Is Gareth Southgate a shiite England manager?

Solid result, but it’s a game any England manager should be winning with the current players at their disposal.

But fair fecks to the guy, you can only beat who’s in front of you.

Whatever the outcome of this WC, I’d really like to see Southgate move on afterwards.

Just because I feel his cycle is done now with England and I’d like to see this great generation of players under a fresh coach. He should move on after this imo - hopefully with a trophy!
 
The answer to this question basically lives and dies on the France game really doesn't it?

But despite the consistency, winning a World Cup shootout and beating Germany again in a knockout game. I'm still somewhat mixed on the matter, until he beats France... down to the fact that however you swing it, he's still only won games when pretty heavily favoured, even the Germany game, and lost 2... while again, (heavily so for Croatia) favoured. He's not played a single knockout game as an underdog going in... until next week, that's some luxury 3 tournaments in as an England manager.

Also the fact that despite the talent, other nations don't fear England the way England casually fear them. I mean, England has a casual rotation of forwards who are all looking lively and in form as well as the likely young player of the tournament in Bellingham, and France don't give a feck.
 
Zen said:
The answer to this question basically lives and dies on the France game really doesn't it?

But despite the consistency, winning a World Cup shootout and beating Germany again in a knockout game. I'm still somewhat mixed on the matter, until he beats France... down to the fact that however you swing it, he's still only won games when pretty heavily favoured, even the Germany game, and lost 2... while again, (heavily so for Croatia) favoured. He's not played a single knockout game as an underdog going in... until next week, that's some luxury 3 tournaments in as an England manager.

Also the fact that despite the talent, other nations don't fear England the way England casually fear them. I mean, England has a casual rotation of forwards who are all looking lively and in form as well as the likely young player of the tournament in Bellingham, and France don't give a feck.
Click to expand...

They might after this game. It really does feel like a legacy defining game for him, but I wouldn't say it's entirely dependent on winning it. There's only so much he can do once the game starts. If Walker is injured after 1 minute and Mbappe suddenly plays at his best, it will be harsh to call him a failure if England come close.
 
What he is really good at is ensuring a high base level where there probably won't be an upset in an England game. You'll win the games you should, comfortably even. A lot rides on this France game though. Even if you lose, there's a way to lose where he can go out with his head held high, or he can lose where everyone will point the finger at him being too negative in the game.
 
bosnian_red said:
What he is really good at is ensuring a high base level where there probably won't be an upset in an England game. You'll win the games you should, comfortably even. A lot rides on this France game though. Even if you lose, there's a way to lose where he can go out with his head held high, or he can lose where everyone will point the finger at him being too negative in the game.
Click to expand...
Tbh you could say the aame thing about Pep Guardiola.
 
pierrethesnack said:
They might after this game. It really does feel like a legacy defining game for him, but I wouldn't say it's entirely dependent on winning it. There's only so much he can do once the game starts. If Walker is injured after 1 minute and Mbappe suddenly plays at his best, it will be harsh to call him a failure if England come close.
Click to expand...

Yet England judge Sven as a failure for similar losses… Brazil, Rooney injured, Rooney red card… close losses.

If Walker gets injured, he still took an injured injury prone player and started him etc. He’s absurdly been lucky with injuries though, in that they’ve come from the area England are ludicrously stacked.
 
FlapR said:
Clearly a good manager. Miles better than having one that can't even speak English. The same goes for any country, I think every manager should be from their native land when it comes to International football.
Click to expand...
I think... I think... nationalism comes first.
Albeit Greece agree to disagree.
 
Good win but still things to work on. It shouldn’t take a goal for England to suddenly wake up. They’re terrible until they score and then they suddenly remember how to play. He’s very lucky Senegal didn’t score in the first 30 minutes when England were quite frankly shocking and being overrun in every department.
 
France is the first good team we have faced, and that usually spells doom for Southgate. Hes got to avoid his natural inclination to go ultra defensive and put us on the back foot, but does he have the ability to go out and actually play against a team like France. Still, get past them and there's a very real chance we could win it due to the low level of quality in the competition this year.

We've got some fantastic players and I'll be furious if we waste another generation with shite managers.
 
This French side are probably the hardest team he’s had to face in his entire managerial career with England which goes a lot to say how lucky England have been in draws and who they have come up against.

I don’t remember a period as an England fan where we’ve had so many dross teams to play in a row.
 
Still a useless plonker and the France game will prove it.
 
