You’ve misinterpreted what I mean by performance. I thought it was obvious from the context, but nonetheless….what I meant was his job performance vis a vis results. Not a qualitative analysis of team performance on the pitch, but rather a quantitative look at the results and stages he reached in major tournaments.
Did Southgate "achieve something arguably more important, than winning a tournament"?
- Thread starter Red Star One
- Start date
Granted, although, the odds on the next manager replicating Southgate's three-tournament run of fixtures is very slim indeed. Any potential comparisons to Southgate's quantitative sample will have to factor in the likeihood of future tournament fixtures becoming more balanced in quality during knockout phases. I do also believe that the next manager will have problems dealing with a regressing Harry Kane, since alternatives in Watkins and Toney are themselves in their latter prime years.
The Tunisia performance was crap. It very much looked like "same old England" opening a World Cup campaign by scraping through against weak opposition.
Regardless of that, seven of those teams were objectively shit (Panama, Tunisia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Iran, Wales and Senegal), four of them were okay (Sweden, Croatia, Germany and Denmark), and the one good team (France) we lost to. It's hardly a ringing endorsement that he (largely) only got us playing against the crap teams, but couldn't get a performance out of us against the other teams we played in major tournaments with him in charge (Belgium, Colombia, Croatia, Scotland, Italy, USA, Serbia, Denmark, Slovenia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Netherlands, Spain).
Considering Tunisia wasn't a good performance, that's 11 good performances (six of which were against shit teams, and the only good team beat us anyway) vs 14 not-good performances (15 if you include the play-off in 2018).
For me trophy followed by style of play. If neither then it's a failure in my eyes.
It's not like Southgate team is playing mouth watering football.
It's not like Southgate team is playing mouth watering football.
He’s a lucky man and sometimes that’s all you need in internationals. England hasn’t even played well during the actual tournaments and they lucked their way into the later stages of the tournament despite underwhelming performances.
And his luck run out in the final.
Bingo, he has a squad full of attacking talents and he regressed them by playing passive, late subs and going negative again when England are up.
The most damning thing about Southgate’s time for me is that despite how unbelievably lucky he was, he still managed to win feck all. The guy is just a born loser.
I feel like he did a good job de-toxifying the setup so the next person in will probably reap the benefits.
Tactically he wasn't a good manager but I feel he did a good job overall. Played favourites a bit too much also.
Tactically he wasn't a good manager but I feel he did a good job overall. Played favourites a bit too much also.
England had been hit and miss for literally their entire existence in tournament football, other than one tournament at home. There's no evidence to say they should be winning anything.
“he deserved to win” 
He didn't. He has been holding an amazing team back, and England certainly did not 'deserve' to win the tournament. Southgate was lucky to be bailed out by moments of individual quality until the final, chance creation was non-existant even against a string of poor teams.
He’s done a lot of good things for the England team. His strengths certainly don’t lie in tactical nous though and ultimately that is why England have come up short twice in finals.
I genuinely do understand the clamour for an English manage now, whereas before I thought it was a load of crap. I don’t think think Sven or Capello really got the culture of the team right or maybe understood the individual needs of players, which is what Southgate has excelled at.
I genuinely do understand the clamour for an English manage now, whereas before I thought it was a load of crap. I don’t think think Sven or Capello really got the culture of the team right or maybe understood the individual needs of players, which is what Southgate has excelled at.
I don't think the shortcomings of Sven and Capello had anything to do with them being foreign.
Sven was unprofessional, and we heard just as much about his extra-marital activities as we did about his plans for the team. He was also the anti-Southgate when it came to "luck of the draw".
Capello was a miserable bastard who (seemingly) made next to no effort to actually learn English. He was also hamstrung by the players available largely being shit. We were lamenting the absence of Gareth Barry, Aaron Lennon was our number 7, and there was little controversy in Emile Heskey being selected as a starter up-front.
I’m not saying that a foreign manager cant do the job, but i think it’s more of a challenge for them. Do you think De La Fuente wins Euro 24 as England manager?
There’s loads of stories about Capello’s man management, yet he was very successful in Italian football. Cultural differences are quite important. feck Gareth Barry, he could have played Carrick who was playing centre mid for a team that got to the champions league final three times in four years. That’s not a good defence of Capello at all.
We’ll no doubt be bitching about having such an amazing squad as we crash out of the next few tournaments.