Is Gareth Southgate a shiite England manager?

TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
Brazil of the 70s was an obvious exaggeration when people are asking for a manager to be more proactive (or stop being a coward) when his plan is already working against sides of equal quality in games where a simple mistake or miscalculation from the bench can send you straight to the hotel packing your bags. If you want to tell me that when it comes to forcing changes under high pressure, Southgate factors in his own limitations as a manager (as well as how he sees the game is unfolding) before he makes a decision, i will accept that. But the history of these competitions suggests that you don't have to be brave to go all the way. Quite the opposite. Deschamps and Santos won trophies by being cautious and waiting for their players to make their moments count. Del Bosque and Low presented far more defensive and mundane versions of Barcelona and Bayern Munich, the teams that provided the basis for their NTs. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what deviates Southgate's overall approach, in a bad way, from what has brought success to everyone else. What changes have these managers done, proactively, to change things around? What did Deschamps do when England equalized and went on to boss the game? Feck all, as far as i remember. He stayed the course and trusted the initial plan. As has Dalic throughout the tournament. As has Regragui. As has Scaloni, for the most part, after the Mexico game.

I understand that you guys feel disappointed. And, in the back of your heads, you were probably thinking "beat France and we're in another final". I'm just saying that it's very difficult to win these tournaments (as is winning the CL at club level). Too many things, some of them completely out of your hands, can go wrong. You were actually better, for big parts of the 90 mins, against the team that is on the way to achieve what hasn't been done in 60 years. As i said earlier, a proper European derby, the best the continent had to offer in terms of quality. After playing a final in 2021. It's not a league competition. Being able to maintain that level is a success on its own.

The Germans began their efforts after the 2004 debacle, and their golden generation managed to get rewarded 10 years later. After getting their arses constantly handed to them by the Spaniards and the Italians time after time. In the 2014 knockouts, Algeria (does anyone remember them?) took them to extra-time. After that, Neuer made one of the best saves in the WC against Giroud. In the final, Higuain missed a sitter that could have changed the complexion of the final. It wasn't just the 7-1. It's not easy, that why it's the Holy Grail for every footballer out there.
Click to expand...
I very much agree luck is an important factor as well as no international team winning a big tournament have played fun football consistently. But one thing most winners have done is beat some big teams in the process of winning or reaching finals.

I feel england under southgate have been very fortunate with the draws. Irony is so far under southgate in KO the only big team they have beaten is a weak Germany in ro16. Their opponents in KO have been Colombia, Sweden, Croatia (Lost), Germany, Ukraine, Denmark, Italy(Lost), Senegal, France(Lost).

Germany have been poor in the last 3 international tournament but their draw in euros and this WC have been nasty. Put them in England place and maybe they would have also played qf.

Coming to southgate I don't think he is shite or done a shite job but he has also not overexceeded any expectations. This wc exit has been disappointing and I think he should go.
 
Give it to Pochettino and England will be in the next Euros final. I also like Morocco's manager. The Netherlands could do with him.
 
Has got some things wrong. But the fellow was amongst the first to recognize Saka's talent, I mean after Emery and Arteta. But Emery and Arteta had the luxury of watching him play day in and day out. Southgate took him to the Euros as a 19 year old, when most of the non Arsenal supporting folks couldn't even spell his name properly.
And Saka isn't a very obvious talent to recognize, he doesn't make fients and dribbles, like a Zaha or Antony. Nor is he a wc finisher so that you can just look at his stats to know about him. Southgate needs to be given credit for selecting him over the likes of more fancied youth players.
 
RedIan said:
A political yes man, tactically dull who failed to make the best of the abundant talent he has available.
Click to expand...

“Abundant talent”, really?

Who in the England starting XI walks right into, without any doubt whatsoever, the France starting XI? No one.

England have a good squad but when your keeper is Pickford and your CBs are Maguire and Stones, very decent footballers but clearly not world class, the “abundant talent” thesis isn’t off to a great start. I’ll give you Walker and Shaw.

