The same can be said for Sven, but the difference is ofcourse that he never got to stroll all the way to the later rounds before losing to strong teams. In 2002 it was Brazil in the 2nd round and goodbye, in 2004 it was instantly Portugal and out, 2006 Portugal in the 2nd round and out again. Southgate would've lost to all those teams too, but he would've ended up like Turkey in 2002 and faced Brazil in the semis, and beaten South Korea to the bronze.
Exactly.
Sven only lost to very good teams, he was just unlucky with the draw and penalties. Southgate is lucky to have an even more talented English team in a time when the quality of other national teams declined considerably, and he gets easy draws on top of it.
Also Sven accumulated many impressive victories of the like that Southgate never had. In 2002 he beat and eliminated a very strong Bielsa-led Argentina (who were among the favorites to win the WC) in the group stage. He then breezed past Denmark in the round of 16 with a 3-0 demolition job, finishing the game in first half. In 2004 his England team made it look easy against Croatia (4-2 win) and Switzerland (3-0) in the group stage, and he was on the verge of beating France before Zidane scored 2 goals in stoppage time.
He lost to an all-time great Brazil team in a tight match and to a legendary Portugal generation twice on penalties. All of these losses are "better" than the losses Southgate had as well.
People saying that Southgate is the best England manager in recent time is ridiculous. Sven was clearly better once you compare their best victories. I don't see how Southgate gets out of the group of death that has Argentina, Sweden and Nigeria in it (the 2002 version of those teams).
The reason why Southgate gets (rightfully) criticized so much is because England is one of the rare national teams that has just as much or even more quality than in the 00s, while pretty much every other national team in Europe declined significantly since then, including the likes of France and Spain.
With the quality advantage that England has over almost any team, their fans should rightfully expect a Spain 2008-12 level of dominance or at least something similar to 2008-2014 Germany. Instead you get horrible defensive football and barely beating teams like Slovakia.
To claim that England has no "tradition of winning" is ridiculous too, because it's completely irrelevant. Teams change in football, the English teams that failed had completely different players. Spain had no tradition of winning before they went on their 2008-2012 run either, they were seen as even bigger bottlers than England now. It's all about the generation you have.