Lampard and Gerrard were never proper midfielders and Scholes was never a left winger so...no, they weren't a better midfield.
Is Gareth Southgate a shiite England manager?
- Thread starter VP89
- Start date
Lampard and Gerrard were never proper midfielders and Scholes was never a left winger so...no, they weren't a better midfield.
Lampard, Scholes and Gerrard were world class players and they could play in any team in the world, Real and Barca included, if they wanted to.
Rice, Henderson and Phillips? I don't think so.
Scholes could have played CM for any team in the world and Gerrard and Lampard might have squeaked in as 8/10 players in a 3 man midfield but neither of them were great CMs and Scholes didn't play CM alongside them all that much so...not terribly relevant. Overall it's a midfield that lacks pace and ball carrying ability, as well as a proper ball winner. Not great.
If you read my post in the previous page, I was saying that there are:
1. Individuals
2. Organization
To win trophies, organization is more important than individuals.
But there is no question that the 2004 had better individuals (ie, a better squad). There is no question about it.
Now everything you mention here (pace, ball carrying etc) is about organization. That's the job of the manager for a National Team that cannot make any transfers. How to organize existing players into a trophy winning Team.
To be fair, the 2004 squad/well XI is still the only team I genuinely feel wins the tournament it’s in if Rooney stayed fit. The permanences were there, the talent, the confidence, the fans were absolutely great and well into Rooney fever. Mega summer.
In fact, probably win it if VAR existed too, but that Rooney injury, goddamn, still hurts.
You can’t say that about 2018/2020, no one got injured. They simply lost both times.
In fact, probably win it if VAR existed too, but that Rooney injury, goddamn, still hurts.
You can’t say that about 2018/2020, no one got injured. They simply lost both times.
The squad was stronger in places but where it really matters (up front) it was not. And it's not even close. We also had a decent half a squad of players but Gerrard, Scholes and lampard never worked together so the midfield was significantly less than the sum of its parts. Our midfield now is far more balanced, even if the player individually are not as good as they were 20 years ago.
This England team actually works well and compliments each other. Rather than forcing sterling, rashford, foden and grealish into a starting line up we can make really meaningful changes from the bench.
The team 20 years ago was devoid of all attacking pace really, there was almost no drive anywhere.
He's definitely done a decent job but let's not kid ourselves he's some sort of genius either.
In knockout football he's beaten Sweden, Ukraine, Denmark, Columbia, Senegal and a very over the hill Germany team. Hardly talking about the crème de la crème of world football are we?
If we get past France then his stock will rise significantly. Sadly I don't think we will though.
In knockout football he's beaten Sweden, Ukraine, Denmark, Columbia, Senegal and a very over the hill Germany team. Hardly talking about the crème de la crème of world football are we?
If we get past France then his stock will rise significantly. Sadly I don't think we will though.
Rubbish. If you don't have players that suit each other it's no easy feat to get the team set up well. For example, Trevor Sinclair did superbly on the left wing in one of the tournaments - clearly that was a decision made with the intention of getting the best out of the team rather than just getting the most talented players out on the pitch. On the other hand, then you have to play with Trevor Sinclair against a team with Ronaldinho or Del Piero in the same position.
Ok the Gerrard-Lampard thing was ridiculous but is it any more daft than constantly wheeling out Mount and Kane together? Sven did try and get Hargreaves in his team but the tabloids were so toxic back then when it came to the England team, it really was a horrible job (money aside).
Why not, Alf Ramsey is rightly revered yet he was cleansed from his huge cock-up with perhaps England;s best ever team in 1970, subbing Bobby Charlton at 2-0 and losing 3-2 is way worse than anything Southgate has managed yet
Last edited:
absolutely nobody in England will give a single feck
Aside from Scots and Welsh men truer words were never said!
I don't really see it that way, and nor do many others.
Giving a feck and acknowledging that he made poor decisions in a separate tournament are different things.
Like "yeah he was shite up to the 2022 world cup because he had shit selections and shit systems. But I don't give a feck anymore cos he won the WC in 2022".