England’s midfield, again very solid but hardly world class. Bellingham will get there soon, but he’s not there yet. Rice is, again, very solid, but he’s nowhere class to class of Carrick, who rarely ever played for the England NT (subject to fact check). And Henderson, he’s hardly an abundant talent and something of a waste on the pitch if you already have Rice on the pitch.

Kane is a proper talent, but he’s been off the boil for a while and those who argue he’s past his sell by date have a case.

Foden and Saka are abundant talents but they wouldn’t start for France, they wouldn’t start for Brazil and probably not Argentina. I’ll grant you those are elite sides, but the point is that we’re comparing the talent on this England NT to those of the elite NTs on the planet, and man for man, England are a notch below those three national teams.

England and Southgate do need to part ways, but we shouldn’t be judging Southgate’s record in light of a squad with abundant talent that simply doesn’t exist. In terms of ranking the talent level of the sides that made it to the QF, you’d have to say England were about in the middle.

Southgate, who should have gotten more out of this squad than he did, which I think is your main point, got the results we would have, with clear eyes about the talent level of the squad he had, expected and nothing more.
 
Big critic of his in game management but I thought it was largely fine. England were dominating at 1-1 so not as great a need to throw on endless subs as he didn't do at similar times in games v Croatia and Italy when they were dominating England and he sat on his hands.

Only decision I didn't get was to throw on Sterling as first sub considering it's been a very disrupting week for him. Apparently Saka was limping from challenges so that's why he went off but ideally you keep him on as he was causing carnage all night.
 
AshRK said:
I very much agree luck is an important factor as well as no international team winning a big tournament have played fun football consistently. But one thing most winners have done is beat some big teams in the process of winning or reaching finals.

I feel england under southgate have been very fortunate with the draws. Irony is so far under southgate in KO the only big team they have beaten is a weak Germany in ro16. Their opponents in KO have been Colombia, Sweden, Croatia (Lost), Germany, Ukraine, Denmark, Italy(Lost), Senegal, France(Lost).

Germany have been poor in the last 3 international tournament but their draw in euros and this WC have been nasty. Put them in England place and maybe they would have also played qf.

Coming to southgate I don't think he is shite or done a shite job but he has also not overexceeded any expectations. This wc exit has been disappointing and I think he should go.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this point. I mentioned it in an earlier post that it's a fair criticism. But it's not something that's happening only under Southgate. It's a problem, a mental block if you like, for England for quite a long time.

It's also true that he's got favourable draws. But these are still games that have to be won. Spain, Portugal and Brazil, all had favourable draws in this WC. I guess, where i see things differently is that i believe the basis of a good side is already there. The fact that the wins against the "lesser" sides seem to be so unimpressive is a kind of wealth in itself, and an indication that you're doing some things right. And, no, i don't think that this Germany would have got to the QF from England's group. They are plain bad. It's the same side that struggled against Japan, South Korea and Hungary. That's where our opinions differ. I listened to Rio's podcast, he was saying if not now (France were missing Benz, Kante), when? My answer is, why not in two years' time when everybody we'll be full strength. If you're good, and England are good, why this attitude? Anything can happen.

If the continuation of his managerial stint has divided people as much as it seems on here, to the point where the discussion about him has become toxic, yes, he should be replaced. But Howe and Potter aren't leaving club football to manage England. Someone mentioned Tuchel, but a German managing England could create a shitstorm (especially if he doesn't hit the ground running) that will cause problems. Don't forget that Big Sam was the FA's choice before their hand was forced to look for an alternative.
 
lex talionis said:
“Abundant talent”, really?

Who in the England starting XI walks right into, without any doubt whatsoever, the France starting XI? No one.

England have a good squad but when your keeper is Pickford and your CBs are Maguire and Stones, very decent footballers but clearly not world class, the “abundant talent” thesis isn’t off to a great start. I’ll give you Walker and Shaw.

England’s midfield, again very solid but hardly world class. Bellingham will get there soon, but he’s not there yet. Rice is, again, very solid, but he’s nowhere class to class of Carrick, who rarely ever played for the England NT (subject to fact check). And Henderson, he’s hardly an abundant talent and something of a waste on the pitch if you already have Rice on the pitch.

