Is Gareth Southgate a shiite England manager?

[SirReginald]

This narrative that he’s shite needs to stop.

And he achieved all that without playing Heskey. Crazy.

Edit: Best attacking players. Worse defensive players. Smaller pool of midfielders.

 

[Van Piorsing]

Meh... There's nothing wrong in holding Southgate to highest standards. He got structure and whole generation of good players in all different age to choose from. Not being overly excited after beating Senegal or Iran is a sign maturity rather than jumping on a parade wagon just yet.

Burden of quality proof is on Southgate, not other way around. France got their share of intenational trophies in last 20 years just like other teams left in this tournament. England leaving their supporters with a promise after promise might get old after a while.

In short: seal the trophy and stop chatting shit. I'll be celebrating that just like any England supporter if it happens... and then Southgate can stay. If not, pave the way for a new manager who will squeeze more efficiently from already huge potential while it lasts for a few more tournaments.

 

[justsomebloke]

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.

okay. Good luck.

 

[Shimo]

I grudgingly have to give it that he is not shite when it comes to International football. I still think he could play a lot more expansively with the players he has but, at this level, with as few games you have, it's plain and simple, setup to be very difficult to be scored on and let your quality tell on the offensive side.

Whether he beats France or not, as it's a big toss up game, I have to give in that he is good at the job required for an international manager.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

I grudgingly have to give it that he is not shite when it comes to International football. I still think he could play a lot more expansively with the players he has but, at this level, with as few games you have, it's plain and simple, setup to be very difficult to be scored on and let your quality tell on the offensive side.

Whether he beats France or not, as it's a big toss up game, I have to give in that he is good at the job required for an international manager.

Surely he has to win a few more tough KO games to qualify that though…?

He had RIDICULOUSLY kind runs and fixtures in all competitions and while that absolutely should not be held against him, I think it’s also fair to acknowledge that when grading him.

I think in England it’s been so long that we’ve actually had a manager who can produce MORE than the sum of the squad’s parts, that we actually forget that it’s totally possible to do so… bit like United up until Ten Hag.

For me a good manager wins games that they’re not expected to win and / or implements a really solid style of play - Southgate has done neither.

He’s just kind of ‘there’… doing the least he can imo.

I blame him for the Euros loss also, so for me I want to see the back of him tbh.

 

[InspiRED]

Surely he has to win a few more tough KO games to qualify that though…?

He had RIDICULOUSLY kind runs and fixtures in all competitions and while that absolutely should not be held against him, I think it’s also fair to acknowledge that when grading him.

I think in England it’s been so long that we’ve actually had a manager who can produce MORE than the sum of the squad’s parts, that we actually forget that it’s totally possible to do so… bit like United up until Ten Hag.

For me a good manager wins games that they’re not expected to win and / or implements a really solid style of play - Southgate has done neither.

He’s just kind of ‘there’… doing the least he can imo.

I blame him for the Euros loss also, so for me I want to see the back of him tbh.

Yeah pretty much, was one of the most inept displays of in-game management I've ever witnessed.

I still think he'd probably rather start Kane, Mount and Sterling every game and only stuck Foden in after every journalist and media outlet in the country asked why the f he wasn't in the team.

Don't need to be hyperbolic, there's many things he is obv good at doing, creating squad unity, the players play for him, speaks to the media well, is polite and likeable. All great, but when it comes to the crunch, so far there is clear evidence to show he has been so so woefully lacking. Like every other fan I truly hope he makes me eat my words because that will mean we either win or at least go down with a bit of fight. I'm not optimistic but we'll see.

Also can't help notice how his most fervent defenders aren't even England fans. Odd pastime to have that, tempering the expectations of neighbouring country's fans.

 

[Shimo]

Surely he has to win a few more tough KO games to qualify that though…?

He had RIDICULOUSLY kind runs and fixtures in all competitions and while that absolutely should not be held against him, I think it’s also fair to acknowledge that when grading him.

I think in England it’s been so long that we’ve actually had a manager who can produce MORE than the sum of the squad’s parts, that we actually forget that it’s totally possible to do so… bit like United up until Ten Hag.

For me a good manager wins games that they’re not expected to win and / or implements a really solid style of play - Southgate has done neither.

He’s just kind of ‘there’… doing the least he can imo.

I blame him for the Euros loss also, so for me I want to see the back of him tbh.

