Is Gareth Southgate a shiite England manager?



Sticking six past both Panama and Iran certainly help the goal statistics, but not much more.

In my view, he got way too much credit for the 2018 World Cup. England didn't beat a single quality side in that tournament, and lost as many games as they won. In the 2020 Euro they played some dire stuff in the group stages if memory serves, and it was partly down to his cowardly tactics that they threw away a winning position in the final at home against a fairly ordinary Italy side.

Shite is probably a bit harsh, but he's certainly been average.
 
Sticking six past both Panama and Iran certainly help the goal statistics, but not much more.

In my view, he got way too much credit for the 2018 World Cup. England didn't beat a single quality side in that tournament, and lost as many games as they won. In the 2020 Euro they played some dire stuff in the group stages if memory serves, and it was partly down to his cowardly tactics that they threw away a winning position in the final at home against a fairly ordinary Italy side.

Shite is probably a bit harsh, but he's certainly been average.
 
This narrative that he’s shite needs to stop.





Honestly. This generational thing is just nonsense.
The most important thing is being able to create a national team from a group of disparate players used to playing for different clubs under different managers employing different tactics and methods week in week out.
Then the manager of the national team gets them together once in a blue moon for a few days before the World Cup.

Just look at Belgium for example. Talk about golden generations.
 
Honestly. This generational thing is just nonsense.
The most important thing is being able to create a national team from a group of disparate players used to playing for different clubs under different managers employing different tactics and methods week in week out.
Then the manager of the national team gets them together once in a blue moon for a few days before the World Cup.

Just look at Belgium for example. Talk about golden generations.

Yeah, you would think this is the first time we’ve ever had a promising squad of players. We’re usually a strong team on paper more often than not, that has rarely translated to decent performances and results.
 
Those statistics are meaningless without context.

We hardly played any of the big nations and when we did we lost, it’s like pulling up PSG stats from Ligue 1.

Just typical overhyping and hyperbole around winning a run of games against weak or shit opposition.

You constantly see other big nations with good teams in relatively difficult groups and we haven’t had one in about 10 years in both the World Cup and euros and we’ve always got a relatively good draw in the next round.

I’m not giving any praise to Southgate until we see something Vs France that shows a step up.
 
Yeah, you would think this is the first time we’ve ever had a promising squad of players. We’re usually a strong team on paper more often than not, that has rarely translated to decent performances and results.

Exactly that.
 
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.

No, you really don't. Specifically, you do not have the defenders to go toe to toe with France's attackers. If you get the kind of game where Mbappe or Dembele or Griezmann get a chance to finish provided one French attacker wins a one-on-one against a defender, you will lose. Badly. Walker isn't going to quench Mbappe on his own. Shaw isn't going to quench Dembele on his own. Maguire and Stones are going to get overrun if they end up having to deal on their own with the fallout of French breakthroughs down the flank and through the middle. I don't see how Southgate has any other option than prioritising defensive control, which means creating defensive overload conditions that ensures that if someone gets beaten individually, there's always backup coverage. He'd be a fool not to.
 
Those statistics are meaningless without context.

We hardly played any of the big nations and when we did we lost, it’s like pulling up PSG stats from Ligue 1.

Just typical overhyping and hyperbole around winning a run of games against weak or shit opposition.

You constantly see other big nations with good teams in relatively difficult groups and we haven’t had one in about 10 years in both the World Cup and euros and we’ve always got a relatively good draw in the next round.

I’m not giving any praise to Southgate until we see something Vs France that shows a step up.

The statistics are even more meaningless when the "context" is confirmation bias bonanza, fuelled by a truly delusional level of expectation. What you're saying is that really good results in three major tournaments count for nothing, and that it all comes down to the result in a single game, against a team that is probably better than them?
 
interested in whether he stays or goes after this WC, I don’t think it’ll be this tournament but a trophy is coming in the next few tournaments with how many players England are producing
 
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.