Exactly my point, no gives a shite, but if Southgate wins the WC his critics will say, yeah but he fecked up the EUROS
Nah, most of them will say: "I always knew Southgate is a legend! Best manager ever!"
The world is full of binary thinkers who hate nuance. Southgate did fine in the tournaments he has taken England but there's little evidence that he actually added value at crucial moments.
Other managers could have done as well or better. Other managers might not have done as well. But any England manager would have surely been excoriated for losing to Denmark or Ukraine in the Euros knockout stage, or Sweden/Colombia in 2018. Therefore, it's hard to argue that Southgate did anything special to get England past them.
Other managers could have done as well or better. Other managers might not have done as well. But any England manager would have surely been excoriated for losing to Denmark or Ukraine in the Euros knockout stage, or Sweden/Colombia in 2018. Therefore, it's hard to argue that Southgate did anything special to get England past them.
Its funny because everyone agreed and acknowledged his limitations but said if he won the euros they don't care.
Thats exactly why the logic is so flawed.
Southgate has underachieved given what has been in front of him. And he largely plays drab football who chooses his favourites over form or quality. Croatia was there for the taking, and Italy was a total gimme and both were fecked up. And the less said about outside of tournament football the better.
Simultaneously I won’t, and quite literally can’t, take away that he has somewhat broken England’s duck.
Fact of the matter is he has out-performed practically all bar one England managers. England is one of football’s most chronic under-achievers. Even when we got historically great managers like Capello it still all fell apart.
His success isn’t so much a credit to him as it massive indictment of the drab shite that’s been put up for 60 years. Yeah we’ve won some knockout rounds but Jesus Christ it just goes to show how poor England has performed at tournaments.
So as much as I hate him and his football, he and the FA have turned the ship with the national game quite a lot. It feels a lot more like an England squad than a mish mash of United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc.
Any other big national manager doing what Gareth has done wouldn’t be hailed as a football genius like he is by some.
Simultaneously I won’t, and quite literally can’t, take away that he has somewhat broken England’s duck.
Fact of the matter is he has out-performed practically all bar one England managers. England is one of football’s most chronic under-achievers. Even when we got historically great managers like Capello it still all fell apart.
His success isn’t so much a credit to him as it massive indictment of the drab shite that’s been put up for 60 years. Yeah we’ve won some knockout rounds but Jesus Christ it just goes to show how poor England has performed at tournaments.
So as much as I hate him and his football, he and the FA have turned the ship with the national game quite a lot. It feels a lot more like an England squad than a mish mash of United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc.
Any other big national manager doing what Gareth has done wouldn’t be hailed as a football genius like he is by some.
Then he can’t win can he???
damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t (win/lose a tournament I mean)
which would just be ridiculous
If he beats current World Cup holders and close favourites for this year’s tournament in France on Saturday, then who ever in the final, be it Brazil, or Argentina and wins England the World Cup, anyone bemoaning “ohhhh but he lost the damn Euros” genuinely deserves executing
I used to be anti-Southgate, but it’s undeniable he’s done well in tournaments. He has a good squad sure, but would you trust Sven, Capello, McClaren or Hodgson with this group of players? I don’t think they’d have done any better atall
They’re not the alternatives to Southgate though.
If he’d been let go after the Italy game, we could have Howe now, who is clearly a far better manager and defo would’ve taken the job.
I think as most national team in the world, there are eras where some position is stacked and some position lacked options. In 2004 England have a stack of attacking midfielders and central defenders, but lacked options on strikers and wide areas. Current England team lacked options at central defenders and central midfielders, but are stacked at wide areas.
The job of the manager is to create a balance team with this limitations, and so far in the last 20 years only Southgate has managed that for England.
It was what Sven and Capello failed to do that because, lacked of conviction and intense media scrutiny. But handling the media is part of the job too, and Southgate has also done well in this area too.
He's by no means perfect, but I can see signs that he learned from past mistakes
I just don’t think it’s viable to have an attacking manager in international football. That kind of pressing and quick penetrative play takes months of daily training to get right. International managers don’t have that luxury, their players will have spent months away from them learning and practicing completely disparate systems every day.