Kane is a proper talent, but he’s been off the boil for a while and those who argue he’s past his sell by date have a case.

Foden and Saka are abundant talents but they wouldn’t start for France, they wouldn’t start for Brazil and probably not Argentina. I’ll grant you those are elite sides, but the point is that we’re comparing the talent on this England NT to those of the elite NTs on the planet, and man for man, England are a notch below those three national teams.

England and Southgate do need to part ways, but we shouldn’t be judging Southgate’s record in light of a squad with abundant talent that simply doesn’t exist. In terms of ranking the talent level of the sides that made it to the QF, you’d have to say England were about in the middle.

Southgate, who should have gotten more out of this squad than he did, which I think is your main point, got the results we would have, with clear eyes about the talent level of the squad he had, expected and nothing more.
Click to expand...
This particular England squad was very attack orientated but not set up to really be that aggressive. As a nation we have a severe problem at CM. We simply don’t have enough options. The fact that an unfit Phillips got selected is more than enough proof of this. Literally the next player in line was Ward-Prowse who is not even Europa level quality.

Why Southgate didn’t play 4-2-3-1 which fit the balance of the squad better I don’t know. He took Gallagher and Maddison and never used them and tried playing Mount as an 8 to bad effect.
 
He doesn't seem to be the kind who makes a difference either way but it's really hard to tell. The players seem to enjoy it and he hasn't done anything really crazy. His loyalty to players seems to work well sometimes and other times be a bit pig headed. But really unless you're a player behind the scenes it's really hard to say.

Judging by results 2018 he matched Bobby Robson in 1990, 2021 he exceeded Terry Venables in 1996 and 2022 he matched a whole load of quarter final managers. So he's been very successful if you're being objective. But he hasn't won anything, which is the real test.
 
SirReginald said:
This particular England squad was very attack orientated but not set up to really be that aggressive. As a nation we have a severe problem at CM. We simply don’t have enough options. The fact that an unfit Phillips got selected is more than enough proof of this. Literally the next player in line was Ward-Prowse who is not even Europa level quality.

Why Southgate didn’t play 4-2-3-1 which fit the balance of the squad better I don’t know. He took Gallagher and Maddison and never used them and tried playing Mount as an 8 to bad effect.
Click to expand...

It's easy to tear apart Southgate now that he's in the rearview mirror (no chance he's staying on), but I really don't think there was any formula to get this England side to a cup lifting ceremony. Mount is another solid but relatively unimpactful footballer and apart from winning the pk -- which in no way required any dark arts display on his part -- offered nothing to England.

Many other managers often find themselves of having an undroppable player in their squad, even if that player is out of form. Kane was such a player, so while it would have been unthinkable to drop Kane (I called for this before the WC began) and go with Foden as a false 9 and Rashford and Saka on the wings. But the firestorm Southgate would have faced had that not worked out would have been beyond all belief. So in the end what did Southgate do? He fielded the players who had a reputation, despite their form or fit in the squad in the moment. I'm not suggesting that England crashing out came down to Kane being on the pitch, but what we can state without any shadow of a doubt is that Southgate did not have it in him to change the dynamics in the pitch to the point where his side could beat opponents like France or even USA. He was able to successful punch on weaker sides but when it came time to taking on a squad which truly believed they could beat England -- USA in the group stage and France in the QF -- Southgate couldn't get his side to play above their ability.
 
TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
I agree with you on this point. I mentioned it in an earlier post that it's a fair criticism. But it's not something that's happening only under Southgate. It's a problem, a mental block if you like, for England for quite a long time.