England have got a fantastic crop of young players coming through, which is nothing to do with Southgate. Also Hodgson was a fecking disaster of a coach, let's not forget (FA extending his contract after the 2014 WC is Ed Woodward level decision making). The "golden generation" in the early 00's is comparable in my opinion, but again we were arguably hampered with an average manager in Sven. Southgate undeniably has a fantastic tournament record on paper, but it's also true that he has lost to every top tier team he’s faced. Belgium twice and Croatia in 2018 and Italy (somehow) in the last Euros. He did admittedly beat Germany, but they were shocking and have lost to everyone. The road to both the semis in 2018 and the final at Euro 2020 was incredibly fortunate - you just have to compare the teams that France beat on the way to the final in 2018 to see the mismatch in quality. Italy managed to beat Belgium and Spain.

Southgate has had a disastrous year as England manager pre tournament, e.g. relegated in the nations league with some absolutely dire displays (Hungary 4-0). The overarching issue with him is that he has an unbelievably exciting squad but is tactically rubbish. If he does the business against France I'll happily reappraise, but so far until next Saturday all of England's success has been in spite of him, not because of him. Fundamentally though, not a single premier league fan would want him as their manager.

And just to finish - I actually think he's done relatively well this tournament bar the USA game. Good game management etc but again - battering Iran and Wales is one thing, Senegal was more impressive (albeit they should have been 2-0 up in the first 30) but France is up there with Brazil. Not a harder match at the tournament. Hope he fights the urge to be a negative twat!
 
interested in whether he stays or goes after this WC, I don’t think it’ll be this tournament but a trophy is coming in the next few tournaments with how many players England are producing
If England beat France they should just keep him. There really isn’t anyone better out there who isn’t already at a top club job.
 


I'm not sure what the point is?

He has improved results for sure, and for that reason I don't think it's fair to call him shite. These improvements obviously come relative to a pretty horrendous baseline. The question is, if he has gotten enough out of the opportunities that he has had. I think that's questionable. For a country like England the minimum expectation is qualifying easily, getting out of the group stage and probably winning 1-2 knock-out games depending on the draws. This is roughly how he has performed, but he failed to capitalize on England's best shot at a trophy in +50 years.

I don't think he has been shite or great - just ok.
 
England have got a fantastic crop of young players coming through, which is nothing to do with Southgate. Also Hodgson was a fecking disaster of a coach, let's not forget (FA extending his contract after the 2014 WC is Ed Woodward level decision making). The "golden generation" in the early 00's is comparable in my opinion, but again we were arguably hampered with an average manager in Sven. Southgate undeniably has a fantastic tournament record on paper, but it's also true that he has lost to every top tier team he’s faced. Belgium twice and Croatia in 2018 and Italy (somehow) in the last Euros. He did admittedly beat Germany, but they were shocking and have lost to everyone. The road to both the semis in 2018 and the final at Euro 2020 was incredibly fortunate - you just have to compare the teams that France beat on the way to the final in 2018 to see the mismatch in quality. Italy managed to beat Belgium and Spain.

Southgate has had a disastrous year as England manager pre tournament, e.g. relegated in the nations league with some absolutely dire displays (Hungary 4-0). The overarching issue with him is that he has an unbelievably exciting squad but is tactically rubbish. If he does the business against France I'll happily reappraise, but so far until next Saturday all of England's success has been in spite of him, not because of him. Fundamentally though, not a single premier league fan would want him as their manager.

And just to finish - I actually think he's done relatively well this tournament bar the USA game. Good game management etc but again - battering Iran and Wales is one thing, Senegal was more impressive (albeit they should have been 2-0 up in the first 30) but France is up there with Brazil. Not a harder match at the tournament. Hope he fights the urge to be a negative twat!

He’s obviously not tactically rubbish. You don’t reach semis, finals, and quarters while being tactically rubbish. Nobody is saying he’s up there with the top managers of our time but to state the overused cliche of “in spite of him” is ridiculous and lacks all understanding and perspective of international football, and more precisely how England have performed in international football. France are a big test but to boil it down to “beat France or he’s shit” is a bit idiotic.
 
Dunno how people expect better football with Maguire, Stones, Walker, Rice and Pickford building out from the back. These players aren't known for their soft touch.

