Someone that any top side would be happy to have. So one of the 5-10 best around.
Is Gareth Southgate a shiite England manager?
- Thread starter VP89
- Start date
Bringing Grealish on with 2 minutes left in additional time. The genius of this man frightens me.
I would think so yeah. What's the point of playing well if you don't really look like scoring?
Germany who are usually also good. These are teams that usually have talented players and produce them more consistently than England.
Because those teams were those teams. A world cup happens every 4 years.
Morocco didn't get a freak result. They won it on the back of hard structured defensive work from both the players and the manager.
This England team isn't the 2000s England team and lumping it together to give a "why always me" cry just reaks of self-importance. England aren't better than Brazil. They haven't given us the great Dutch sides either. England has won a world cup, some other nations who have seemed better, Portugal and Holland, have not.
Instead of being greatful for improvements made within the team, both tactically and in terms of personnel, fans have the audacity to state they played well despite Southgate. In 2008, England didn't qualify for the Euros despite having the likes of Gerrard, Rooney and Lampard in the squad. England don't have players with that level of quality yet in this one, yet their still crying.
They lost 2-1 to the world champions who will likely win it again. The job now is to build on this and try to win next time
Because those teams were those teams. A world cup happens every 4 years.
Morocco didn't get a freak result. They won it on the back of hard structured defensive work from both the players and the manager.
This England team isn't the 2000s England team and lumping it together to give a "why always me" cry just reaks of self-importance. England aren't better than Brazil. They haven't given us the great Dutch sides either. England has won a world cup, some other nations who have seemed better, Portugal and Holland, have not.
Instead of being greatful for improvements made within the team, both tactically and in terms of personnel, fans have the audacity to state they played well despite Southgate. In 2008, England didn't qualify for the Euros despite having the likes of Gerrard, Rooney and Lampard in the squad. England don't have players with that level of quality yet in this one, yet their still crying.
They lost 2-1 to the world champions who will likely win it again. The job now is to build on this and try to win next time
Yes.
Not even a question .
England despises genius.
Rewards mediocrity.
Always has.
Ask Cloughie.
Not even a question .
England despises genius.
Rewards mediocrity.
Always has.
Ask Cloughie.
I think there are several issues with how he sets up team and what players he picks:
- England play no attacking midfielder. This creates quite a lot of issues in attack as it forces Kane to drop back due to the large gap between the midfield and the attack.
- What is worse is that this isn't even enforced by lack of players. We have Maddison on the bench who can play this position and has been on fantastic form
- Sterling should not be coming on the pitch. He has been dreadful for a long time and no longer has anything to offer. I am also against the use of Mount, but I guess you could say he won a penalty, at least
- His use of subs is poor. I think it was pretty clear that Rashford should come on at 1-1. There was a large amount of space in behind, but Southgate didn't identify the potential threat. On top of this, Rashford has a fantastic record of scoring against big sides.
- England play no attacking midfielder. This creates quite a lot of issues in attack as it forces Kane to drop back due to the large gap between the midfield and the attack.
- What is worse is that this isn't even enforced by lack of players. We have Maddison on the bench who can play this position and has been on fantastic form
- Sterling should not be coming on the pitch. He has been dreadful for a long time and no longer has anything to offer. I am also against the use of Mount, but I guess you could say he won a penalty, at least
- His use of subs is poor. I think it was pretty clear that Rashford should come on at 1-1. There was a large amount of space in behind, but Southgate didn't identify the potential threat. On top of this, Rashford has a fantastic record of scoring against big sides.
As much as I dislike him Jose would have won a tournament with this squad.
In many ways he's the perfect manager for international football.
In many ways he's the perfect manager for international football.
Jesus christ. This is the best squad we've had in my lifetime (30 years).
This is the team and squad we put out against Crotia in 2007 when we lost and thus failed to qualify for Euro 2008. It's far, far, far inferior to the squad we have now. One or two players like Lampard and Gerrard don't make a team, let alone a squad.
Carson,
Richards, Campbell, Lescott, Bridge,
Gerrard, Barry (Defoe 46), Lampard,
Joe Cole (Bent 80), Wright-Phillips (Beckham 46), Crouch.
