Is Gareth Southgate a shiite England manager?

croadyman said:
How can someone who has cost England a World Cup Final, European Championship and minimum World Cup Semi Final still be in a job,baffling
Click to expand...

;)
Because he got England to those positions in the first place. For once I agree with Piers Morgan, Southgate has the 2nd best England manager record after Alf Ramsey.
Apart from a few stutters here and there, you can see progress under Southgate, he deserves one more shot at a major tournament. We all hoped this would be it, but a Harry Kane penalty miss would never have been factored in... at least until last Saturday!
 
Berbaclass said:
The man who is probably going to take France to two consecutive World Cup finals? (Likely winning both)

I think so yeah.
Click to expand...
He is guilty of literally everyting you're crucifying Southgate for
 
Tuchel would be terrific.. if he wants to be an international manager. We would have that edge, that raw frustration that is required to push the players on. Tuchel makes players know they have to perform for him, and seize the moment. Southgate? I don't know. We went out, and he just said how unfortunate... '...but I am so proud of how these boys have developed..'

Should we be grateful or surprised? The money, the coverage, the attention, the wealth within the football industry in this country means we should have some bl**dy decent players always coming through the system. Croatia seem to do ok since they have entered the international fray in the middle of 1990s! And there are twice as many people in London than in that whole country. I just wish Southgate would stop all the non-football posturing, social commentary.

How will we play against very good teams, playing well Gareth? How will we beat them? Not mediocre sides, because with the talent we have, we should beat them. I never ever know the answer to these questions with Southgate. It's as if he is just waiting for that inspiration, some sort of 'fate', as if the opposition do not have their own ambitions, footballing passions etc.

Under Southgate, everyone is lovely, comfortable, looked after, considered... all his constant comments about '....making the nation feel proud, bringing some joy while some people struggle at home...'. I think it's all a careful fascade, because he knows his limitations. No one asks for that stuff, it's all carefully constructed. He is the classic FA man, and it seems many, but not all, have been duped by it all.
 
SilentWitness said:
you can disagree, but it’s a fact. No other England side has been as consistent as this aside from the team that won it. I don’t rate Southgate but he’s clearly brought something to the table that other England managers and squads couldn’t do.

Also I may be in a minority but I’d consider the QF as deep into the tournament. By that point you’ve played five games with only two left.
Click to expand...
Generally England under Southgate have done what they’ve always done. Lose to the first top nation they meet. The one exception was Germany and we’ve seen enough of them the last couple of years to know that they aren’t the Germany of old.
 
acnumber9 said:
Generally England under Southgate have done what they’ve always done. Lose to the first top nation they meet. The one exception was Germany and we’ve seen enough of them the last couple of years to know that they aren’t the Germany of old.
Click to expand...

Yeah, which is why I don't rate him that highly. What he has done though has made sure that England don't slip up in major tournaments to sides that are crap or they should be comfortably beating like Iceland. There is never really that danger anymore when you watch England in a big tournament.
 
SilentWitness said:
Yeah, which is why I don't rate him that highly. What he has done though has made sure that England don't slip up in major tournaments to sides that are crap or they should be comfortably beating like Iceland. There is never really that danger anymore when you watch England in a big tournament.
Click to expand...
He slipped up against Scotland and USA, both who are fairly crap.
 
PoTMS said:
He slipped up against Scotland and USA, both who are fairly crap.
Click to expand...
Literally not a single team finished with 3 wins in the group, I don't think a draw is a slip.
 
PoTMS said:
That was not your point. You said there's no danger of us slipping up against crap teams, I've just given you two recent examples.
Click to expand...

Considering they finished with 7 points in each group and top of the group I don't consider either of those games as slipping up. A defeat, yes, or if they drew in other games, yes.

Anyway this is why it's hard to discuss Southgate as he's one of those managers where you have to agree he's absolutely crap or he's amazing. People seem to have an issue with there being an inbetween where he's taking them as far as he can, done some good stuff and done some bad things. He won't win them a tournament but he's put them in a good place for the next guy to do so.
 
Last edited:
Maticmaker said:
;)
Because he got England to those positions in the first place. For once I agree with Piers Morgan, Southgate has the 2nd best England manager record after Alf Ramsey.
Apart from a few stutters here and there, you can see progress under Southgate, he deserves one more shot at a major tournament. We all hoped this would be it, but a Harry Kane penalty miss would never have been factored in... at least until last Saturday!
Click to expand...
Why does he "deserve" another go? The trend couldn't be any more clear. One tournament is a starting point, the second is a disappointment because you've had time, the third is now a pattern.