Am with you for both Croatia and Italy games he could have done more as a manager but obviously those games where you lose at that stage will get the most attention. As much as I do not care for him and his approach and style being such a subjective thing, I think the sign of a good manager is beating the teams in front of you that you are expected to and for the most part he has done that consistently.

A great or top manager is one that delivers on top of that and if he were to win the next game and even the semi, then I'll have to grudgingly say he will fall into that category manager for England at least.

 

[Bilbo]

Also can't help notice how his most fervent defenders aren't even England fans.

Im not surprised by that. To the English, he's very unfashionable. Decent centre back who missed a penalty, was in a pizza hut advert and had a so far forgettable club management career. As a personality he's a bit of a wet blanket and it's hard to overlook all of that. Perhaps the foreign fans find it easier to assess things without that bias.

 

[Bilbo]

Am with you for both Croatia and Italy games he could have done more as a manager but obviously those games where you lose at that stage will get the most attention. As much as I do not care for him and his approach and style being such a subjective thing, I think the sign of a good manager is beating the teams in front of you that you are expected to and for the most part he has done that consistently.

A great or top manager is one that delivers on top of that and if he were to win the next game and even the semi, then I'll have to grudgingly say he will fall into that category manager for England at least.

I don't think anyone's arguing that he is a great manager. The case for the defence is simply that, per the thread title, he isn't 'shiite'

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Credit to him, he figured out that Mount and Sterling weren't the answer, and moving in Henderson and pushing Bellingham into that more attacking role was the solution to their midfield issues (I figured as much). Will be interesting to see how he approaches France, I think he'd be stupid to change systems, at a certain point you have to trust your defenders to deal with situations instead of going into a shell and switching to a 5ATB. The key will be marking Griezmann, he's been dynamite as a deeper playmaker in that France team (essentially taking Pogba's position). I also wonder if Rashford should come in at that LW spot. Foden and Bellingham won't be allowed the amount of space they got against Senegal, and it might be more worth it to have Rashford's running to keep France from pushing up and suffocating England.

 

[poleglass red]

Yeah pretty much, was one of the most inept displays of in-game management I've ever witnessed.

I still think he'd probably rather start Kane, Mount and Sterling every game and only stuck Foden in after every journalist and media outlet in the country asked why the f he wasn't in the team.

Don't need to be hyperbolic, there's many things he is obv good at doing, creating squad unity, the players play for him, speaks to the media well, is polite and likeable. All great, but when it comes to the crunch, so far there is clear evidence to show he has been so so woefully lacking. Like every other fan I truly hope he makes me eat my words because that will mean we either win or at least go down with a bit of fight. I'm not optimistic but we'll see.

Also can't help notice how his most fervent defenders aren't even England fans. Odd pastime to have that, tempering the expectations of neighbouring country's fans.

Because they see how their own national teams play and recognise that no team plays all out attacking football. There isn't one team at this finals that you've sat back and been amazed by their displays. Brazil's best player has been Cassemiro. Every team has shown flashes but more workmanlike type performances from all the so called top teams

 

[InspiRED]

Because they see how their own national teams play and recognise that no team plays all out attacking football. There isn't one team at this finals that you've sat back and been amazed by their displays. Brazil's best player has been Cassemiro. Every team has shown flashes but more workmanlike type performances from all the so called top teams

I don't remember saying 'England need to play all out attacking football'. I think you may have mistaken me for an imaginary caricature of an England fan you have in your head.

 

[RedDevil@84]

Close the thread. He is the greatest there ever has been.

 

[poleglass red]

I don't remember saying 'England need to play all out attacking football'. I think you may have mistaken me for an imaginary caricature of an England fan you have in your head.

ready my post properly, I was responding to the highlighted part of your comment.

 

[norm87cro]

It is a bit silly isnt it? The Southage haters going quite and waiting for the France game to say "I told you so". And honestly England has a chance in that one.The fact of the matter remains he is the best England manager since Ramsey.

 

[InspiRED]

ready my post properly, I was responding to the highlighted part of your comment.

I'm still not following the logic, it's not clear what point you're making. Non-England fans can see that Southgate is good because of his defensive, pragmatic approach? I think his approach works up to a point, where it just doesn't work. The Italy game was entirely winnable. It was the manner of the way we went out that most of his critics can't tolerate, and also his preference for starting up front Kane, Mount and Sterling like its some kind of religious commitment that must be honoured. These points have been made repeatedly in this thread I don't understand why it's difficult to understand.

