What? I can't tell if this is a joke or not.
Is Gareth Southgate a shiite England manager?
- Thread starter VP89
- Start date
Do you really think the England 11 was so much stronger than its US copycat? Apart of Kane being miles better than Wright, it’s pretty even on average.
They are not in the same division. The US starting team is bad.
Maybe so, we’ll probably just go out to annihilate poor old Wales next wk.
There's always a ridiculous sense of entitlement with England fans.But you can say this about every team that meets opponents of big quality. Take France or Spain and you can go some years back and say they lost to x and y.
You scored a lot of goals against Iran and you’re through already after 2 games. Some part of the traditional english fan base is just soooo moany and have never been satisfied with anything. Considering you’ve rarely been a great team combined, and havent won since 66 (The year Eric was born) your standard is somehow that you should reach the World cup or Euro finals and with many goals / great wins or else you’re shit.
The USA could easily have been a banana skin, they have a solid recent record against us so I understand the caution even if I dont like it.
Always found it hard to warm to Kane in an England shirt, he seems so predictable.
Of course he was. His job is to get us through the group, ideally at the top, not thrash the US, so job done. The most important thing in these games is Not. To. Lose. That is why we play the way we do, and frankly is why we've become quite adept at getting through to the later rounds.
If we were ever going to draw a game in the group, and odds were we would, then this was probably the best game to draw.
Last edited:
Regardless of if this is nonsense or not, USA didn't have a cluster of better and more in form attacking players sitting on their bench who their manager is too stupid to know what to do with.
Crazy to think, England will do shit all with him in charge only because he seems young and fresh looking manager, while he shit his pants on every occasion and goes regularly with questionable selections..
Alternatively he decided this wasn't the game where he needed to take that kind of risk. You can disagree with that approach but it's not stupid.
You can certainly argue that an approach that is good at getting us through to final stages might not be as good at winning tournaments and there is certainly evidence for that but not sure it is conclusive yet.
But you can say this about every team that meets opponents of big quality. Take France or Spain and you can go some years back and say they lost to x and y.
You scored a lot of goals against Iran and you’re through already after 2 games. Some part of the traditional english fan base is just soooo moany and have never been satisfied with anything. Considering you’ve rarely been a great team combined, and havent won since 66 (The year Eric was born
Probably a point in here somewhere but I also think England fans are aware that this team actually got to a WC semi final and a Euros final, and that if anything the quality of players is better now than either of those tournaments, particularly in the forward positions.
And yet England literally haven't won a single game against a credible opponent since the Euros, and have a manager who in spite of this sticks with the same out of form or under performing players, and doesn't seem to have a clue how he wants his team to play.
Its more a case that one win against Iran doesn't mask over 18 months of rubbish performances and directionless management.
The fact Sterling is still in the England team says it all to me. He was never that great to begin with and has been a passenger for absolutely ages. He's been forced to move clubs directly due to the fact that two players sat on the England bench are obviously better than him. It's not too much to ask that a person in charge of managing the players is able to recognise things like this and do his job properly.
No white text?
How exactly is putting your best players in your team and not picking people who continuously underperform a "risk"?
I think you're giving Southgate far too much credit if you think there is anything particularly calculated about it. He picked the same team as the last game because that is just what he always does.
He's just an England version of Ole
Yup.
All this "entitlement" bollocks people like to throw around is a joke too. Sorry, you stick to the wait and see attitude and not wanting better, I prefer to see my team at least trying to do something.
I don't mean to be rude, but how can anyone with a jot of knowledge about football have this sort of opinion? It's completely detached from the reality of the football landscape.
The notion that you have to be negative to be succesful is ridiculous, and some seem to be claiming exactly that.
Southgate is a nothing manager, he brings nothing to the table whatsoever, and the fact that he lets USA dictate the tempo of the game shows just what an excuse of manager he is.
He doesn't have individual quality that Deschamps had in Russia to bail him out. England attack is great, but they are mostly not Mbappe or Griezmann type of players, capable of beating world class teams on their own.
Southgate is a nothing manager, he brings nothing to the table whatsoever, and the fact that he lets USA dictate the tempo of the game shows just what an excuse of manager he is.