By rehiring him for another major tournament cycle we are saying we are happy with the status quo. Which is basically going into tournaments with a good squad, not necessarily the best one but a contender, then losing as soon as we're in a 50/50. When this 50/50 occurs is a matter of luck but the results are pretty clear on the fact Gareth does not navigate them. He's not a winning football manager.

The only reason he should be anywhere near it is if we really can't get anyone better. People use this argument but you have to explore the options first, not just write off the possibility there isn't someone better.
 
Maticmaker said:
;)
Because he got England to those positions in the first place. For once I agree with Piers Morgan, Southgate has the 2nd best England manager record after Alf Ramsey.
Apart from a few stutters here and there, you can see progress under Southgate, he deserves one more shot at a major tournament. We all hoped this would be it, but a Harry Kane penalty miss would never have been factored in... at least until last Saturday!
Click to expand...
Can you name me a good side we beat to get there
 
Going back to the premise of this thread, I don't actually think he's shit, but I think the team has reached its ceiling with him.

I recognise that since he took over, there have been a lot of positives:
- the relationship between the team and the media is a lot less toxic than it was in the past; he's had a soft touch approach with the media that I really appreciate, it's open, genuine, and not unnecessarily conflictual, which I'm sure has helped the team a lot
- put an end to the silly club tribalism when the players join the camp
- created a positive environment, in link with the above - you can tell from interviews by the players that they enjoy being together and playing as a team, which is great
- trusted quite a few young players, and picked them up if they ever failed

But I just don't think he's the guy to take us to the next level - I feel he sometimes contradicts himself between his public stance of playing "in form players", and in practice trusting the tried and tested (and boring) ones. His in-game management is poor. While he's created a positive environment, I don't believe he's instilled the belief in these players that they can go above and beyond - it feels like doing well and failing well is good enough for him.

His approach to football is also quite boring in big games (and more often than not, has been in smaller games), and he doesn't know how to properly utilize creative players (Foden, Maddison, overly relying on a boring Mount in a creative position). People want to downplay this current crop of English players, but there are a lot of super talented players there (not necessarily world class, but very talented), especially in the attacking positions, and we're usually incapable of producing pleasant football - for all the good moments, and general domination over France, we didn't have that much to show for it, which is often the case. Lots of work, lots of effort, little flair.

I feel he's taken this team as far as it could go with him, and his overall legacy would be decent to good if he left now, and importantly I feel he's built a platform for someone better than him to take over and propel the team that level higher (which would probably lead a lot of us to revise his legacy a posteriori to great, rather than just good). I'm not sure who that is, it's not my job to find the next England manager, but I'd be love to have someone of a higher caliber taking over this team.
 
giorno said:
He is guilty of literally everyting you're crucifying Southgate for
Click to expand...
Not sure what that poster is "crucifying" (internet exaggeration?) Southgate for, but Deschamps has been good at building a solid platform and letting the creative attacking players express themselves - not so much this tournament, where the defense looks surprisingly shaky (despite not conceding that much), but that's been his strength over the past years. Having watched a lot of both teams, I'm not sure there's much alike between Southgate and Deschamps when you actually look closer.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Not sure what that poster is "crucifying" (internet exaggeration?) Southgate for, but Deschamps has been good at building a solid platform and letting the creative attacking players express themselves - not so much this tournament, where the defense looks surprisingly shaky (despite not conceding that much), but that's been his strength over the past years. Having watched a lot of both teams, I'm not sure there's much alike between Southgate and Deschamps when you actually look closer.
Click to expand...
Isn't there, or is it more a case of Deschamps having Mbappé, Griezmann and Dembele to work with? Under him France have consistently been a very defensive, cautious side who mostly like to sit deep and play on the counter - in fact France under Deschamps was the biggest inspiration for Southgate to do the same - his management of games is certainly not a strong point if you have an issue with "take the lead then defend", and i don't remember his changing a game from the bench with his subs either...he's a solid manager who built a strong sense of mentality and unity through man management, created a solid defence&counter team, was lucky to work with an outrageously talented pool of players, and got the lucky breaks at the right time

The difference between him and Southgate is he's had better players and got lucky when they needed it - case in point Kane missing the penalty to send it to extra time
 
giorno said:
Isn't there, or is it more a case of Deschamps having Mbappé, Griezmann and Dembele to work with? Under him France have consistently been a very defensive, cautious side who mostly like to sit deep and play on the counter - in fact France under Deschamps was the biggest inspiration for Southgate to do the same - his management of games is certainly not a strong point if you have an issue with "take the lead then defend", and i don't remember his changing a game from the bench with his subs either...he's a solid manager who built a strong sense of mentality and unity through man management, created a solid defence&counter team, was lucky to work with an outrageously talented pool of players, and got the lucky breaks at the right time

The difference between him and Southgate is he's had better players and got lucky when they needed it - case in point Kane missing the penalty to send it to extra time
Click to expand...
Don't really have time to discute the minute points, but while there have been some lucky breaks, you could easily argue the draws England has had under Southgate were more influential than small in-game events that happen in general. Kane missing a second pen in a game against his teammate had little to do with chance, but is actually an issue that should have been addressed beforehand.

