IF the ongoing debate around the make-up of the England team has taught us anything, it is that one person’s stability is another’s stagnation. Or perhaps, when it comes to Gareth Southgate, stability can simply be read as stubbornness.

Both of England’s last two matches, against Italy and Germany, can be split into two distinct parts. There was Part A, which lasted for an hour or so in both games, and which saw Southgate set up his side with the formation and personnel with which he clearly feels most comfortable.

Five at the back, with two central midfielders sitting deep. Soak up opposition pressure, then look to break on the counter-attack with a couple of attacking midfielders supporting Harry Kane. Look to pose a threat from set-pieces, but above all else, keep things tight.

It was the tactical template England adopted for the majority of their matches in the last two major tournaments, which Southgate can rightly hail as successes given they saw his side reach the semi-finals of the World Cup and the final of the European Championships. However, it has often been criticised for being too negative, and in all six of England’s Nations League matches, it can strongly be argued that it was found wanting. Hence the eventual switch to Plan B.

That Plan B came into play in the final 20 minutes of Friday’s defeat at the San Siro and the last half-hour of Monday’s 3-3 draw with Germany at Wembley. It involved a change of formation in Italy, with England switching to four at the back, and a shift in mindset and personnel at Wembley, with Southgate instructing his players to play higher up the pitch and introducing attacking substitutes eager to break into the 18-yard box.

It could be described as England playing with the handbrake off, and while it led to defensive issues – most notably in Milan, where Southgate’s side were wide open in the closing stages and could easily have conceded a second goal – it unquestionably made England a much more potent attacking force, as highlighted by the three goals in 11 minutes that turned Monday’s game on its head.

Speak to most England supporters, not to mention a large number of commentators and pundits, and they will argue Plan B is the way to go at the World Cup. Given the players at Southgate’s disposal, England’s main strengths should lie in attack, but they are diminished when the team lines up with five at the back and are forced to adopt a conservative mindset.

Southgate argues the opposite, and it is now abundantly clear that he is willing to stand or fall on his convictions when it comes to England’s World Cup campaign in Qatar. The England boss knows there is a chorus of voices demanding he changes tack. If anything, though, that only appears to have made him even more determined to stick to his guns.

“Of course, we have to improve in certain areas,” said Southgate, in the wake of Monday’s final outing before England’s opening World Cup group game against Iran on November 21. “But we weren’t going to rip things up and make eight changes, throwing everything up in the air, because we believe in what we’re doing.

“Whether people believe in it or not, we’re sticking with what we believe, and I think the players took that on board and recognised we’re only a few months away from a World Cup.

“I’ve got to accept there’s going to be a huge amount of noise around individual selections, team selections, but if I’m going to be wishy-washy and not stick to what I think is right and gives us the best chance of winning, it’s pointless me doing it.”

In particular, Southgate’s faith in playing with five at the back remains unshaken, with the England boss clearly feeling his side needs the protection afforded by the presence of a third centre-half.

Yes, that means an extra attacking midfielder has to be taken out of the equation, but having watched his team be carved open at will in a number of his early matches as England manager, Southgate evidently continues to feel that playing with a flat back four would leave his side far too vulnerable to opposition attacks.

Is that still the case for World Cup group games against Iran, the US and Wales? With less than two months to go until the finals, it would appear so.

“I don’t think the system was responsible for any of the goals (against Germany),” he argued. “We were a bit naïve on the counter-attack for the second, and the first and third were individual errors. What pleased me was the threat we looked playing that system (with five at the back). People are going to have an opinion, but I think it’s the best way for us.”

Southgate’s faith in Harry Maguire also remains unshaken, and with that in mind, the former Middlesbrough boss will have been delighted with the way in which his players immediately rallied around the under-fire centre-half in the wake of his error-strewn display against Germany.

The fostering of a closely-knit group and development of a ‘Club England’ ethos have been key tenets of Southgate’s reign, and the England boss was delighted to see his players hold a private team meeting in the wake of the Italy defeat, a move that strengthened his confidence that they can haul themselves out of their current rut.

"That was such a positive sign,” he said. “We've been through moments like this before and the message is that we’ve got to work through it.”