
To their credit, they have discovered a lasting solution: acting as if Tuchel is in conflict with the club's management.
The Sun claims Tuchel ‘will not hold back against Prem bosses’, which is odd to mention since none have requested such kindness, as that would be unusual.
‘TUCH FIGHT CLUB’ shouts the Daily Mirror, while John Cross reports that Tuchel ‘is prepared to engage in a confrontation with Premier League managers’ and ‘even challenged Mikel Arteta’ regarding Declan Rice.
The Times repeats that ‘collision course’ phrase.
Ian Ladyman from the Daily Mail asserts he 'established the guidelines' by stating he 'will prioritize England's needs over those of premier league clubs'. So, just like every previous international manager? Picture how strange it would be if he announced to all teams that they had the first opportunity and that he would simply adjust accordingly.
The Daily Telegraph refers to it as a ‘warning,’ and The Guardian suggests Tuchel ‘might provoke the anger of club managers,’ while the Daily Express thinks he ‘even took a jab at’ Arteta.
It’s essential to review these quotes since Mediawatch has clearly ignored a significant news story in this case.
"Considering that Declan Rice participated after a 7-1 first leg, he played in the following match with Arsenal." I didn't get the impression that they care about us that much. Therefore, I believe we shouldn't overthink this matter"
That isn't a good beginning. Just a reminder that this is Tuchel’s ‘jibe’ (The Sun website), him ‘criticizing’ Arteta and ‘holding him accountable’. In essence, it suggests he believes club managers focus on their own needs regarding individual players, and that England will rightly persist in this approach. Actually, he is stating precisely that.
“I look after the players.” We pay attention to the timetable. However, it would send the wrong message to inform players at this moment, "Hey, you have challenging (club) matches ahead, so I will give you a rest now."
"We have a qualifier to compete in; we act in our best interest." We are in communication with the clubs. We are under elevated oversight where the statuses are clear, and we will avoid any unprofessional risks.
"Primarily, I feel a sense of duty towards the players." I don't wish for the athlete to be hurt. I desire for all the players to participate in the Champions League quarter-finals, as I want to see it. Ultimately, we look after [ourselves], and the clubs look after their own interests. “The primary emphasis is on looking after the players.”
Almost every line highlights the absurdity of attempting to create a conflict between Tuchel and the club managers, but that final remark is particularly revealing: "Ultimately, we look after [ourselves] while the clubs focus on their own interests." "The primary emphasis is on looking after the players."
Those residing in glass houses shouldn't cast stones
Though there is clearly no problem with the England beat sharing their homework, it is somewhat absurd that each national newspaper references the identical instance of Pep Guardiola's anger when John Stones played consecutive internationals and predictably got injured early in the second.
All of them reference Guardiola's "never been so angry" comment regarding his response when Stones came back with an injury before important Premier and Champions League matches last season. It's simply odd that none of them mention the Spaniard as stating: “In friendly matches you cannot get hurt.”
That seems relevant, given that Stones sustained an injury after needlessly participating in consecutive friendlies within days, while Tuchel was explicitly addressing team choices for World Cup qualifiers.
Here comes yet another layer of the notion that Tuchel and club managers are in conflict with one another. Present us with any Premier League manager who believes their healthy and ready players shouldn't be chosen for competitive international matches, and we will agree that this ‘collision course’ isn’t merely a huge pile of nonsense.
Journey South
It would be a more joyful environment if we could put this complete non-issue behind us, but seeing this headline makes it hard to simply move forward:
‘Tuchel threatens to undermine years of Southgate's efforts with sharp remarks about Arteta.’
We hesitantly turn to The i, as noted by James Gray:
A typically transparent Tuchel revealed his intentions on Sunday. Situated in an upper chamber of Tottenham Hotspur’s advanced training facility, he conveyed a strong message to his weekend hosts that his player selections would be guided by his own objectives, rather than those of their primary employer or any other top Premier League club.
Two points:
1. It cannot be emphasized enough: that is what every global manager has consistently done.
2. Tuchel's initial England squad includes one player from Spurs, and it's unlikely that Dominic Solanke will play at all. If tensions are being provoked and confrontations initiated – and they are not – it definitely does not concern Spurs at this moment.
However, it seems that Tuchel's comments will resonate negatively with a number of managers. They are likely the identical statements Mediawatch has seen, where he expressed “we are in touch with the clubs”, “we won’t undertake any unprofessional risks” and “the primary concern is looking after the players”.
Consider Guardiola and Arteta during this challenging period as their players are imprisoned by this terrible madman.
Following this are the Guardiola remarks regarding Stones, with no mention at all of his primary concern, which was the defender playing in a series of back-to-back friendlies. Next, there is 'Tuchel maintaining that he hasn't received any calls from managers this time requesting players to be rested or substituted early,' leading us to question why we are all present then?
Gray elaborates extensively on Latvia's poor performance, stating that "the reality is Lee Carsley’s Under-21s would anticipate winning" against them, indicating that Tuchel doesn't have to select his top players.
It is a ridiculous and funny argument. Would the club managers of those U21 players suddenly be completely okay with their athletes being selected for the seemingly very risky senior team? In this parallel universe where Tuchel sidelines Harry Kane, Jude Bellingham, Declan Rice and his top teammates in England happen to lose or draw, would people simply view it as an acceptable loss in Tuchel's more crucial effort to maintain a favorable relationship with Vincent Kompany?
‘How would Myles Lewis-Skelly react, for instance, if a second 90-minute game in four days resulted in a hamstring injury that prevented him from playing in a Champions League quarter-final against Real Madrid in two weeks?’
Most likely very annoyed. Would he hold a grudge against Tuchel forever for the offense of selecting him for England? It seems improbable.
Next arrives the main point, located near the end of the second-to-last paragraph:
Gareth Southgate transformed many aspects of the England team, dismantling the club factions that had caused division previously and reinterpreting the significance of representing the national squad. Initiating a conflict with Premier League teams while players are more exhausted than ever is a risky approach that might negate a lot of the positive progress made.
Fifteen paragraphs prior, Gray mentioned that unrelated instance of Guardiola being angry with Southgate for selecting Stones. It seems that despite all the great efforts he made as manager, Southgate consistently selected his top team and therefore the best players, as that was his responsibility.
And Southgate undoubtedly failed miserably in ‘redefining the meaning of representing the national team’ if just a year after his exit, we are debating whether he should field a weakened team for a genuine World Cup qualifier to avoid upsetting Premier League managers (none of whom have indicated even the slightest sign of being bothered, obviously).
Is there any other country's media this ridiculous regarding the selection of the best players to represent them? Mediawatch is already aware of the disheartening response.
Comments