I have to admit, as someone that called him the English Ole, he's doing a great job with all the clean sheets and Senegal are a good team to boot. Although, if the naysayers can't be dissuaded I hear Frank de Boer is available.
 
Dunno how people expect better football with Maguire, Stones, Walker, Rice and Pickford building out from the back. These players aren't known for their soft touch.

Man City don't do too badly at building from the back with two of those players you mentioned.
 

That's a disingenuous stat because it treats a 4-team Euros, such as in 1968, as equal to the 24-team Euros last year. To make it a fair comparison, you'd need to add in the teams England have knocked out to reach 4 or 8 team competitions. In 1968 England defeated Spain home and away in the Euros 'quarter-finals', they qualified for 8-team Euros in 1980, 1988 and 1992, and from a last 16 group to the quarters in 1996. That's another 6 times that England have defeated the teams ranked 9-16th in the continent to reach that stage. If we add the World Cup in, qualifying for the quarter-finals in 1970, second group stage in 1982, that's a further two.

It's also worth looking at the knockout games England have faced over the years.

1968 - Spain defeated twice, lost to Yugoslavia
1970/72 - Lost to West Germany, winners in 72
1982 - Defeated France to qualify for second group stage, drew both games against winners West Germany and Spain.
1986 - Defeated Paraguay, lost to winners Argentina
1990 - Defeated Belgium and Cameroon, lost to winners West Germany
1996 - Drew with Spain, drew with winners Germany
1998 - Lost to Argentina
2002 - Defeated Denmark, lost to winners Brazil
2006 - Defeated Ecuador, drew with Portugal
2010 - Lost to Germany
2012 - Drew with Italy
2018 - Drew with Colombia, defeated Sweden, lost to Croatia
2021 - Defeated Germany, Ukraine and Denmark, drew with Italy.

It's a similar pattern to Southgate's reign where England have turned over weaker teams they would expect to beat, and then came unstuck against better sides. And 6 times between 1972 and 2002 they were knocked out by the winners of the competition.

All of that said, I agree he's not shite. He's done well enough, not massively above or below expectations given what he has in his squad and what opposition he has faced.
 
I'm not sure what the point is?

He has improved results for sure, and for that reason I don't think it's fair to call him shite. These improvements obviously come relative to a pretty horrendous baseline. The question is, if he has gotten enough out of the opportunities that he has had. I think that's questionable. For a country like England the minimum expectation is qualifying easily, getting out of the group stage and probably winning 1-2 knock-out games depending on the draws. This is roughly how he has performed, but he failed to capitalize on England's best shot at a trophy in +50 years.

I don't think he has been shite or great - just ok.

I think this is fair. It's a weird situation because he's performing as you'd expect an England manager to perform based on their opposition but because of how shite his predecessors were he gets elevated far too highly.
 
England have got a fantastic crop of young players coming through, which is nothing to do with Southgate. Also Hodgson was a fecking disaster of a coach, let's not forget (FA extending his contract after the 2014 WC is Ed Woodward level decision making). The "golden generation" in the early 00's is comparable in my opinion, but again we were arguably hampered with an average manager in Sven. Southgate undeniably has a fantastic tournament record on paper, but it's also true that he has lost to every top tier team he’s faced. Belgium twice and Croatia in 2018 and Italy (somehow) in the last Euros. He did admittedly beat Germany, but they were shocking and have lost to everyone. The road to both the semis in 2018 and the final at Euro 2020 was incredibly fortunate - you just have to compare the teams that France beat on the way to the final in 2018 to see the mismatch in quality. Italy managed to beat Belgium and Spain.

Southgate has had a disastrous year as England manager pre tournament, e.g. relegated in the nations league with some absolutely dire displays (Hungary 4-0). The overarching issue with him is that he has an unbelievably exciting squad but is tactically rubbish. If he does the business against France I'll happily reappraise, but so far until next Saturday all of England's success has been in spite of him, not because of him. Fundamentally though, not a single premier league fan would want him as their manager.

