# Why Alan Shearer Believes England Are Promising — Yet Still Not Settled on the Flanks
Former England captain Alan Shearer has been optimistic about England’s early showings at the World Cup, but he’s also flagged an issue that could undermine the team’s progress: uncertainty on the wings. While England possess plenty of assets to feel upbeat, the lack of a fixed starting XI — particularly in wide areas — remains a concern. In this article we explore Shearer’s assessment, why wing play matters so much to England’s tournament hopes, how managerial choices factor in, and what practical solutions could stabilize the side before the knockout stages.
## England’s positives: why optimism isn’t misplaced
There are several reasons for supporters and pundits to feel buoyant about this England squad. The team boasts quality across the pitch: a deep pool of talented attackers, a generally reliable defensive structure, and a midfield capable of controlling games when fully coherent. The depth of options gives managers tactical flexibility and resilience against injuries.
Young players stepping up has been a recurring theme, offering pace, creativity and fearless intent in attack. The squad also appears mentally robust — capable of handling pressure and expectations that accompany a tournament run. In many matches, England have shown cohesion in pressing, transitions, and set-piece organization, which are all encouraging signs.
This combination of talent, depth and maturity creates a realistic platform from which to launch a serious tournament challenge. Those are the elements Shearer pointed to when explaining the reasons to be upbeat so far.
## The persistent problem: no settled side on the wings
Despite the positives, Shearer has highlighted a recurring worry: England has not yet settled on a definitive set of wide players. This isn’t just about fan debate over who should start. Frequent changes on the flanks can disrupt rhythm, chemistry and balance within the team.
Wing play is crucial in modern football. Wingers and wide midfielders provide width, stretch defenses, create crossing opportunities, and drag opposition full-backs out of position to open central spaces. When the personnel on the flanks varies too often, it becomes harder to build consistent attacking patterns and defensive cover from full-backs can be compromised by unfamiliar partnerships.
For England, the hesitation over wing selections has led to a carousel of options, with different players bringing varying skill sets: some offer direct running and crossing, others excel at cutting inside and linking with central attackers, while a few provide defensive work-rate and pressing intensity. The inability to fully commit to one formula makes match preparation and squad chemistry less predictable.
## Tactical implications of wing indecision
When a manager alternates frequently between wingers and wing-backs or switches roles for the same player, several tactical challenges can arise:
– Lack of on-field understanding: Repeated changes hinder the development of telepathic player relationships — folds, runs and movements that become second nature only with repetition.
– Balance problems: Different wide players demand different compensation from full-backs and central midfielders. Constant changes require other positions to adapt frequently, decreasing overall cohesion.
– Predictability for opponents: If a team can’t settle into an identity, opponents may find it easier to devise plans to neutralize specific threats instead of preparing for a consistent system.
– Substitution and rotation confusion: Knowing who to bring on as an impact sub becomes harder if roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined.
These concerns underscore why Shearer stresses the importance of finding a stable wing solution before the tournament intensifies.
## Comparisons with club-level dilemmas: Tuchel’s search for answers
Shearer’s commentary also drew attention to a similar problem at club level, notably involving managers like Thomas Tuchel. Top managers sometimes struggle to identify ideal wide options — even at elite clubs with abundant resources. Tuchel’s teams have at times experimented extensively on the flanks, trying to balance defensive solidity with attacking width.
The point is not to single out any coach, but to illustrate a wider truth: even the most tactically astute managers can find it tough to nail down consistent wing solutions. Players’ form, injuries and opponent matchups all complicate selection. When a club manager faces those dilemmas amidst week-in-week-out matches, the challenge intensifies for international coaches who have limited preparation time with players.
This helps contextualize why England’s wing issue isn’t entirely surprising. International managers operate under constraints — short training camps, less time to instill complex systems, and players with differing club roles. All these factors make settling a side, especially on the flanks, harder than it may appear from the outside.
## Key candidates and their differing profiles
Part of the issue stems from the different types of wide players available to England. Broadly speaking, they can be categorized as:
– Traditional wingers who hug the touchline and deliver crosses.
– Inverted wingers who cut inside to combine with forwards or shoot.
– Wide midfielders who track back and provide defensive solidity.
– Wide playmakers who act as secondary creators from the flank.