Subs Not Used: James, Ashley Cole, Brown, Hargreaves.
Define successful. While it’s difficult to win anything as a national manager for any nation whats he done that you consider a success? I’m pretty sure he has capped more players than Graham Taylor, he consistently refuses to pick the nations yearly love child (Grealish, Foden, Maddison) and he copy’s other managers tactics.
There’s nothing original or complex about the blandest manager in football and his performance as a club manager would suggest he should never have got the job in the first place. He has been found out multiple times. The only difference between him and a Woy Hodgson is that he beats the poorer nations.
In fairness, France's tendency to foul around the box (and only occasionally get punished for it) had more than a little to do with that.
Portugal and Spain are better on paper and yet Morocco are through.
Why does England never manage to get the job done against a better team on paper?
France were nowhere near their best tonight and beat England relatively comfortably who everyone has said 'played really well'
I don't even think France are all that. There are plenty of players in that France side that wouldn't get in the England team. There are plenty of England players not in the squad who at least get a look in to the France side. Can you honestly say Griezmann would get in a city side ahead of Foden, or that Giroud (who is a bit underrated it's true) is better than Kane or the plethora of 9's Southgate chose to overlook? I'm not so sure.
Of course theres Mbappe, but also at the back there's not a lot to choose. I think the game went sort of as I expected tonight but with a bit more courage in decision making England could have gone through. Of course they didn't so with hindsight it's easy to say, but it's not like it hasn't happened before -... Multiple times.
Fair enough I can't say I agree completely but I see where you're coming from.
I don't find capello's late serie a achievements particular impressive, the league was on a downward trajectory and he performed pretty badly when it came to Europe but I give you the la liga one, it was very impressive what he did with real that year.
You make a fair point about tuchel caving under the pressure but even than it's Chelsea we're talking about, he was probably sacked unjustly to begin with and while his football is dull it's quite potent at the ko format, his record speaks for itself.
And lastly while you may not consider Mancini world class surely you can't say the same about don lippi of 2006 glory.
Tbf, that team on that night was really hurt by injures.
I thought it was a very close game that england shaded. I do think with a better manager we win that.
No argument there, but going out to France is hardly a massive failure. Not to stick the knife in but France is far better than England in European footballNot to stick the knife in but the Netherlands are one of the only teams that are worse bottlejobs than England in European football and have a worse squad, so your criteria might be a bit misaligned
I was also fecking complimenting you lot. Uncalled for flak
It's a good question. I can't remember a time, off the top of my head.
I think Barry was pretty underrated. Joe Cole was seen as players like Foden are now. Rooney was usually in that xi. Ashley Cole was the best left back in the world at the time. England usually started with Glen Johnson, Rio and Terry. Using a one off line up seems deceitful in the context. Wright-Phillips was also thought of highly at the time. Wes Brown was starting for United in the 08 team and was great as the right back. Yes, England usually started Croach, but there was also the option of Jermain Defoe, who was a decent player.
Probably right. I don't think England could have scored two goals without the penalties though, France weren't even that good and managed two
I'm actually not English by birth but did support England here.No argument there, but going out to France is hardly a massive failure. Not to stick the knife in but France is far better than England in European football
I was also fecking complimenting you lot. Uncalled for flak
It's been an awful couple of days since I had a favourite in each of the QFs and they all bloody lost (yes, that includes LvG's army). Ugh.
By the end Tuchel was taking potshots at everyone, and given one of the major criticisms of Southgate (and on principle I don’t actually disagree) is not making enough of his attacking options the Tuchel would really not be an improvement in that sense.
Of course I’d agree with Lippi if that’s who you meant, my mind just shot straight to the Euros for obvious reasons. In that spell he was absolutely still one of the top dogs, even if that wasn’t the case when he returned a few years later.
I understand why people like him, he's a nice guy. But come on, which big club would hire him right now? The England squad is very talented and a top manager could add a lot more than Southgate. The ABE brigade - of which I count myself- are all hoping Southgate remains as manager, that tells you all you need to know.
Nothing says relatively comfortable like desperately fouling your opponents anytime they get near the box I guess, or relying on bad refereeing and penalty misses to win games.