Everyone pretending that if we beat France the second after the match ends they won't be dismissing the achievement by claiming France aren't as good as they used to be, is adorable.
 
Zen said:
The answer to this question basically lives and dies on the France game really doesn't it?

But despite the consistency, winning a World Cup shootout and beating Germany again in a knockout game. I'm still somewhat mixed on the matter, until he beats France... down to the fact that however you swing it, he's still only won games when pretty heavily favoured, even the Germany game, and lost 2... while again, (heavily so for Croatia) favoured. He's not played a single knockout game as an underdog going in... until next week, that's some luxury 3 tournaments in as an England manager.

Also the fact that despite the talent, other nations don't fear England the way England casually fear them. I mean, England has a casual rotation of forwards who are all looking lively and in form as well as the likely young player of the tournament in Bellingham, and France don't give a feck.
Click to expand...

I think people look at the casual rotation of forwards and decide that England have a great squad. While the attacking players are indeed good but the rest of the squad is not great at all and having great attacking players is pointless if you can’t keep the ball or get them the ball in the right areas
 
11101 said:
France is the first good team we have faced, and that usually spells doom for Southgate. Hes got to avoid his natural inclination to go ultra defensive and put us on the back foot, but does he have the ability to go out and actually play against a team like France. Still, get past them and there's a very real chance we could win it due to the low level of quality in the competition this year.

We've got some fantastic players and I'll be furious if we waste another generation with shite managers.
Click to expand...

What, you think if that becomes a loose run-and-gun game where both sides go full tilt, England's going to profit from that?

That won't, and shouldn't, happen. Because France has a better quality XI on an individual basis, in particular how their attackers match up individually against England's defenders. If England has an advantage it's that they're a better collective, and if they lose structure they're dead. They'll play a careful game designed to minimise risk, and trust in their ability to exploit mistakes and set-pieces. What else can they do - do you think Maguire and Stones are going to close down the middle effectively if they're frequently left to their own devices to deal with deep runs and quick counters from that French team? Wouldn't be at all surprised if there's a back 3.
 
Last edited:
Ayush_reddevil said:
I think people look at the casual rotation of forwards and decide that England have a great squad. While the attacking players are indeed good but the rest of the squad is not great at all and having great attacking players is pointless if you can’t keep the ball or get them the ball in the right areas
Click to expand...
I disagree with this, yes the attackers are great, but a midfield trio of Henderson, Rice and Bellingham is absolutely world class as well, with the ability to bring on Philips, Gallagher and Mount, who admittedly are a step down on the starters but are all excellent prem level players.

Our full backs are strong, Shaw is in great form, Walker is strong, I would always trust Tripper as well, but defence is our weakest part, they're operating well together at the moment but and injury or a suspension could be an issue.

We are far more than some good attackers, good enough for France? We'll see but they should be as nervous of us as we are of them.
 
Zen said:
The answer to this question basically lives and dies on the France game really doesn't it?

But despite the consistency, winning a World Cup shootout and beating Germany again in a knockout game. I'm still somewhat mixed on the matter, until he beats France... down to the fact that however you swing it, he's still only won games when pretty heavily favoured, even the Germany game, and lost 2... while again, (heavily so for Croatia) favoured. He's not played a single knockout game as an underdog going in... until next week, that's some luxury 3 tournaments in as an England manager.

Also the fact that despite the talent, other nations don't fear England the way England casually fear them. I mean, England has a casual rotation of forwards who are all looking lively and in form as well as the likely young player of the tournament in Bellingham, and France don't give a feck.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you've noticed, but Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Belgium and Portugal have all lost against so-called "less-favored teams" this tournament. That adds up to pretty much "every big team", except England and Netherlands. So the notion that how you do in such games is somehow irrelevant because it's no more than you'd expect is maybe more than a little exaggerated....

Also, having to win a knockout game as an underdog is a fairly odd criterion for approval. Surely if you're facing what you judge to be a better team, you can not reasonably demand to win.

Whatever success Southgate achieves will go largely unappreciated - and will be more than you lot deserve.
 
I didn't watch the game, but on paper at least that is what I consider England's strongest line-up. Left wing is obviously up for grabs by about four players, but otherwise he shouldn't be changing anything.

A midfield of Rice-Henderson-Bellingham just provides a solid base that everything can rotate around. It works against both weak and strong teams, so none of this sudden changing of formation because you're scared of the opposition.