He doesn't have individual quality that Deschamps had in Russia to bail him out. England attack is great, but they are mostly not Mbappe or Griezmann type of players, capable of beating world class teams on their own.
It is not the US that are bad… they are decent indeed, because many players compete in Europe and know the game, they also run a lot. Therefore, if they exactly mirror the system of their oppos, you can’t expect to steamroll them like you did on naive Iran and will probably do on spent force Wales? It’s not rocket science.
Surprised there are people who actually defend him. He’s honestly fecking awful and our previous two tournament results were despite him (and when we faced any meaningful opposition we lost - e.g Belgium twice, Croatia and Italy).
Last night was a disgrace. Henderson coming on, leaving Mount and Kane on, etc. The issue is that it’s so predictable, he has zero killer instinct and is a total coward. He’ll be rightfully gone post world cup.
Last night was a disgrace. Henderson coming on, leaving Mount and Kane on, etc. The issue is that it’s so predictable, he has zero killer instinct and is a total coward. He’ll be rightfully gone post world cup.
I’m at the point where he’s holding England back purely because he’s got favourites. Mount and Kane should be no where the starting 11 at the moment. Mount simply isn’t good enough and Kane isn’t fit. Sterling is also questionable. You need to play players in form which means starting the likes of Rashford. Toney should have gone to the tournament.
I was surprised that England even got to a Final. What you can get with England is that they normally do not have crap days. They mostly play the same level and occasionally raise to a very high standard.
It is not the US that are bad… they are decent indeed, because many players compete in Europe and know the game, they also run a lot. Therefore, if they exactly mirror the system of their oppos, you can’t expect to steamroll them like you did on naive Iran and will probably do on spent force Wales? It’s not rocket science.
USA didn't mirror their approach at all. If that had been the case, worse copy would have lost easily, as had always been the case. USA tried to play the game on front foot as much as possible with the quality they had at their disposal, while England were content sitting back.
It's not his fault with the energy crisis and the war in Ukraine
I don't think it's entitlement either. It's just that most fand tend to want their team to do well and hope they can over achieve rather than under.
Plenty of tournaments I've gone into thinking England will do well to not embarrass themselves. This and the Euros I look at our players and now their experience as well, and think we actually have a chance of doing well
And tbf I thought Southgate's management at the Euros was shite. It just got overlooked because we got the results, but he repeatedly ignored that we looked far more effective with Grealish on the left, and then reduced our first major final in 50 years into deliberately gambling on a penalty shootout, even though his master plan for that was to get a teenager who'd never taken a penalty in their life to take the most high pressure one in the hidtory of English football.
Frankly he is an utter fecking idiot and if I was in charge I'd have sacked him after that.
I understand your point but unfortunately we've had quite a few crap days over the last year or so. In fact I would say crap is the current norm.
Southgate has run out of ideas, I think. He didn't have many to begin with, but the whole cultural reboot, team spirit thing was working. But I think we're at the point where it's the same old voice, same stale ideas. We have completely stagnated, if not gone backwards, and in that context the USA result is nothing but a continuation. It was actually banging in a few goals against Iran which was the mild surprise.
He took over when we were at a serious low ebb after the shambles of the Big Sam Liz Truss style reign and the complete disaster that was Roy Hodgson.
He was fortunate with the cup draws but England have had fortunate draws plenty of times and messed it up, seeing England regularly win knockout games under him has been nice. We'd won something like 3 in 30 years before he took over.
But his time is definitely up. If you go from the Euros final on it's been shit results and even worse performances now for 18 months. He's always been cautious but he's getting worse, he's so incredibly negative. We have so much attacking talent he's just totally wasting.
He'll set up for a point vs Wales I'm sure of it.
He was fortunate with the cup draws but England have had fortunate draws plenty of times and messed it up, seeing England regularly win knockout games under him has been nice. We'd won something like 3 in 30 years before he took over.
But his time is definitely up. If you go from the Euros final on it's been shit results and even worse performances now for 18 months. He's always been cautious but he's getting worse, he's so incredibly negative. We have so much attacking talent he's just totally wasting.