The usual thing is 'well thats just the quality of the squad, they found their level and got outplayed by a better team'. I believe this squad is amongst the strongest in the tournament (seems that this isnt contested much anymore funnily enough) and therefore he should be judged based upon what he can get out of this squad. He has a great opportunity now in a real 'acid test' like he says against France, so let's see.

 

[Member 125352]

The narrative is easy. He is 3 games away from being a Sir and a legend of the game. He is also one game away from relentless verbal abuse. It’s a thin line and it only shows how fickle people are.

 

[norm87cro]

The narrative is easy. He is 3 games away from being a Sir and a legend of the game. He is also one game away from relentless verbal abuse. It’s a thin line and it only shows how fickle people are.

Spot on

 

[VP89]

The narrative is easy. He is 3 games away from being a Sir and a legend of the game. He is also one game away from relentless verbal abuse. It’s a thin line and it only shows how fickle people are.

I don't think winning this WC (where he hasn't really put a foot wrong) will cleanse him from having poor performances in the Euros or prior world cup.

He lost to Croatia, Italy but he beat Germany. Obviously people are rightly questioning him with the talent he has at his disposal relative to other sides. That is immaterial of how far he will go from this point onwards.

Questions were definitely warranted.

 

[frostbite]

I'm still not following the logic, it's not clear what point you're making. Non-England fans can see that Southgate is good because of his defensive, pragmatic approach? I think his approach works up to a point, where it just doesn't work. The Italy game was entirely winnable. It was the manner of the way we went out that most of his critics can't tolerate, and also his preference for starting up front Kane, Mount and Sterling like its some kind of religious commitment that must be honoured. These points have been made repeatedly in this thread I don't understand why it's difficult to understand.

The usual thing is 'well thats just the quality of the squad, they found their level and got outplayed by a better team'. I believe this squad is amongst the strongest in the tournament (seems that this isnt contested much anymore funnily enough) and therefore he should be judged based upon what he can get out of this squad. He has a great opportunity now in a real 'acid test' like he says against France, so let's see.

I agree with the highlighted. I am a non-England fan and I think that the Southgate national teams are the most serious contenders I have seen from England in the past 30 years. The England vs Senegal game was one of the most one sided games in this world cup.

This England reminds me of the serious and dominating teams from Germany or Italy of years past. I think that's the only way England may win a trophy. Pickford is not great, but the defensive organization of this team is very good. Defence wins trophies. England cannot really imitate top Brazil or top Spain, England does not have the players for this type of football. But they can imitate top Germany or top Italy, teams that were not very exciting to watch, but they were very serious and nobody wanted to face them.

 

[Member 125352]

@VP89

Of course he has a talented squad but so does France. Imo there is nothing that points towards England having to win big tournaments. Other nations have more talent and especially more evenly spread from defence to midfield to attack.

Everything has to fall into place to win a world cup, in its almost 90 year history only 8 countries have won it. England can be proud to be one of them.

 

[VP89]

@VP89

Of course he has a talented squad but so does France. Imo there is nothing that points towards England having to win big tournaments. Other nations have more talent and especially more evenly spread from defence to midfield to attack.

Everything has to fall into place to win a world cup, in its almost 90 year history only 8 countries have won it. England can be proud to be one of them.

They don't have to go all the way. The minimum expectation is playing the right personelle and the right system which he hadn't really done till now.

 

[InspiRED]

I agree with the highlighted. I am a non-England fan and I think that the Southgate national teams are the most serious contenders I have seen from England in the past 30 years. The England vs Senegal game was one of the most one sided games in this world cup.

This England reminds me of the serious and dominating teams from Germany or Italy of years past. I think that's the only way England may win a trophy. Pickford is not great, but the defensive organization of this team is very good. Defence wins trophies. England cannot really imitate top Brazil or top Spain, England does not have the players for this type of football. But they can imitate top Germany or top Italy, teams that were not very exciting to watch, but they were very serious and nobody wanted to face them.