It's also true that he's got favourable draws. But these are still games that have to be won. Spain, Portugal and Brazil, all had favourable draws in this WC. I guess, where i see things differently is that i believe the basis of a good side is already there. The fact that the wins against the "lesser" sides seem to be so unimpressive is a kind of wealth in itself, and an indication that you're doing some things right. And, no, i don't think that this Germany would have got to the QF from England's group. They are plain bad. It's the same side that struggled against Japan, South Korea and Hungary. That's where our opinions differ. I listened to Rio's podcast, he was saying if not now (France were missing Benz, Kante), when? My answer is, why not in two years' time when everybody we'll be full strength. If you're good, and England are good, why this attitude? Anything can happen.

If the continuation of his managerial stint has divided people as much as it seems on here, to the point where the discussion about him has become toxic, yes, he should be replaced. But Howe and Potter aren't leaving club football to manage England. Someone mentioned Tuchel, but a German managing England could create a shitstorm (especially if he doesn't hit the ground running) that will cause problems. Don't forget that Big Sam was the FA's choice before their hand was forced to look for an alternative.
Click to expand...
I still feel this has been a missed opportunity for this england side. Germany are not that good but they may improve and become a force in the next tournament. One sf and final is not that bad but with so many teams in transition, maybe they could have won a thing or two.
 
SilentWitness said:
Yes they did.
Click to expand...
Like what? All there was, was the Kane chance early on where Kane did well to roll Upamecano and fashion the chance.

Even look at fotmob xG where they break it down. 2.41 xG total for England, great.

Only 0.53 xG created in open play though, and 1.58 of the total were the 2 pens. That's not good in a game you were chasing for the majority of the game. England did pretty well but the same issue that has always been there for Southgate was your downfall. Lack of any idea of what to do in open play. That's why Southgate will never be truly successful.
 
bosnian_red said:
Like what? All there was, was the Kane chance early on where Kane did well to roll Upamecano and fashion the chance.

Even look at fotmob xG where they break it down. 2.41 xG total for England, great.

Only 0.53 xG created in open play though, and 1.58 of the total were the 2 pens. That's not good in a game you were chasing for the majority of the game. England did pretty well but the same issue that has always been there for Southgate was your downfall. Lack of any idea of what to do in open play. That's why Southgate will never be truly successful.
Click to expand...

Like the cross into Saka which he hit wide?
 
He subbed on the likes of Mount, grealish and sterling that have zero aerial threat and ain't great crossers either and yet near the end england were just swing crosses into basically nobody as kane rarely attacks the ball when crossed into the box or is somewhere outside the box due to going deep in the build up to the cross
 
Just too cautious in the latter part of games like he was in the Euro final. Yes Mount won a penalty, was a crazy and odd foul. lets say Kane scores, we're at 2-2 and still probably going to succumb to another France goal while we struggle with Mount and Sterling doing nothing. We should be more positive and bold in the latter part, perhaps we create a chance and score for 2-1 and then pin them back more, or have a chance in extra time. Kane's pen if scored only keeps us in it a little longer. We could also concede of course, yet again we're here losing to 2-1 anyway and wondering what might've been against Italy had we gone for them earlier.

Sterling was not the guy to bring on, not played well for ages, had a troubling family issue flying back and forth. Ultimately a conservative sub by Southgate, no risk no reward. We wait until France score on 78 and throw on Mount and Sterling on 79 mins.

The tournaments come and go. If we're bolder as a team or tactically, we might be looking at the odd win in the past 30 years. Too much relying on set pieces, pens, sitting on draws and holding on for pens, hoping something might happen while not risking a loss instead of making it happen at one tournament. Doesn't matter if we fail at two and win one if we go for it. We have nothing to show for our cautious play. You don't punch above your weight the odd time either in playing this way, you don't push the luck your way unless you go for it sometimes, we always fall to the mean.
 
Lee565 said:
He subbed on the likes of Mount, grealish and sterling that have zero aerial threat and ain't great crossers either and yet near the end england were just swing crosses into basically nobody as kane rarely attacks the ball when crossed into the box or is somewhere outside the box due to going deep in the build up to the cross
Click to expand...

While also keeping all of the CBs back instead of parking one in the oppo's box for the last 8mins.
 
bosnian_red said:
Like what? All there was, was the Kane chance early on where Kane did well to roll Upamecano and fashion the chance.

