He's done a good job. National team football is hardly the field for revolutionary and intricate tactics. And when you have to play four "win or lose everything" matches to win a major tournament, i can only laugh at the notion that he - or anyone else, for that matter - should play like 1970 Brazil.
But he wasn't brave enough against Croatia and Italy: That's the style they play, they almost always give you the impression that they're there for the taking. It's an illusion. They're begging you to give them space to exploit. See what happened the one time Brazil were caught with their defensive line high, while 1-0 up, against Croatia the other day?
But he hasn't beaten the "big boys": There's truth to that. But it shouldn't be used as an argument to undermine England's wins in the knockouts. Denmark was a bloody good team with players on a mission. Colombia absolutely destroyed Argentina in the CA and they were unlucky the game went to penalties. Knockouts are weird games where the favourites have so much to lose and so much pressure to deal with.
But he constantly picks the same players and he has his favourites: That's the best thing he's done. These are the types of tournaments - with the players getting locked up in a hotel/training ground for a month and playing " a final" every 3-4 days - where togetherness, familiarity and a good dressing room is of the utmost importance. Argentina, Croatia and Morroco are prime examples of how good atmosphere and comaraderie can turn into belief. The one thing Deschamps fixed from the Euros last year was the French dressing room that looked like a version of Big Brother.
But he doesn't use his 5 changes to affect the course of the game: Did Deschamps? He made only one change and that when he was winning. Why change things when the main plan is paying dividends? How did it work out for Santos a few hours back? How did it work for Tite, who fecked up his entire frontline? Probably made things more complicated for both teams. Being able to change half of your outfield players is still a very fresh and absolutely MASSIVE change in the game of football. Even when it was introduced in the PL, the two great team-builders of our era rarely used it (and the Caf was laughing). It proposes an unfamiliar level of tactical intervention that is still under assessment, not from Gareth freaking Southgate, but from the best managers and their staffs.
He's done mistakes, he's made bad decisions and he had occasionally wet the bed, too. But the foundations, the basic principals and requirements around which a solid NT is built are there. There's the issue of fatigue, after so many years. It happens to everyone. There are only so many times you can convince your players and yourself to give it one more try. Maybe he'll stay and things will go south. Maybe another manager will finally win a tournament with a few crucial tweaks of his own here and there. But you are not in point zero to demand his head with such ease. Make the bad choice and you can easily go backwards.
As a neutral, i thought England were very good yesterday. It was a quality game, probably the best the European continent has to offer nowadays. And for the last couple of years, this is England's level. No trophy, i know, but no need for anger and self-flagellation. It's very tough to go all the way in these tournaments and it needs a certain amount of luck that you so desperately need. But you can't control that. All you can do is be in the whereabouts. And England have done that under Southgate.
Some people will scoff, but i think it was the best you've looked in WC knockouts since 1990. Granted, your good performances have been rather few since then, but it was a proper European derby last night.