I honestly think he’s the best option we have right now. Fair enough we missed out on Howe at the time but if Newcastles new owners came sniffing around with a 4 mil a year deal while he was in charge of England last winter do you think he’d have turned it down?
I would never want Southgate as my club manager, but he has bought a sense of unity and team spirit to this group in a way that all our previous managers have failed to do. He's also balanced the starting eleven very nicely as well. Brazil, England and France are, in my mind, the best teams in this tournament, we have as good as a chance as anyone.
Sven had options - he was just incompetent or lazy. In 2004, he could have pushed Gerrard forward and brought on Joe Cole or Hargreaves. Instead he brought on his favourite Vassell. In 2006, he picked a ridiculous set of strikers - two injured players, a schoolboy and Peter Crouch. I’m not claiming he left world beaters behind, but surely Jermaine Defoe, for example, would have been a better option than Walcott.
I have no idea how anyone who watched the Sven era can rate him above or even equal with Southgate. It was a massive waste of talent and FA money, with the FA blinded by their “foreign sophisticate” who served up tumescent, meat and potatoes 4-4-2. I don’t rate Southgate that highly in objective terms but, comparatively at least, there’s no more scraping late (illegal) winners against Trinidad and Tobago to qualify, shunting Scholes to the left or playing attacking midfielders in an overrun midfield two while Michael Carrick sits on the bench.
On the right, the 2004 squad had Beckham, perhaps the best right winger ever. And behind him they had Neville, that is the Man Utd right wing.
On the left, it was Ashley Cole. The only position they did not have a great player was the left wing.
He's a cautious manager. You'll always get people who equate cautious and defensive with "shite". No injuries, no yellow cards, no squad disunity. Most successful manager in the role for over 50 years. But he hasn't faced Brazil every match so he's "lucky and shite"
He already has a better record than Sir Bobby. Mind you I really liked the bloke even when Newcastle "sort of" challenged for the PL in 03 and RVN and Scholes took care of that in that epic 6 2 win. Southgate has a WC sf to his name and he is the Euro runner up. Thats better than what Sir Bobby ever did but I gotta be honest football is subjective and when I think of "jolly old" England I think of him and Lineker and Gazza. Its a bit similar in my country. Ciro Blazevic is extremley loved despite not being the best manager Croatia ever had
To be fair, Lampard and Gerrard might have struggled in the Galacticos side because they weren't great defensively, though Gerrard seems like he would have done well under Schuster in the minutes Guti and Gago played, as they were great passers but didn't bring much else to the side.
Lampard and Gerrard were less portable than Scholes, but there were definitely midfield setups where you'd rather have them, if you needed more running and power for example. Like current England I think would pick Gerrard first to play as a #8 alongside Bellingham instead of Henderson, in front of Rice, then Scholes and then Lampard last. Whereas say Argentina might have Lampard first to replace Mac Allister and add some goal threat and solid all-around play on the left of their midfield 3. If De Paul was subtracted, I think they'd take Gerrard to have running on Messi's side and if Enzo was out they'd take Scholes to run the game centrally or on the left of their 3.
Obviously, in hindsight, England should have built around a midfield 3 with whoever the best DM was, then Scholes, and let Gerrard and Lampard fight it out for a starting spot with the latter being a supersub (a role that is underrated at tournaments even as we see guys like Milla, Gotze and Fabregas shine and contribute a ton to their team's successes. In this World Cup, the player I could best see fitting the role is maybe Vitinha, who looked good against South Korea and may not be in the first choice midfield 3. Great for PSG whenever I've seen him this year.
Indeed. While I'd say the fully fit starting XI from 2002 to 2006 was superior, the depth wasn't there. It led to scenarios such as in 2004 when Phil Neville and Vassell played most of the quarter-final against Portugal. The lack of depth also created a balance issue that became particularly apparent by 2006 with the lack of pace in the midfield and attack - that squad would have cried out for one or two of the pacy wide players Southgate can call upon.
Aye, I don't think we can fault Robson's record at the World Cup. Beaten by the eventual winners in 1986 and 1990, and pushed them both very, very close.