Even look at fotmob xG where they break it down. 2.41 xG total for England, great.

Only 0.53 xG created in open play though, and 1.58 of the total were the 2 pens. That's not good in a game you were chasing for the majority of the game. England did pretty well but the same issue that has always been there for Southgate was your downfall. Lack of any idea of what to do in open play. That's why Southgate will never be truly successful.
Click to expand...

Whereas, opening the score with a shot worth xG 0.03 and getting the lead again with a deflected header worth xG 0.17 was a true masterclass by Deschamps. And it can go both ways. The only good chance the French created (Pickford's save from Giroud's effort) came when England had to leave some spaces behind. It was a derby. These games are usually tight. You could have a point for the Euro Final, where they looked very timid after going a goal up so early. But the xG stats for that game also tell us that the Italians not only deserved to equalize, but they also created enough chances to warrant a second goal after Bonucci' levelled the score. It wasn't illogical to put safety first for a manager who always does that.
 
Leaving out the "if not GS then who's the next England Manager" problem.

I don't understand the team selection and especially the subs to be honest.

France were tired in the 2nd half and Deschamps didn't have a lot of options to bring on, he brought on Coman for Dembele who was gassed.

Looking at the bench, other than maybe Camavinga or Fofana....not much there.

I don't see the appeal of Henderson with Rice & Bellingham.

Everything France did well went through Griezman in the first half and in moments in the 2nd half.

I don't see how someone playing as a 10 like Maddison/Grealish etc wouldn't have helped unlock the French D.

Not Mount.

Heck Kane was essentially playing there, they needed someone to run in behind...aka Rashford.

Good on GS for starting Foden but he had a slow day, Rashford should have been on for him sooner

Taking off Saka was dumb unless he was hurt. Saka was your best player all day.

There is no way anyone can justify bringing on Sterling at that point in the game, even if he hadn't been away from the team due to the burglary.

Mount offers nothing, he "won" the penalty sure, anyone could have done that seeing how Hernandez had a moment of madness.

Grealish came on for an injured Stones, no issue there other than they should have probably added up front the minute Kane pissed the PK.

France were ripe for the picking yesterday, huge opportunity missed.
 
I think hes shite, the media try to grant him a sainthood everytime he beats a minnow. Truth is probably that he is medicore.
 
TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
Whereas, opening the score with a shot worth xG 0.03 and getting the lead again with a deflected header worth xG 0.17 was a true masterclass by Deschamps. And it can go both ways. The only good chance the French created (Pickford's save from Giroud's effort) came when England had to leave some spaces behind. It was a derby. These games are usually tight. You could have a point for the Euro Final, where they looked very timid after going a goal up so early. But the xG stats for that game also tell us that the Italians not only deserved to equalize, but they also created enough chances to warrant a second goal after Bonucci' levelled the score. It wasn't illogical to put safety first for a manager who always does that.
Click to expand...
Oh I really dislike Deschamps as a manager and think he gets lucky with his tactics due to squad quality. It was not a good performance in any way from France and it's something they've gotten away with plenty of times.

And one off games, it can happen. The reason I bring it up, is because I always feel England really struggles to create from open play. Southgate plays a tactic that is effective at not getting upsets go against you, but it's also a tactic that has pretty much produced nothing but failure for 6 years against any team who is on a similar level, of slightly above. The only 2 games off the top of my head that went well against big opponents were against Spain in the nation's league that one year, and then the Germany game in the euros... But it just feels very much like Moyes style, where he's nice and competitive and keeps things solid, always beats those he should be beating so you get far, but never does anything against similar level opposition. And I don't think he'll ever win anything. I don't think it's good to keep a manager on the basis of "beating teams he should be beating" if there is a ceiling with what he can achieve, and that's pretty much losing at the first real challenge.
 