He'll set up for a point vs Wales I'm sure of it.
England team's market value is worth 6-7 times US team's
Why can't England ever take the handbrake off and just go out to beat everyone? They have the players to do so. Doesn't winning breed confidence? The best players in the squad are attacking players, just have the confidence to go and win games with an attacking identity rather than trying to play your way cautiously through each round. It's an attitude England refuse to adopt in any tournament, despite the cautious approach eventually failing every single time.
Seems a fair estimate to me
The English Ole. Another one that is seriously lucky to have such a big gig, despite looking absolutely clueless.
He was made to look better then he his because he took us on that run in the last tournament but that’s only because we had the easiest route and we still messed it up.
Honestly, how is Mount starting over Foden?
What? You're either trolling or you're a deluded USA fan. Most of the USA starting 11 play in the MLS which is a much inferior league to the EPL where our national team players are based.
Oh really, then why are most of that team in the MLS?
Only 1 from the starting 11 was in the mls
For me this isn’t even up for debate. I mean if you have the most basic of football knowledge, it’s blindingly obvious he’s inept.
Some of the arguments in defence of Southgate are utterly inane. Most sound like a child has constructed them, certainly those trying to claim the USA squad is of equal quality to England.
Arguably the World’s best manager selects Foden week in week out, but Southgate doesn’t deem him good enough to even come on as a sub. So who’s more likely to be at fault here? Pep Guardiola or Gareth Southgate. If you’re going to turn around to me and say “Foden doesn’t fit the system”, then the system is terrible. Any manager implementing a system which can’t utilise your best player needs sacking.
Sterling was so clearly ineffective on the left hand side yesterday it shouldn’t have taken until the 68th minute to take him off. And don’t get me started on Mason Mount making it the full 90. Using only 3 of the 5 available subs when performing so abjectly is also a sign of utter incompetence.
He’s holding this set of players back. We have such quality and depth, of which we’ve not seen for a long time, if ever. We will never win anything under him.
It’s so disheartening to see such a mediocre excuse for a manager leading this squad.
Some of the arguments in defence of Southgate are utterly inane. Most sound like a child has constructed them, certainly those trying to claim the USA squad is of equal quality to England.
Arguably the World’s best manager selects Foden week in week out, but Southgate doesn’t deem him good enough to even come on as a sub. So who’s more likely to be at fault here? Pep Guardiola or Gareth Southgate. If you’re going to turn around to me and say “Foden doesn’t fit the system”, then the system is terrible. Any manager implementing a system which can’t utilise your best player needs sacking.
Sterling was so clearly ineffective on the left hand side yesterday it shouldn’t have taken until the 68th minute to take him off. And don’t get me started on Mason Mount making it the full 90. Using only 3 of the 5 available subs when performing so abjectly is also a sign of utter incompetence.
He’s holding this set of players back. We have such quality and depth, of which we’ve not seen for a long time, if ever. We will never win anything under him.
It’s so disheartening to see such a mediocre excuse for a manager leading this squad.
man for man, absolutely.
Timothy Weah wouldn't get in a premier League team.
Pulisic simply isn't as good as basically any of the top 5 English attacking midfielders without even getting into the Foden debate
Tyler Adams wasn't good enough for -Leeds United-.
It's harder to compare the likes of Dest and McKennie, coming from other leagues as they do, but Josh Sargent came on for the United States, while England had Rashford on the bench, Sancho at home, etc etc. I think it's going to be incomparable what those players go on to achieve in their careers Vs their opponents last night.
But USA ran the game and battered England, and it wasn't because they played particularly well. England genuinely looked badly coached and lethargic. They looked like we did under Solskjaer, no drive to get forward whatsoever.
But as I said before Southgate is the sort of manager that will play for a 0-0 quite happily when it suits him, and has never and will never win a single thing in his career.
"battered"? They had 1 shot on goal (to England's 3) and less possession.
It was a shit game and I would say that USA were better but "battered"? You could have stuck me in goal for England and the result would not have been any different!
If you're gonna talk shit at least get your facts straight. Only Zimmerman (starting due to player injuries ahead of him) plays in the MLS.