The upcoming Euro 2025 final for the England national team presents a significant tactical dilemma regarding team selection. Two players who have consistently made a substantial impact from the substitutes’ bench throughout the tournament, Michelle Agyemang and Chloe Kelly, are at the center of this debate. Their stellar performances have ignited discussions among fans and pundits alike about whether they merit a starting spot in Sunday’s crucial match.
The argument for including Agyemang and Kelly in the starting eleven primarily rests on their demonstrated ability to change the game’s dynamic. Both players have provided crucial assists, scored vital goals, or injected much-needed energy when introduced, often turning the tide in England’s favor. Elevating them to the starting lineup could capitalize on their current form and potentially give England an immediate offensive edge, surprising the opposition with a fresh approach. Their individual brilliance could be a powerful asset from the first whistle, rather than waiting for the second half. This move would also reward their consistent excellence and perhaps boost team morale by recognizing standout individual contributions.
Conversely, there are strong reasons to maintain their current role as impact substitutes. The most compelling argument against starting them is the potential disruption to an already successful and cohesive team structure. The current starting lineup has navigated England to the final, suggesting a chemistry and strategic balance that might be upset by significant changes. Furthermore, Agyemang and Kelly’s effectiveness often stems from their ability to exploit tiring defenses late in games. Their pace, power, and creativity can be amplified against fatigued opponents, making them invaluable assets off the bench. Starting them could mean their peak physical output occurs earlier in the match, potentially diminishing their ability to make game-winning contributions in the decisive final minutes. The coach must weigh the benefits of an early offensive burst against the proven tactical advantage of having two game-changers ready to unleash against an opponent already deep into the match. The decision hinges on whether the coach believes their sustained impact over ninety minutes outweighs their proven ability to be late-game difference-makers.