And just to finish - I actually think he's done relatively well this tournament bar the USA game. Good game management etc but again - battering Iran and Wales is one thing, Senegal was more impressive (albeit they should have been 2-0 up in the first 30) but France is up there with Brazil. Not a harder match at the tournament. Hope he fights the urge to be a negative twat!

  • Sven was a title winning manager in Italy who won 18 trophies in several countries.
  • Hodgson was a respected and successful international manager with substantial national team management.
  • The Nations League was a series of friendlies, and were meaningless as form guides.
  • Club management and tournament management are different, so it's irrelevant how suitable he would be for a premier league club.
  • We have to protect our defence from the best player in the tournament, maybe in the world. If we don't shield our defence properly, we'll get battered.
 
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.

Yep, everyone loses, thanks for that input. Adds nothing and missus the point. The ones that win, win tournaments when favoured to do so too, while winning the close and/or, ir relevant, the 50/50 ones <—- England’s genuine issue, good England squad have never struggled to beat the teams Southgate has, Sven for instance never got that kind of luck is his scheduling. And Robson
hit Argentina and Germany in the semi’s not Croatia and Denmark.

It’s hard to compare generations and that’s fine.
 
He’s obviously not tactically rubbish. You don’t reach semis, finals, and quarters while being tactically rubbish. Nobody is saying he’s up there with the top managers of our time but to state the overused cliche of “in spite of him” is ridiculous and lacks all understanding and perspective of international football, and more precisely how England have performed in international football. France are a big test but to boil it down to “beat France or he’s shit” is a bit idiotic.

No, beat France and I'll reappraise my opinion of him. I think he's fundamentally a poor manager and that is replicated with how England have been performing on the pitch - I also think he's done relatively ok this tournament, USA aside. Tournament football is obviously fine margins, but the route to the semis and final for England in the last two tournaments has been uncharacteristically easy. Had we beaten Belgium in the groups in 2018 we'd have faced Japan -> Brazil -> France. Maybe Southgate would have shit housed his way to the semis, but it's highly unlikely he'd have gotten through Brazil. Euro 2020, Italy beat Belgium and Spain, again on the harder part of the draw. I said originally that Southgate's tournament record is fantastic, but he is totally - and I mean that literally - unproven versus top 5 teams, something that France, Italy (in tournaments), Spain, Portugal are not in the last decade.

  • Sven was a title winning manager in Italy who won 18 trophies in several countries.
  • Hodgson was a respected and successful international manager with substantial national team management.
  • The Nations League was a series of friendlies, and were meaningless as form guides.
  • Club management and tournament management are different, so it's irrelevant how suitable he would be for a premier league club.
  • We have to protect our defence from the best player in the tournament, maybe in the world. If we don't shield our defence properly, we'll get battered.

  • Sven wasn't a bad manager, but he was an average England manager. My point was around having a squad of similar talent to the current crop being hampered by the coach - if Hoddle hadn't gone full moron I think we would have faired better in 2002.
  • Hodgson was fecking awful, there is no defence for him. He should never have gotten the England job post his stint at Liverpool yet alone have his contract extended after the disastrous 2014 WC. If you think he had any redeeming qualities as an England manager you are truly mad.
  • Agreed, but my point is that the manner of our performances were diabolical and totally unwarranted which resulted in us getting relegated - e.g losing to Hungary twice and finishing the year with 2W 2D 3L overall. No other top side managed anything as bad, or were relegated.
  • Club management doesn't equate to tournament management - you've just contradicted your first two bullet points. Saying that, every other top international team has a top European manager to some extent. If Mancini managed England and Southgate managed Italy for the Euro 2020 final, England would have won hands down. Mancini had the nous to make the substitutions to change the game and bring it back to Italy's favour. Southgate managed to destroy Rashford's and Saka's confidence by chucking them into a penalty shootout cold, unanimously considered a moronic move.
  • Totally agree, but whilst they have Mbappe we have a potent mix of attackers that we shouldn't take out of the game in an abundance of caution. Playing five at the back will see us soak up pressure and likely invite goals - more time on the ball for Mbappe etc - whilst hoping for a lucky break. Maybe it'll work (like Ole vs PSG), but I'd rather we tried to take the game to France - we can always mix it up during the match, something that Southgate has shown a total lack of willing to do when his systems haven't worked previously.
 