Maybe he should have been braver earlier in 2nd half ,,because as soon as England equalised , they looked like winning. Maybe Rashford and a Maddison ? Who knows be braver they went out with a wimper more than fireworks. Best squad for years fails again. Big missed opertunity more than 2018 where they should have beaten Croatia. And Euros were they should have been braver again In final. Next Manager if He goes will be rubbing his hands on what he's got.
 
bosnian_red said:
Oh I really dislike Deschamps as a manager and think he gets lucky with his tactics due to squad quality. It was not a good performance in any way from France and it's something they've gotten away with plenty of times.

And one off games, it can happen. The reason I bring it up, is because I always feel England really struggles to create from open play. Southgate plays a tactic that is effective at not getting upsets go against you, but it's also a tactic that has pretty much produced nothing but failure for 6 years against any team who is on a similar level, of slightly above. The only 2 games off the top of my head that went well against big opponents were against Spain in the nation's league that one year, and then the Germany game in the euros... But it just feels very much like Moyes style, where he's nice and competitive and keeps things solid, always beats those he should be beating so you get far, but never does anything against similar level opposition. And I don't think he'll ever win anything. I don't think it's good to keep a manager on the basis of "beating teams he should be beating" if there is a ceiling with what he can achieve, and that's pretty much losing at the first real challenge.
Click to expand...

I get where you're coming from. In the last Euros, they averaged 1.50 xG per game, which i think is very healthy for this type of competition. Even against Denmark, they were clearly the better side. Funnily enough, the only time (besides the final we already mentioned) they didn't, statistically, "deserve" the clear win they got was against the Germans. They were close to their usual 1.4/1.5 but they failed to keep the Germans below 1. Which is Southgate's goal as England manager. But, if by chance you've read my previous posts, is that push they lack. Some things to go your way. And some things did go France's/Deschamps' way yesterday. Getting an early goal with a shot that has 2% possibility to go in can be a huge advantage.

From that point on, i can understand why he chose not to change things early. Plenty of time left, they were playing well, didn't concede a clear-cut chance. In this era of Klopp and Pep and the overexposure to football matches, a lot of fans believe that you must not have a single fault in your tactics to win a tournament. In NT football, this is not the case. That's how i see it.

I also disagree that they're matches that they "should be winning". In league football, yes. But in a single game, you have to earn all your victories. There are a million things that can go awry at any time. That's why the best manager in the world hasn't won the CL since 2011. Fair enough, if someone doesn't like Southgate's style of football. But at least he studies the opponents and works his games. Mbappé had 14 touches p/g in the opposition box until the quarter-final. A good striker in a team that wins its league averages 7/8. England reduced him to just four yesterday. They just needed the best striker in their history to convert both his xG 0.80 chances and his CBs to deal with the few half-descent crosses the French put in the box. It didn't happen. But if someone prefers a manager that won't bother with France's greatest weapon and will set the team to go out all guns blazing... to each his own.
 
Swerny said:
France were ripe for the picking yesterday, huge opportunity missed.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think that's my biggest problem with the "praise" to be honest.

England did play well (for large parts of the game at least) but France didn't and still came away with the win.

The tipping point IMO was just after the first pen where I felt he should have been brave and put Rashford on but he hesitated and the momentum had already shifted in the moments before the Giroud goal and the chance was lost.

It's not even hindsight, the match thread is full of people recognizing the issues the French are having and begging for substitutions.
 
Rayman96 said:
Or maybe xG is just a load of shite :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...
It's a stat. A stat can't be a load of shite, it's useful to analyze a lot of things in football and something that every single professional football club uses nowadays to help them make decisions.
 
Pexbo said:
The pool of talent that has arisen in the last 6 years is to thank for that. He’s presided over the England team at a time when a generation of genuinely excellent players have emerged. At a time when his stars have been coached by Guardiola, Klopp, Conte, Tuchel, Ancelloti, Arteta, ten Hag and Mourinho and his squad players have been coached by the likes of Howe, Bielsa and Potter amongst other top managers who have presided over mid to lower table clubs in that time.