My only question would be why take off Saka?
Did they win comfortably? I see that they won 2-1 and benefited massively from Kane missing a penalty. I don't really count that as comfortable, especially when their defence was all over the place trying to deal with England's attack. I would be on the side that they struggled to the win myself.
France couldn't play any better because England played well. I think people just have to accept that. Mbappe and Griezmann could barely get into the game.
France did enough despite not being anywhere near their best and saw the game out. How tournaments are won.
Who cares if you play well but go out...
Haha fair enough. You know we'll eventually dissappoint you though. We will never win the world cup.
Aside from the stupid penalties they gave away France shut England down relatively well and didn't let them create anything much of note.
In today's game, he does well in terms of neutralizing France's flanks, which is the most dangerous weapon of this France team. He also sets the tactics in the midfield area well with Bellingham-Hendo-Rice. This unit is pretty smooth and could go toe-to-toe with France's unit. In the general play, I suppose he does well overall. However, he makes a big mistake in the substitution. Taking Saka off is pretty understandable since Saka is overloaded and has to track back to help in the defensive phase almost every time, but sending Sterling on the pitch isn't a correct choice at that moment. For another one during 80+ minutes, I think he should send a target-striker and drop Kane to a deeper position instead of sending Grealish.
He's not a shit manager, not that shit for sure. However, he isn't that top-level manager too. The young talents and players would be benefited a lot more from a better manager by developing their talents, especially in attackers. Another one when having a better manager would be a better substitution or changing situations/plans in crucial moments to regain momentum back. Anyway, I don’t think it’s that big problem or mistake, if he will stay continue as England manager.
He's not a shit manager, not that shit for sure. However, he isn't that top-level manager too. The young talents and players would be benefited a lot more from a better manager by developing their talents, especially in attackers. Another one when having a better manager would be a better substitution or changing situations/plans in crucial moments to regain momentum back. Anyway, I don’t think it’s that big problem or mistake, if he will stay continue as England manager.
Last edited:
The problem with this argument is that club management is not similar to international management at all. I don’t see any managers at the World Cup who would get a top club job and on the other hand I am not sure there are any top club managers who want to coach an international team
I think the CL winner and La Liga winner might disagree with you there. Also the the guy who won RM 3 CLs in a row is set to be the next France manager.
He should have defo come on instead of sterling. France would have struggled with grealish on the left imo.
But the two mins was due to stones injury meaning grealish wouldn't have come on regardless and we would have had an unused sub
Strange we didn't bring on Wilson esp since we were pumping it into the box
Sack Southgate and hire Mourinho. The ultimate cup winning manager. There are few who could navigate thru a cup competition like Jose.
Some have bridged the gap in the past. Others have failed in spectacular fashion (Don Revie for example). I mean, the game is the same, so what makes a top international manager as opposed to a top club man? I don't know what the answer would be.
I take your point, international management is different. But I think there is more to England than Southgate gets from them
Zidane is a special case and that’s mostly because he is French and he is a bit bored having won everything at Madrid . I would be interested to know which top club managers put their name forward for the England job
I was actually quite impressed by England this tournament and had they won today, which was much closer than I’d expect, they’d be heavy favorites for the whole thing. As many wrote already, subs are a big problem for GS, but he didn’t perform shit this WC.
I must admit that it made me think twice seeing how Enrique and Hansi Flick fared at this tournament, two managers i rate so highly.
If only we could stop Southgate subbing on or starting Sterling and Mount.... Felt like he got so much of it right today, but Sterling... again... I ask... WHY?
If only we could stop Southgate subbing on or starting Sterling and Mount.... Felt like he got so much of it right today, but Sterling... again... I ask... WHY?
Think he’s been a good manager for England. World Cup semi, lost in ET, Euro final lost on penalties, World Cup QF lost against favourites despite being better team. He’s a good tournament manager I think. But his cycle may have come to an end. Personally, I’d still keep him through the euros. The players clearly play for him and he’s always got us at the business end of tournaments. I’m not seeing a better option available either. I don’t always agree with the decisions, but I think that can be said of any manager when a game is lost.