As I said I didn't actually watch the game, so did it work as well as what I think it should have worked?
 
justsomebloke said:
What, you think if that becomes a loose run-and-gun game where both sides go full tilt, England's going to profit from that?

That won't, and shouldn't, happen. Because France has a better quality XI on an individual basis, in particular how their attackers match up individually against England's defenders. If England has an advantage it's that they're a better collective, and if they lose structure they're dead. They'll play a careful game designed to minimise risk, and trust in their ability to exploit mistakes and set-pieces. What else can they do - do you think Maguire and Stones are going to close down the middle effectively if they're frequently left to their own devices to deal with deep runs and quick counters from that French team? Wouldn't be at all surprised if there's a back 3.
Click to expand...

We have the players to go toe to toe with France, just like we did Italy in the Euros, but we bottled it and left half of them on the bench out of fear.

It was a huge thing for Southgate to move to one defensive midfielder. If we go back to his preferred back 7 we still won't stop France, but we won't have a hope of scoring ourselves either.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Solid result, but it’s a game any England manager should be winning with the current players at their disposal.

But fair fecks to the guy, you can only beat who’s in front of you.

Whatever the outcome of this WC, I’d really like to see Southgate move on afterwards.

Just because I feel his cycle is done now with England and I’d like to see this great generation of players under a fresh coach. He should move on after this imo - hopefully with a trophy!
Click to expand...

Yep this all over although if England somehow manage to beat France, I can see him staying until the next tournament.
 
MadDogg said:
I didn't watch the game, but on paper at least that is what I consider England's strongest line-up. Left wing is obviously up for grabs by about four players, but otherwise he shouldn't be changing anything.

A midfield of Rice-Henderson-Bellingham just provides a solid base that everything can rotate around. It works against both weak and strong teams, so none of this sudden changing of formation because you're scared of the opposition.

As I said I didn't actually watch the game, so did it work as well as what I think it should have worked?
Click to expand...

Yep credit where it's due, Henderson has looked good and 4-3-3 is definitly the way to go against France. The only spot really up for grabs is Saka's as apart from the goal, he didn't really offer a threat down the right side. I think Foden and Rashford swapping flanks against Wales worked better.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
This French side are probably the hardest team he’s had to face in his entire managerial career with England which goes a lot to say how lucky England have been in draws and who they have come up against.

I don’t remember a period as an England fan where we’ve had so many dross teams to play in a row.
Click to expand...

This is rubbish.

We were getting pumped out by Iceland a few year back. Before that we couldn’t get out of the World Cup group phase.

Southgate is a pragmatist and that has always been his undoing; it probably will be again next weekend. But let’s not give him pelters for things that are simply not the case.
 
Lots of pretty negative posts about Gareth Southgate. And nothing new about that.
For what it is worth, my thoughts:

He is very good at creating the right environment such that playing for England is more like playing for a club team.
Previously, a number of players didn't want to play for the national team because of the toxic atmosphere. All of that has changed. And that in my opinion is a huge plus.

He is good at understand the requirements of tournament football as opposed to individual friendlies.

He is more tactically astute than many give him credit for.

He is not afraid to make the big calls if he feels they are needed.

Yes of course there are some negatives. Assuming you class caution and patience as negatives. And he doesn't get everything right. Who does.
And yes, a great deal depends on the outcome of the France game.
But win or lose, he is nothing like as bad as some are making out. In my opinion.
 
balaks said:
Senegal are African champions and the USA are a good side as well.
Click to expand...

And again, the whole notion that if it's not top tier then it isn't any real achievement to win is just preposterous, and speaks to the fantastical, cloud cuckoo land assumptions a lot of England fans have. There are exactly two teams in this tournament who have gone undefeated in 4 games (and only three even in 3 games, unless I'm forgetting something), and England is one of them. And that's not because of not having faced top competition. Argentina lost to Saudi Arabia. Germany lost to Japan. Belgium lost to Morocco. France lost to Tunisia. Spain lost to Japan. Portugal lost to South Korea. Brazil lost to Cameroon. You'd think it'd be fairly obvious by now that beating small sides isn't something that occurs naturally, barring catastrophic and exceptional ineptitude. Nearly all sides in the World Cup are actually not easy to beat, in any individual game.
 
justsomebloke said:
Whatever success Southgate achieves will go largely unappreciated - and will be more than you lot deserve.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear now that he will not come away from this job with any credit in the bank, almost regardless of what happens. Usually the cafe is quite extreme in its criticism level compared to what I see elsewhere, but not in this case.
 