This forum is so odd sometimes.

Case in point nearly everyone is tipping France to beat us as they have better players and at the same time if Southgate doesn't win he is shite, you can't have it both ways lads.

Like I said earlier in the thread the answer to this question isn't as binary as a straight yes or no its more nuanced than that, to me the answer is in between both in terms of what he has done for England.
 
interested in whether he stays or goes after this WC, I don’t think it’ll be this tournament but a trophy is coming in the next few tournaments with how many players England are producing

It'd be a shame if he didn't stay around for that amazing, inevitable Nations League glory.
 
Beating Germany last year was good. And he seems to have created a healthy and enjoyable environment in the NT.

His style though is pretty dull and one wonders whether this England team is capable of producing better football. However, priority should always be on getting a result IMO.
 
This forum is so odd sometimes.

Case in point nearly everyone is tipping France to beat us as they have better players and at the same time if Southgate doesn't win he is shite, you can't have it both ways lads.

Like I said earlier in the thread the answer to this question isn't as binary as a straight yes or no its more nuanced than that, to me the answer is in between both in terms of what he has done for England.

I think the answer is actually a pretty clear 'No'

I have a lot of reservations about Southgate and people can argue about tactics, style of football, subs etc all they want but someone with his impressive tournament record can't possibly be called 'shiite'
 
He’s clearly not a shit manager. He’s a decent coach with good level man management abilities. The players clearly love working with him.
 
Is he as good or even close to being as good as our players? No. Same excuses being trotted out as for Ole, you'd think the English United fans would've learnt by now. Hopefully he walks after Saturday.
 
Yep, everyone loses, thanks for that input. Adds nothing and missus the point. The ones that win, win tournaments when favoured to do so too, while winning the close and/or, ir relevant, the 50/50 ones <—- England’s genuine issue, good England squad have never struggled to beat the teams Southgate has, Sven for instance never got that kind of luck is his scheduling. And Robson
hit Argentina and Germany in the semi’s not Croatia and Denmark.

It’s hard to compare generations and that’s fine.

Talk about missing the point....

Yeah, if you win a tournament, that means also winning the close games, and sometimes also getting the unlikely wins. By definition, actually. Because if you don't do that, you don't win the tournament.

However, only one team manages that, each tournament. And like it or not, chance plays a fairly significant, and probably greatly underappreciated, role in the outcome of any football game. There is nothing any manager can do that guarantees you'll beat Croatia in a given game, or Germany, or France. The only thing you can do is get your team in a position where there's a relatively good rather than pretty slim chance that is going to happen. Once you get to the top opposition, the odds are never going to very far removed from even, no matter what you do. In reality, there's very little difference between 2018 Belgium crashing out in the semis against France and 2018 Belgium going on to win the title. The difference between England winning the Euros and losing on penalties in the final is so small as to be downright meaningless in the assessment of a manager. It's basically luck and coincidence.

This means that if you're looking at the results of a national team manager, you do have to contextualise, but that also means accepting that part of the context. One of the upshots is you have to focus on the aggregate results. If the team is generally winning more often and losing less often in tournaments, then probably something has been done right. And you could well argue that nothing could be more stupid or misleading than focussing solely on a single, or a very few, games against the top opponents, because that is a) a small sample and b) games which pretty much by definition can always go either way, often down to small and uncontrollable factors. The fact England lost to Italy on penalties tells you basically nothing whatsoever about England and Southgate that wouldn't have been essentially equally true had they won it on penalties. What is important is that England was in that game at all - and played it well enough to have had a real chance of winning it. That's actually what you can hope to get from a manager. Managers do not win or lose close games against top opponents, as Pep Guardiola is reminded every year in the CL. Maybe they can do a few things that has some negative or positive impact, but mainly it's not down to them.