See i take issue with you characterising it as 'the Southgate national team'. I won't be hyperbolic about his managerial abilities, but the strength and depth of this England squad is down to changes in the grassroots game that have been taking place over the last twenty years alongside exceptionally well funded and run academies. If you think that we are basically doing well because of Southgate and his defensive, pragmatic approach when compared to England teams of previous generations, it's just a non-sensical viewpoint and I find it a bit annoying tbh as it's comparing across generations. False equivalence. I'm sure Belgium had some of their best tournament results in their history under Martinez, do you think that was down to The Martinez Belgium Era' too? Or the fact they had a generation of exceptionally good players?

Ironically I agree with you that defensive solidity, power and efficiency is the way for this England team to win. I just don't think that involves picking Sterling and Mount game after game when you have better players available. Gets boring repeating these things.

 

[Zen]

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.

I'm sorry but you're actually missing the point of my point, you are also making assumptions about me based on misconceptions of a fanbase that a lot actual fall for that isn't fully true, if actually, at all.

But either way, if you judge national managers purely on the outcome of the tournaments they enter as managers, that's fine, and I'm not arguing that, that's how you judge them. I judge them on deeper context. But I genuinely like Southgate, he's alrite, and I appreciate this is a 'shite' thread, which well he clearly isn't, but he's still only done what other managers in your lifetime have done, just with much better luck in terms of fixtures and injuries than say Robson and Sven. He's better than most others by default of course.... but by default, you can't really compare him to short term managers, so that leaves him above Hodgson, Taylor and Capello.

Like I initially said, for him to truly go above Robson especially and well, Sven too.... he kind of has to beat France, and I stick to that. Because give them similar luck and they go as far and/or further. The other managers, not so much so, they clearly had issues at national level, though in fairness to Hodgson, he was only there for a transitional phase and had zero expectation in any of his tournaments.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

See i take issue with you characterising it as 'the Southgate national team'. I won't be hyperbolic about his managerial abilities, but the strength and depth of this England squad is down to changes in the grassroots game that have been taking place over the last twenty years alongside exceptionally well funded and run academies. If you think that we are basically doing well because of Southgate and his defensive, pragmatic approach when compared to England teams of previous generations, it's just a non-sensical viewpoint and I find it a bit annoying tbh as it's comparing across generations. False equivalence. I'm sure Belgium had some of their best tournament results in their history under Martinez, do you think that was down to The Martinez Belgium Era' too? Or the fact they had a generation of exceptionally good players?

Ironically I agree with you that defensive solidity, power and efficiency is the way for this England team to win. I just don't think that involves picking Sterling and Mount game after game when you have better players available. Gets boring repeating these things.

Really well said. Agree on pretty much every point.

 

[Buster15]

It is a bit silly isnt it? The Southage haters going quite and waiting for the France game to say "I told you so". And honestly England has a chance in that one.The fact of the matter remains he is the best England manager since Ramsey.

I am not amongst the Southgate haters as my posts show.
But I am also not sure what fact says that he is the best England manager since Sir Alf Ramsey.
I would have thought that Bobby Robson would challenge for that.
But if Southgate was to lead England to beat France and progress to the semi finals then I would certainly agree with you.

 

[frostbite]

See i take issue with you characterising it as 'the Southgate national team'. I won't be hyperbolic about his managerial abilities, but the strength and depth of this England squad is down to changes in the grassroots game that have been taking place over the last twenty years alongside exceptionally well funded and run academies. If you think that we are basically doing well because of Southgate and his defensive, pragmatic approach when compared to England teams of previous generations, it's just a non-sensical viewpoint and I find it a bit annoying tbh as it's comparing across generations. False equivalence. I'm sure Belgium had some of their best tournament results in their history under Martinez, do you think that was down to The Martinez Belgium Era' too? Or the fact they had a generation of exceptionally good players?

Ironically I agree with you that defensive solidity, power and efficiency is the way for this England team to win. I just don't think that involves picking Sterling and Mount game after game when you have better players available. Gets boring repeating these things.

I think England had better squads in the past. For example, the golden generation had Beckham, Lampard, etc. And they had Capello. And they actually did worse than this team.

The job of the national team manager is to make these individuals work as a real team. If they remain individuals you get a few moments of brilliance, but that's it.

So, maybe you are right about Southgate using some players and not others. But perhaps you are wrong. In the past, the winning teams of Germany, Italy etc, always had cases like that, too. Yesterday, people complained about Saka, and then he scored. On the other hand, you had a midfield of Scholes, Lampard, Gerard, Beckham... each of them was a better player than anyone in the squad today... and the result? Nothing. Individuals are important, but team organization is more important than individuals.