On top of that he’s been absolutely blessed with luck of the draw and has pretty much failed when faced with an actual challenge.
Click to expand...
This argument plain pisses me off. The last England golden generation was coached by the likes of Wenger, Ferguson and Mourinho. They STILL were never this consistent at big tournaments and never looked like a team. The need to constantly pretend Southgate doesn't deserve any credit for moulding this collection of good, still developing players into an actual steadily improving tournament team is baffling.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
This argument plain pisses me off. The last England golden generation was coached by the likes of Wenger, Ferguson and Mourinho. They STILL were never this consistent at big tournaments and never looked like a team.
Click to expand...

Isn't it fair to say that the standard of coaching these days is of the highest standard it's ever been though (due in a large part to the work those managers did at their peak)?
 
RacingClub said:
Isn't it fair to say that the standard of coaching these days is of the highest standard it's ever been though (due in a large part to the work those managers did at their peak)?
Click to expand...
Whilst it is, it’s also the case across the board. If anything, the standard has improved more in the ‘smaller’ nations than it has in the bigger making it a much more level playing field, in general.

Plus with the higher quality of standard it means that players from everywhere are now getting the top coaching as they’re poached by the bigger clubs earlier.
 
phelans shorts said:
Whilst it is, it’s also the case across the board. If anything, the standard has improved more in the ‘smaller’ nations than it has in the bigger making it a much more level playing field, in general.

Plus with the higher quality of standard it means that players from everywhere are now getting the top coaching as they’re poached by the bigger clubs earlier.
Click to expand...

Of course, a rising tide lifts all boats.

I just think that it's easier now (as an international manager) to have a functional team playing "progressive" football (as you mention with the smaller nations) due to the level of coaching the modern player receives across the board.
 
Thanks for the last 6 years but time to accept you have reached your limits with this squad.
 
Tarrou said:
he'll be in charge in 2024 for sure
Click to expand...
Hopefully not. He is a D tier manager who has surpassed expectation and his own limits. For the good of the nation he should let someone more qualified take over.
 
Keeping the team happy and playing together with good morale shouldn't be underestimated, again the Ole comparisons because he had a similar sort of strength.

Yet the in game management and favouritism is really annoying, especially the constant reversion to Sterling because 'he's done it for us before'. That is not an appropriate rationale as a tactic in a top level football game. He needed to assess what was needed and what tool would be best for the job in that situation. It definitely wasn't Sterling.

Can we not find a coach who creates a happy, motivated team and who also makes more logical substitutions and starting XI choices? It surely cant be that hard. I do think Southgate got starting XI right last night, but it did take a media backlash to stop him using Mount over Foden in the first place.

It's not a binary issue, there's things hes very good or even great at, and things I think it's fair to say he's quite poor at. Surely England can find a coach who is an improvement.
 
croadyman said:
Well expect same old story then,personally I would rather a manager who isn't media friendly but gets results in big games.
Click to expand...

yep breezing through qualifying, getting out of the groups with ease and competitive in the knock-outs

oh the horrors
 
Balljy said:
I'm not going to defend him tactically, but there's also some who want him out whatever the cost which seems equally crazy to me. We're better off than we have been in years, the squad is working as a team and we're consistently getting to the latter stages of tournaments. That's better than we've been for decades. This squad is looking good, but I think there's a lot of overestimation going on, there's far too many holes and players who naturally take each others positions for that and there's obvious weaknesses all through the team.

We now need to take the next step, and I agree that Southgate doesn't seem to be the one for that. We either need to change the coaching staff to help him or look at a better manager. The important thing is that they're better though, if we rush into a decision now that might not happen.

I'm not even saying he should stay - but I'm nervous about replacing him and going back to what we've had before.
Click to expand...
We played probably the best international team in the world, the current reigning champions and we looked for most of the match the better team. How is that overestimating? That is the level of the squad, i can't see how it could be more clearly demonstrated than yesterdays game. They weren't vastly better than France, but they were at the very least equal and in most likelihood better.
 
Although I'd personally like to see a change of manager, I can't see him being sacked so very likely he'll be in charge in 2024

Quarter final was my expectation so I suppose he's par for this tournament
 
You must log in or register to reply here.