Thomas Tuchel was inches from being two from two; two games, two substitutes scoring. Even when Nico O’Reilly’s header thumped against the bar, the rebound fell obligingly for Harry Kane. “Ninety-nine times out of 100,” Tuchel argued, Kane would score. And if so, the manager may have been seen as a catalyst with his changes. Instead, Kane skied his shot.

As it is, England have one goal from a replacement this World Cup; a potentially significant one, too, with Marcus Rashford’s late clincher against Croatia. And yet, as Ghana shut England out, narrow as the margins were, it brought into question Tuchel’s strategy for providing bench strength.

The German’s blueprint can be for more of the same, for like-for-like replacements. On the left wing, Anthony Gordon and Rashford share plenty of characteristics, and bringing on the Mancunian for the similarly speedy Merseysider worked well against Croatia. On the right, Bukayo Saka and Noni Madueke even share a club, the 2025 signing understudying Arsenal’s homegrown talent for Mikel Arteta and presumably doing so again on international duty when the brighter star is fit enough to start.

Jude Bellingham and Morgan Rogers are Midlanders and friends. The Aston Villa man may not have the talent of the Real Madrid player but Bellingham’s route back into the side, seemingly, was to emulate Rogers’ role as the No 10 in autumn.

As for the back-up strikers, Ollie Watkins and Ivan Toney may not be Kane clones, but they are less likely to be seen anyway. “Does Argentina rely too heavily on [Lionel] Messi and France on [Kylian] Mbappe?” Tuchel asked rhetorically. “It is normal. They are world-class players and they do what they do.”

But the flaw in the formula may come when England are not winning; when Plan A is not working, is Plan B to offer more of the same, merely with new faces and fresher legs? Tuchel took the choice to omit players with other skillsets. Phil Foden and Cole Palmer could be called the mavericks, or simply footballers whose poor seasons meant their form did not merit selection. Each is true – though Morgan Gibbs-White, with his 15 Premier League goals, is entitled to feel his recent efforts merited a spot – but Foden and Palmer remain two of English football’s greatest talents.

The Chelsea man’s prowess as an impact substitute was displayed in Euro 2024, albeit after a glorious season at club level. But he came off the bench to score in the final and in itself, that offered a compelling reason to recall him.

Tuchel did not want to pack his squad with No 10s; too many might have been a distraction, and certainly would have brought more questions about anyone who was marginalised. But the slot as the third potential No 10 that might have gone to Foden or Palmer instead went to Eberechi Eze; fine a player as he is, he is surely less of a difference-maker at elite level.

And the expansion to 26-man squads ought to leave room for a wild card; instead, the closest England came to having one was O’Reilly, the box-crashing converted midfielder who is a distinctly unorthodox left-back.

Their issues were partly personnel, partly tactical. “I don’t think we become predictable with wide wingers,” insisted Tuchel, despite evidence to the contrary. But the thinking was to have someone chained to the touchline on either flank. It explains why Palmer, more of an inside-forward, is not his type of wide man.

When Tuchel talked of England having “repetitive attacks”, that was part of the problem. They lacked the capacity to switch emphasis. They attacked too little in the middle; another central creator might have been able to unlock Ghana’s defiant defence.

Tuchel opted to go without the closest thing to a pure playmaker from deep England have, in Adam Wharton, instead preferring Jordan Henderson and Kobbie Mainoo. He twice omitted – once in his initial squad, then when Tino Livramento pulled out – the most inventive right-back at his disposal, in Trent Alexander-Arnold, instead eventually going for Trevoh Chalobah.

So he plumped for a group with a common purpose and shared strengths. It meant the second XI looks like the first, only worse.

It was not the approach some of his peers took. England possess plenty of gifted attackers. So do France but, in Rayan Cherki and Jean-Philippe Mateta, Didier Deschamps seemed to deliberately bring in two who do not resemble the starters.

In contrast, Tuchel seemed to want a diet of the same. And against Ghana, England perhaps could have benefited from a penetrative pass from Wharton, a devilish cross from Alexander-Arnold or, most obviously, a long shot from Palmer.

When they looked to the bench, they needed some x-factor. But the men who might have supplied it had been excluded from the squad.