And the fact is that England has been doing better with Southgate than with previous managers. And this is a hard fact. Are you really sure there is some other manager out there who would have done better? Who?

 

[InspiRED]

I think England had better squads in the past. For example, the golden generation had Beckham, Lampard, etc. And they had Capello. And they actually did worse than this team.

The job of the national team manager is to make these individuals work as a real team. If they remain individuals you get a few moments of brilliance, but that's it.

So, maybe you are right about Southgate using some players and not others. But perhaps you are wrong. In the past, the winning teams of Germany, Italy etc, always had cases like that, too. Yesterday, people complained about Saka, and then he scored. On the other hand, you had a midfield of Scholes, Lampard, Gerard, Beckham... each of them was a better player than anyone in the squad today... and the result? Nothing. Individuals are important, but team organization is more important than individuals.

And the fact is that England has been doing better with Southgate than with previous managers. And this is a hard fact. Are you really sure there is some other manager out there who would have done better? Who?

So back to square one then. Christ, I give up. There's no point all the arguments have been made already you just kind of disregarded them all.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

The last 2 tournaments England did well in spite of Southgate, not because of him. With a different manager in charge England would have at least been in the finals of the last world cup, and won the Euros. With that being said, despite starting with his usual favourites, Southgate has since gone on to show that he can play guys that aren't named Sterling or Mount. In fact, I thought for sure that they would both start vs Senagal, and no, I"m not buying the BS about Sterling leaving for family reasons. Not that I doubt there are family problems, I just don't think he would have left had he been starting. If Southgate continues with this attacking play and keeps from resorting to his back 5 vs France then I will say that he has learned from his mistakes in the past and is becoming a very good manager. If he goes back to a defensive set up and slots Mount back into the starting 11 then he might as well kiss his job good-bye

 

[Bepi]

The last 2 tournaments England did well in spite of Southgate, not because of him. With a different manager in charge England would have at least been in the finals of the last world cup, and won the Euros.

These are just sweet dreams, though. Reality is he achieved more than any other manager not named Ramsey, and consistently so. We will see if he is a bit more lucky this Friday, against a similarly conservative manager who just has a better squad overall plus the brightest star in the tournament.

 

[frostbite]

So back to square one then. Christ, I give up. There's no point all the arguments have been made already you just kind of disregarded them all.

Well, you said "the strength and depth of this England squad is down to changes in the grassroots game that have been taking place over the last twenty years".

And my reply was that the squad was actually better 20 years ago. That any of the four midfielders (Scholes, Lampard, Gerard, Beckham) was better than the midfielders today.

Am I wrong?

 

[Zen]

Well, you said "the strength and depth of this England squad is down to changes in the grassroots game that have been taking place over the last twenty years".

And my reply was that the squad was actually better 20 years ago. That any of the four midfielders (Scholes, Lampard, Gerard, Beckham) was better than the midfielders today.

Am I wrong?

On the squad thing.... I'm not so sure.

2002 - Mills, Sinclair, Heskey were starters, while the subs were Dyer and Vassell.
2004 - Peak Golden Generation... and it's key attacking replacement is again, Vassell.
2006 - This time the replacements for Owen and Rooney being injured is actually Owen and Rooney being injured. (well, and Crouch)
2010 - Basically see the above. (well, and Defoe)

Better XI maybe, and well, more likely, probably. But depth, no chance.

 

[fergies coat]

At some point you have to give Southgate credit. The usual excuses are it's all the players or England have had easy games. We've had easy games in the past and still haven't done anything.

Euro 2000 failed to make it out of the group stages, with players like, Scholes, Beckham, Owen, Shearer, Seaman, Campbell.


Euro 2008 didn't even qualify. Terry, Ferdinand, Rooney, Lampard, Rooney, Gerrard, Hargreaves, Carrick, A Cole.

It's about time people give Southgate a bit of respect.

 

[frostbite]

On the squad thing.... I'm not so sure.

2002 - Mills, Sinclair, Heskey were starters, while the subs were Dyer and Vassell.
2004 - Peak Golden Generation... and it's key attacking replacement is again, Vassell.
2006 - This time the replacements for Owen and Rooney being injured is actually Owen and Rooney being injured. (well, and Crouch)
2010 - Basically see the above. (well, and Defoe)

Better XI maybe, and well, more likely, probably. But depth, no chance.