Above all, I wish England fans would give a few seconds thought to how their mentality is affecting results. When you've won nothing for almost 50 years and have a pretty consistent history of underachievement at big tournaments, you need to build something. And building something requires positive belief. That isn't much helped by a general climate where you're barely being tolerated while things go well, and must expect to be eviscerated the second they don't. England has developed to the point where they are seriously in the picture as potential finalists for the third straight tournament, and as potential winners for the second straight tournament. In other words, they have stablished themselves as a real, top team. That is REAL progress - it has never before been the case for as long as I have been watching, which is since the late 70s. But rather than see that as one big step taken and now for the next, people are instead disgusted by the failure to conform to their delusional ideas about how dominant England should be, which can only make the team's job that much harder. Most other countries, the fans actually try to support what's going on, and quite often make a positive contribution. You lot, you've been getting exactly what you deserve. And from Southgate, a good deal more than you deserve.
 
Last edited:
Those statistics are meaningless without context.

We hardly played any of the big nations and when we did we lost, it’s like pulling up PSG stats from Ligue 1.

Just typical overhyping and hyperbole around winning a run of games against weak or shit opposition.

You constantly see other big nations with good teams in relatively difficult groups and we haven’t had one in about 10 years in both the World Cup and euros and we’ve always got a relatively good draw in the next round.

I’m not giving any praise to Southgate until we see something Vs France that shows a step up.
Absolutely.
He may be one of our luckiest managers. In terms of fixtures.
 
  • Hodgson was a respected and successful international manager with substantial national team management.
:lol:
Come on. Hodgson was terrible.

  • We have to protect our defence from the best player in the tournament, maybe in the world. If we don't shield our defence properly, we'll get battered.

True.

Playing France might suit Southgates tendency for boring defensive football. If he gets a result then fair play to him. But so far in his England career he has had it easy.
 
This forum is so odd sometimes.

Case in point nearly everyone is tipping France to beat us as they have better players and at the same time if Southgate doesn't win he is shite, you can't have it both ways lads.

Like I said earlier in the thread the answer to this question isn't as binary as a straight yes or no its more nuanced than that, to me the answer is in between both in terms of what he has done for England.
Anyone tipping France to beat us is because they have reasonably strong players and Southgate is shite.
 
Talk about missing the point....

Yeah, if you win a tournament, that means also winning the close games, and sometimes also getting the unlikely wins. By definition, actually. Because if you don't do that, you don't win the tournament.

However, only one team manages that, each tournament. And like it or not, chance plays a fairly significant, and probably greatly underappreciated, role in the outcome of any football game. There is nothing any manager can do that guarantees you'll beat Croatia in a given game, or Germany, or France. The only thing you can do is get your team in a position where there's a relatively good rather than pretty slim chance that is going to happen. Once you get to the top opposition, the odds are never going to very far removed from even, no matter what you do. In reality, there's very little difference between 2018 Belgium crashing out in the semis against France and 2018 Belgium going on to win the title. The difference between England winning the Euros and losing on penalties in the final is so small as to be downright meaningless in the assessment of a manager. It's basically luck and coincidence.

This means that if you're looking at the results of a national team manager, you do have to contextualise, but that also means accepting that part of the context. One of the upshots is you have to focus on the aggregate results. If the team is generally winning more often and losing less often in tournaments, then probably something has been done right. And you could well argue that nothing could be more stupid or misleading than focussing solely on a single, or a very few, games against the top opponents, because that is a) a small sample and b) games which pretty much by definition can always go either way, often down to small and uncontrollable factors. The fact England lost to Italy on penalties tells you basically nothing whatsoever about England and Southgate that wouldn't have been essentially equally true had they won it on penalties. What is important is that England was in that game at all - and played it well enough to have had a real chance of winning it. That's actually what you can hope to get from a manager. Managers do not win or lose close games against top opponents, as Pep Guardiola is reminded every year in the CL. Maybe they can do a few things that has some negative or positive impact, but mainly it's not down to them.
I think this is the fairest comment I've seen regarding Southgate.