That is simply not true mate. England does not have the midfield quality they think and it was because of your backs that you did an outstantding job of countering that in 2018. Hendo, Dier (who started as a CM) and even Phillips are not all that and Im still quite not sure if Bellingham is a true midfielder or is he more offensive.
So yeah he is due some credit aldo I agree the tactics against Italy were cowardly
Something that is overlooked in the main. Different players playing for different clubs under different coaches with different ideas. Throwing them together for a few days every few months and expecting club-level synergy isn't realistic
Being reported in the Guardian today (as part of a discussion over Robbo scoring 2 against the French):
... Southgate grew up as a fan of Manchester United, where Robson moved in 1981...
Maybe a bit more sympathy / support for him now?!
... Southgate grew up as a fan of Manchester United, where Robson moved in 1981...
Maybe a bit more sympathy / support for him now?!
It's relative though.
Relatively speaking Lamps+Scholes+Gerrard had to compete with a better class of midfielder for the rival sides in the WC tournaments. Also Lamps+Gerrard were not compatible and Scholes was misused (different topic there).
I think the reduction in quality for this and the Euros means that England have the best chance they ever had. Not saying this England side is poor, but the relative competition has actually reduced in quality in this tournament and in the Euros, whereas England are at their peak in fluidity, balance between age and experience and momentum.
Managing a national team is not the same as managing a club team. You do not work with the players day in, day out and do not have the luxury of trying players/formations in competitive matches very often. Friendlies don’t tell you much……. Therefore you have to pick a system that is simple and that everyone understands (you cant sign players) and the emphasis is more on man management and keeping the team together as a unit instead of in club factions (as happened with the “golden generation “)
He has looked at what has been the most successful way of playing by previous successful european national teams and adopted that style (a bit defensive).
Based on his results and the above, then he has done better than many other “better on paper” managers that we have had previously.
He has looked at what has been the most successful way of playing by previous successful european national teams and adopted that style (a bit defensive).
Based on his results and the above, then he has done better than many other “better on paper” managers that we have had previously.
Ah come on if we'd done badly you'd have blamed him, not said it was 'in spite' of him. So all things being equal, as we did well and as the manager, he deserves credit.
And it's not 'with a different manager in charge' England would have won everything, it's 'with my fantasy manager in charge'.
I do think he's spurned a couple of great opportunities (winning the Euros the biggest) but if England were to beat France it would be hard to argue against someone who says that's hes done a good (if not great) job during his tenure.
I honestly don't think he's a good manager though (at least at club level) and if he were to get himself a top job I believe he would be under serious pressure very quickly.
I honestly don't think he's a good manager though (at least at club level) and if he were to get himself a top job I believe he would be under serious pressure very quickly.
Lets be fair, England have done well in this WC so far but as of yet they have not played any side that could be classed as very good ( apart from Wales obviously ).
But Southgate has always had a good record vrs teams he should beat, the problem with Southgate is the moment England face a very good side he tactically craps the bed and goes ultra passive.
It would not surprise me at all if he reverted to a back 5 against France and England go out meekly by the odd goal.
But Southgate has always had a good record vrs teams he should beat, the problem with Southgate is the moment England face a very good side he tactically craps the bed and goes ultra passive.
It would not surprise me at all if he reverted to a back 5 against France and England go out meekly by the odd goal.
Exactly
All this “we’d have won the Euros with a better manager” crap drive me nuts, well who then? Which manager? And I don’t mean which manager in fantasy football manager World, I’m mean who in the available real world of football.
Looking at our past we’ve had quite notable managers on paper, winners, notably one of them was in charge of our “golden generation”…..how did that go with a so called better manager on paper?
Southgates Set up frustrates me at times of course, I worry when it comes to facing the big Ed’s ie France on Saturday, but I hope he’s learning from past mistakes
a Semi Final, a Final and now bare minimum a QF is a record that wipes the floor with all previous England managers since 66, if he get us past France on Saturday and through to yet another WC Semi Final having beaten an elite side, his credentials as a top top international manager will be cemented
Winning the tournament and he joins an elite group of international managers