Bilbo said:
It's pretty clear now that he will not come away from this job with any credit in the bank, almost regardless of what happens. Usually the cafe is quite extreme in its criticism level compared to what I see elsewhere, but not in this case.
Click to expand...

Sadly I think that's true.
 
Bilbo said:
It's pretty clear now that he will not come away from this job with any credit in the bank, almost regardless of what happens. Usually the cafe is quite extreme in its criticism level compared to what I see elsewhere, but not in this case.
Click to expand...

He will get a lot of credit if he beats France from pretty much everyone.
 
justsomebloke said:
Sadly I think that's true.
Click to expand...

It really is. I see it in the pubs. On my WhatsApp groups. Not just the cafe.

Even if we manage to win this thing the over riding opinion will be 'we are that good we can even win a world cup with Gareth in charge'
 
Bilbo said:
It's pretty clear now that he will not come away from this job with any credit in the bank, almost regardless of what happens. Usually the cafe is quite extreme in its criticism level compared to what I see elsewhere, but not in this case.
Click to expand...
Ironically it is this post that's extreme.

Im one of his biggest critics but Il be first in the line to praise him if he beats France.
 
justsomebloke said:
What, you think if that becomes a loose run-and-gun game where both sides go full tilt, England's going to profit from that?

That won't, and shouldn't, happen. Because France has a better quality XI on an individual basis, in particular how their attackers match up individually against England's defenders. If England has an advantage it's that they're a better collective, and if they lose structure they're dead. They'll play a careful game designed to minimise risk, and trust in their ability to exploit mistakes and set-pieces. What else can they do - do you think Maguire and Stones are going to close down the middle effectively if they're frequently left to their own devices to deal with deep runs and quick counters from that French team? Wouldn't be at all surprised if there's a back 3.
Click to expand...
Agreed. As a neutral though I just hope there's an early goal in the game.
 
Idxomer said:
He will get a lot of credit if he beats France from pretty much everyone.
Click to expand...

If people were remotely reasonable, he'd be a national hero if they beat France, and get an approving nod for the tournament if they don't. Because France is one of maybe two teams who have actually looked stronger than England in this tournament, and there is no good reason why England should be expected to win that game.

Instead, he'll get at best grudging and temporary non-enmity if they win, and a shitstorm of abuse if they lose. If the unthinkable happens and France fall apart and England romp to a 4-0 win, that'll only make it worse - people will take that as the new norm, and as proof Southgate have been far too conservative in his approach all along.

I support England, but I'm not having any part of that.
 
What’s the yardstick for judging Southgate? Elite level manager material or previous England managers? If the former, then he is obviously lacking but then so are the all other managers left at this WC bar Luis Enrique. If the latter, then he’s clearly a very good England manager and has done a better job than anyone since at least Venables and Robson. The culture around the squad is very positive (unlike most of the last 20 years), he makes a genuine effort to adapt tactics and create a cohesive team (not just phoning in a 4-4-2 with his biggest name players) and he makes qualification (for both tournaments and knock out stages) look easy. People need to think back just how awful England were at WC 2010 or 2014 (even 2006 was painful to watch most of the time despite the quality of player available).
 
Not a fan of Southgate and don't think he can achieve much if he ever ventures into club management. But no point dismissing his current achievements. Semi final in 2018 and a shootout away from Euro victories is pretty phenomenal to be honest.

This England team is doing much better that its predecessors and there's no evidence that the players are better than the previous generation. Think England having a manager who isn't the biggest ego and has media on his side is actually working out well. Naturally, international football does rely on fine margins and a bit of luck but that's the case with every successful national team/coach.
 
You can't argue with his record can you. Yes we have had some luck with draws in both the world cup 2018 and Euro 20. But bear in mind that we were very unfancied in 2018 with many claiming the squad was the worst we ever sent to a world cup beforehand, and we were a penalty shootout away from winning the Euros.

Not bad for a shite manager. The France game is the test now. I think he has found something that really suits us with that midfield three, not necceserialy gonna be able to control possession with passing but they are able to exert control to an extent with a relentless counter press. Sort of liverpool style midfield before Thiago.

I think that is the way to play for England going forward with the players at out disposal. It will carry risk though but I don't think we are good enough defensively even going with a back five to keep good teams our consistently and sit back all game looking to counter. And think we have to carry some Risk and impose a high intensity game on the opposition, look to blow teams away in 20 minute spells.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.