Each profile impacts the team shape differently. For instance, a hug-the-line winger requires full-backs to overlap, creating crossing opportunities, whereas an inverted winger demands more central passing combinations and a full-back who can provide overlapping width. Picking players who blend well with the rest of the starting XI is therefore essential.
This multiplicity of profiles complicates selection decisions. Managers must weigh the specific balance they want for each opponent: do they need width to break down deep defenses, or technical dribblers to destabilize man-markers? This tactical nuance helps explain why England’s wing choices have been fluid.
## Potential tactical solutions for England
To resolve the lack of settled wide options, a few practical approaches could help stabilize the team:
– Commit to a core starting XI earlier: Picking a regular set of starters for several matches helps build on-field chemistry and allows players to form partnerships.
– Define clear role expectations: Even if rotation occurs, ensuring that each player understands their precise responsibilities reduces the transitional friction between lineups.
– Use one system and vary personnel minimally: Maintaining a consistent tactical framework, while only rotating when absolutely necessary, preserves balance and collective habits.
– Emphasize training continuity: In camp sessions, replicate match scenarios that focus on wing interactions with full-backs and central attackers to cement patterns.
– Consider hybrid roles: Using flexible formations — such as allowing wide players to interchange with inside forwards or supporting wing-backs — can preserve unpredictability while retaining structure.
– Rely on set pieces and central combinations: If the wide game isn’t clicking, amplifying other strengths (set-piece routines, midfield link-ups) can compensate while long-term wing solutions are worked out.
These measures can help the team remain effective while searching for an ideal long-term configuration.
## The managerial balancing act: adaptability vs. stability
Gareth Southgate (or any international manager in his position) must strike a difficult balance between adaptability and stability. On the one hand, being adaptable allows the manager to tailor lineups to opponent strengths and exploit specific weaknesses. On the other hand, too much tinkering undermines familiarity and consistency.
The optimal approach is often a hybrid: maintain a reliable spine (goalkeeper, center-backs, central midfielders, a primary striker) while keeping the wings as either a stable pair or a carefully managed rotation of two complementary types. Building predictable partnerships — such as a chosen winger and full-back who understand each other — provides a foundation for flexible tactical tweaks elsewhere.
Communication is central. When players know why certain selections are made and how they fit into a broader plan, the team is better equipped to adapt on the fly.
## What opponents will target
Opposition teams will notice the inconsistency on the flanks and aim to exploit it. Common strategies include:
– Overloading the wings where weaker combinations are deployed.
– Forcing full-backs into high/low dilemmas when wings and full-backs don’t synchronise.
– Cutting off service for inverted wingers who rely on central channels.
– Pressing around the flanks to isolate unfamiliar duos and create turnovers.
Recognition of these threats should galvanize England to prioritize a clearer approach to wing personnel and training focus.
## Why cohesive wing play matters in knockout football
Tournament football — especially in knockout rounds — rewards teams that are consistent and cohesive. With margins razor-thin, a single breakdown in understanding or a mismatch on the flank can decide a game.
Cohesive wing play facilitates clean attacking transitions, predictable defensive cover, and dependable pressing triggers. It also reduces individual workload by dispersing responsibilities effectively across the team. In the latter stages of a tournament, when fatigue and pressure peak, relying on well-drilled partnerships often proves decisive.
If England can fortify their wing roles into dependable units rather than experimental lineups, they will be better positioned to navigate tense, high-stakes matches.
## Final thoughts: talent is here, but clarity is needed
Alan Shearer’s message is straightforward: this England squad contains many reasons for optimism, yet there remains a key shortcoming that could undermine their campaign — uncertainty on the wings. That concern is not unique to the national team; club managers, including those at top levels, wrestle with similar issues. But for England, where preparation windows are limited and tournament margins small, resolving that instability should be a priority.
A settled approach to wide positions would not only maximize the squad’s attacking potential but also increase defensive coherence and overall tactical identity. With the right decisions, training focus and communication, England can translate the current promise into a sustained, confident run.
Conclusion
England possess the talent and depth to mount a serious World Cup challenge, and Alan Shearer’s assessment reflects the positives on display. However, the persistent lack of a settled lineup on the flanks remains a tangible weakness. Addressing that uncertainty — through clearer selection, refined training, and defined player roles — will be essential if England are to turn potential into tangible success as the tournament progresses.