Here is the England squad in 2004:

http://www.englandfootballonline.com/CmpEC/CmpEC2004Squad.html

Here is the England squad in 2022:

http://www.englandfootballonline.com/CmpWC/CmpWC2022Squad.html

Is there really a question that the 2004 squad was much better than the 2022 squad? It seems obvious to me.

 

[Bilbo]

Like I initially said, for him to truly go above Robson especially and well, Sven too.... he kind of has to beat France, and I stick to that

Don't think too many people would disagree with that. Robson anyway, not so much Sven in my book.

This thread, like most any on this forum, has gotten off track. Its not whether Southgate is a great England manager or whether we can do any better. Its whether he is shite.

As was said above, he is 3 matches from immortality, but lose any one of those 3 matches and he'll get dogs abuse because people just seem to.....want to.

Having the squad that he has available to him - and I still think we've had stronger in the past 25 years - is a blessing and a curse. A blessing for obvious reasons, and a curse because the armchair tactician will always have that ultra safe 'well, if he'd have just done what I thought he should have done then X,Y & Z would have happened' argument in the bank.

 

[fergies coat]

On the squad thing.... I'm not so sure.

2002 - Mills, Sinclair, Heskey were starters, while the subs were Dyer and Vassell.
2004 - Peak Golden Generation... and it's key attacking replacement is again, Vassell.
2006 - This time the replacements for Owen and Rooney being injured is actually Owen and Rooney being injured. (well, and Crouch)
2010 - Basically see the above. (well, and Defoe)

Better XI maybe, and well, more likely, probably. But depth, no chance.

1998 squad?

Seaman, Flowers, Martyn

Campbell, Le saux, R Ferdinand, Adams, Southgate, Neville, Keown.

Ince, Scholes, Beckham, Batty, Lee, Anderton, Mcmanaman, Merson

Shearer, Owen, Sheringham, L Ferdinand

 

[frostbite]

And remember, "depth" was not as important 20 years ago, because you were not allowed to have too many subs. The first 11 ware always more important, especially for the National teams that need to produce results for a month only.

But in my opinion, the 2004 squad actually had more depth, too. Just look at the CD position and compare with today. Stones and McGuire or Terry, Cambel, Rio, King?

 

[MrBest]

Kane, Foden, Saka, Rashford, Sterling, Rice, Bellingham, Walker, Henderson, Maguire (to some extent), this in my opinion is one of the best England teams we have had a for while. Kane is a world class forward, Bellingham is world class in the making, a blend of youth and experience. There are some holes, perhaps the GK, central defence and perhaps a playmaker midfielder but the attack we have is almost on par with what Brasil and France have. Southgate should do better but he plays too negative for my liking. He's delivered in the last 2 tournaments but I cannot help but think what if we had another manager.

 

[Zen]

Here is the England squad in 2004:

http://www.englandfootballonline.com/CmpEC/CmpEC2004Squad.html

Here is the England squad in 2022:

http://www.englandfootballonline.com/CmpWC/CmpWC2022Squad.html

Is there really a question that the 2004 squad was much better than the 2022 squad? It seems obvious to me.

I mean, you pick one tournament that I actually acknowledge as Peak Golden Generation as it's only omission is Rio. But depth is about lack of drop off, right? No? And more importantly, essentially the most important subs are always going to be attacking... 2022 has the edge in both for me. You just aren't going to convince me that a team bringing on Dyer and Vassell to ignite something is better than one than can call on any of like 7 options of a much higher quality.

Nor do I think Butt or Hargreaves are actually that superior to Henderson for keeping it steady in midfield. But in a fit Ledley King, 2004 definitely has the best back up defender, top player.

 

[frostbite]

Kane, Foden, Saka, Rashford, Sterling, Rice, Bellingham, Walker, Henderson, Maguire (to some extent), this in my opinion is one of the best England teams we have had a for while. Kane is a world class forward, Bellingham is world class in the making, a blend of youth and experience. There are some holes, perhaps the GK, central defence and perhaps a playmaker midfielder but the attack we have is almost on par with what Brasil and France have. Southgate should do better but he plays too negative for my liking. He's delivered in the last 2 tournaments but I cannot help but think what if we had another manager.

Of those, only Kane would make the 2004 team!