International management is extremely unforgiving because teams play so few matches of any real consequence. All that really needs to happen is for you to get slightly unlucky once or twice and your reputation is in tatters. There's then the additional pressure to play "attractive" football despite having little time on the training ground, and also people getting angry because their favourite player isn't getting picked. Add all of this together and it becomes far more difficult to judge an international manager than a club one, and I don't think us football fans are always particularly good even at that.

To be clear, I think Southgate is limited as a coach. I don't think he'd have what it takes to make it as a massively successful manager at club level because he lacks the tactical versatility of the top level club managers and even some of the better international ones. With that said, I think it's entirely fair to say that the evidence suggests Southgate is an intelligent man who knows how to effectively manage people and has a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his squad. He knows how to play the percentages and usually understands when is a good time to take risks and when to play it safe, and that's at least half the battle for international managers in my view.

All I hope is that, whatever happens against France, Southgate gets the credit he deserves for the positive changes he's made to the England set-up. He is by no means one of the best managers to grace the game but he seems to be a genuinely decent man and he's the only England manager in my lifetime to give me any sense of belief in the team.
 
No, beat France and I'll reappraise my opinion of him. I think he's fundamentally a poor manager and that is replicated with how England have been performing on the pitch - I also think he's done relatively ok this tournament, USA aside. Tournament football is obviously fine margins, but the route to the semis and final for England in the last two tournaments has been uncharacteristically easy. Had we beaten Belgium in the groups in 2018 we'd have faced Japan -> Brazil -> France. Maybe Southgate would have shit housed his way to the semis, but it's highly unlikely he'd have gotten through Brazil. Euro 2020, Italy beat Belgium and Spain, again on the harder part of the draw. I said originally that Southgate's tournament record is fantastic, but he is totally - and I mean that literally - unproven versus top 5 teams, something that France, Italy (in tournaments), Spain, Portugal are not in the last decade.



  • Sven wasn't a bad manager, but he was an average England manager. My point was around having a squad of similar talent to the current crop being hampered by the coach - if Hoddle hadn't gone full moron I think we would have faired better in 2002.
  • Hodgson was fecking awful, there is no defence for him. He should never have gotten the England job post his stint at Liverpool yet alone have his contract extended after the disastrous 2014 WC. If you think he had any redeeming qualities as an England manager you are truly mad.
  • Agreed, but my point is that the manner of our performances were diabolical and totally unwarranted which resulted in us getting relegated - e.g losing to Hungary twice and finishing the year with 2W 2D 3L overall. No other top side managed anything as bad, or were relegated.
  • Club management doesn't equate to tournament management - you've just contradicted your first two bullet points. Saying that, every other top international team has a top European manager to some extent. If Mancini managed England and Southgate managed Italy for the Euro 2020 final, England would have won hands down. Mancini had the nous to make the substitutions to change the game and bring it back to Italy's favour. Southgate managed to destroy Rashford's and Saka's confidence by chucking them into a penalty shootout cold, unanimously considered a moronic move.
  • Totally agree, but whilst they have Mbappe we have a potent mix of attackers that we shouldn't take out of the game in an abundance of caution. Playing five at the back will see us soak up pressure and likely invite goals - more time on the ball for Mbappe etc - whilst hoping for a lucky break. Maybe it'll work (like Ole vs PSG), but I'd rather we tried to take the game to France - we can always mix it up during the match, something that Southgate has shown a total lack of willing to do when his systems haven't worked previously.

My point is, managers with a better club pedigree (Sven) and a better national team management pedigree (Hodgson) both managed England and both did far, far worse than Southgate who is apparently too poor to be either a national OR club manager!

Maybe Southgate is actually better at the type of management needed here than you realise? Results seem to suggest it so far.

(I'm not sure you'd have said Deschamps was a 'top European manager' before he got the France job, based on his club record. I suppose he's just been lucky with his players, like Southgate).
 
I think this is the fairest comment I've seen regarding Southgate.

International management is extremely unforgiving because teams play so few matches of any real consequence. All that really needs to happen is for you to get slightly unlucky once or twice and your reputation is in tatters. There's then the additional pressure to play "attractive" football despite having little time on the training ground, and also people getting angry because their favourite player isn't getting picked. Add all of this together and it becomes far more difficult to judge an international manager than a club one, and I don't think us football fans are always particularly good even at that.

To be clear, I think Southgate is limited as a coach. I don't think he'd have what it takes to make it as a massively successful manager at club level because he lacks the tactical versatility of the top level club managers and even some of the better international ones. With that said, I think it's entirely fair to say that the evidence suggests Southgate is an intelligent man who knows how to effectively manage people and has a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his squad. He knows how to play the percentages and usually understands when is a good time to take risks and when to play it safe, and that's at least half the battle for international managers in my view.

All I hope is that, whatever happens against France, Southgate gets the credit he deserves for the positive changes he's made to the England set-up. He is by no means one of the best managers to grace the game but he seems to be a genuinely decent man and he's the only England manager in my lifetime to give me any sense of belief in the team.
Both of these comments feel like the right way to think about this imo.
 
No, beat France and I'll reappraise my opinion of him. I think he's fundamentally a poor manager and that is replicated with how England have been performing on the pitch - I also think he's done relatively ok this tournament, USA aside. Tournament football is obviously fine margins, but the route to the semis and final for England in the last two tournaments has been uncharacteristically easy. Had we beaten Belgium in the groups in 2018 we'd have faced Japan -> Brazil -> France. Maybe Southgate would have shit housed his way to the semis, but it's highly unlikely he'd have gotten through Brazil. Euro 2020, Italy beat Belgium and Spain, again on the harder part of the draw. I said originally that Southgate's tournament record is fantastic, but he is totally - and I mean that literally - unproven versus top 5 teams, something that France, Italy (in tournaments), Spain, Portugal are not in the last decade.

So you think he’s a fundamentally poor manager, you think he’s had unusually easy draws, you think he’s tactically inept, and you think the squad is brilliant to the point where they’ve got results in spite of Southgate. But if we beat France that’s all forgotten?

Sounds about right.
 
My point is, managers with a better club pedigree (Sven) and a better national team management pedigree (Hodgson) both managed England and both did far, far worse than Southgate who is apparently too poor to be either a national OR club manager!

Maybe Southgate is actually better at the type of management needed here than you realise? Results seem to suggest it so far.

(I'm not sure you'd have said Deschamps was a 'top European manager' before he got the France job, based on his club record. I suppose he's just been lucky with his players, like Southgate).
That's not a very fair comparison, Deschamps proved he was a good manager before getting the France job (CL final with Monaco, promoting Juve back to Serie A, winning Marseille's first title in 2 decades in his first year), Southgate only got Middlesborough relegated. And I say that as someone who thinks Southgate is a decent manager, he grew into the role, and is good enough to win a big title with the squad he has, I like that he is pragmatic and dont try to be someone he's not and he's also a pretty nice likeable guy from a non-englishman point of view. But Deschamps is very underrated here.
 
No, you really don't. Specifically, you do not have the defenders to go toe to toe with France's attackers. If you get the kind of game where Mbappe or Dembele or Griezmann get a chance to finish provided one French attacker wins a one-on-one against a defender, you will lose. Badly. Walker isn't going to quench Mbappe on his own. Shaw isn't going to quench Dembele on his own. Maguire and Stones are going to get overrun if they end up having to deal on their own with the fallout of French breakthroughs down the flank and through the middle. I don't see how Southgate has any other option than prioritising defensive control, which means creating defensive overload conditions that ensures that if someone gets beaten individually, there's always backup coverage. He'd be a fool not to.

Of course we do have the players.

France have Mbappe. Axel Tuanzebe of all people marked him out of the game against us. Plan for his pace properly and he lacks other options, and Walker is still one of the quickest defenders in football to do that. Shaw is similar on the other side yet Dembele is nowhere near the same threat. Giroud is finished at the PL level these defenders play at weekly. So is Griezmann. Then with the injuries and absences there is no French threat from deep. Man for man, we have the players to neuter most of the France attack. Its basically Mbappe on his own. That doesn't need 5 defenders and 2 sitting midfielders. If we play that way, we will sacrifice our own attack which is no slouch running against a makeshift France midfield.