And while Deschamps has had better players, the level of belief he's instilled, the capacity to build the platform for the attacking players to shine, the maximising of their strengths and minimising of their weaknesses, and their game management, is several levels above anyting Southgate has done.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Don't really have time to discute the minute points, but while there have been some lucky breaks, you could easily argue the draws England has had under Southgate were more influential than small in-game events that happen in general. Kane missing a second pen in a game against his teammate had little to do with chance, but is actually an issue that should have been addressed beforehand.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. France won a WC in 2018 by beating the dregs of Argentina, Uruguay, Belgium and a shattered Croatia in the final. They struggled more than they should have against the first 2 and ultimately won on the same things Southgate's England have been beating the likes of Sweden, Germany or Denmark, Belgium shat the bed with De Bruyne ghosting them and against Croatia they got outplayed in the first half and took the lead on an own goal and a weird penalty off set pieces, before running away with it in the second half when Croatia run out of juice. Then they were bad at the Euros and went out to Switzerland in the R16. This time around they've been good, but also lucky against England

In 2014 they were very good but a bit too inexperienced to go past Germany, while in 2016 he showed decisiveness and acumen in changing things up and rebuilding the team around Griezmann after struggling to find a balance between him and Pogba and Payet in the group stages. Then they lost the final to a double post by Gignac and Eder. I mean, people have been killing Southgate for losing on penalties to Italy, and yet nobody's pointing out 2016 as some major failure on Deschamps' part...

I'm not saying Deschamps is bad or just lucky, just comparing how he's seemingly being seen as this natural winner who is somehow better than Southgate who is shite, and the entire difference between them boils down to Belgium shat the bed against France and Kane missed a penalty....

And while Deschamps has had better players, the level of belief he's instilled, the capacity to build the platform for the attacking players to shine, the maximising of their strengths and minimising of their weaknesses, and their game management, is several levels above anyting Southgate has done.
Click to expand...
Is it really? Because bar 20 minutes of looking like 1970 Brazil against Switzerland, France haven't really looked better in attack than Southgate's England during his tenure
 
giorno said:
Maybe, maybe not. France won a WC in 2018 by beating the dregs of Argentina, Uruguay, Belgium and a shattered Croatia in the final. They struggled more than they should have against the first 2 and ultimately won on the same things Southgate's England have been beating the likes of Sweden, Germany or Denmark, Belgium shat the bed with De Bruyne ghosting them and against Croatia they got outplayed in the first half and took the lead on an own goal and a weird penalty off set pieces, before running away with it in the second half when Croatia run out of juice. Then they were bad at the Euros and went out to Switzerland in the R16. This time around they've been good, but also lucky against England

In 2014 they were very good but a bit too inexperienced to go past Germany, while in 2016 he showed decisiveness and acumen in changing things up and rebuilding the team around Griezmann after struggling to find a balance between him and Pogba and Payet in the group stages. Then they lost the final to a double post by Gignac and Eder. I mean, people have been killing Southgate for losing on penalties to Italy, and yet nobody's pointing out 2016 as some major failure on Deschamps' part...

I'm not saying Deschamps is bad or just lucky, just comparing how he's seemingly being seen as this natural winner who is somehow better than Southgate who is shite, and the entire difference between them boils down to Belgium shat the bed against France and Kane missed a penalty....


Is it really? Because bar 20 minutes of looking like 1970 Brazil against Switzerland, France haven't really looked better in attack than Southgate's England during his tenure
Click to expand...
I mean, if you really believe your last sentence, I think we're just watching a different team.

As for the penultimate one, it's an absurd conclusion - yeah Deschamps is a winner, which he's proven throughout his career both as a player and manager. I don't even think you can believe that success can be wholly boiled down to various elements of chance. Your analysis of the Belgium game is off, by the way, and the Kane missed penalty is not uniquely an element of chance.

Anyway, enjoy the semis!
 
apotheosis said:
I think the players level of belief stems firstly from the manager. The manager has to be first to show belief, and by not utilising our attacking options in an attempt to win these matches simply sends the wrong message for me.

Lack of faith, courage, whatever u want to call it. He just doesn't seem willing to risk making positive changes when it really matters.
Click to expand...

These pychological problems seem to be deeply embedded at this point and the manager makes little difference. Baddiel and Skinner seem to be the basis of English international football - winning feels wrong.
 
SilentWitness said:
I don't understand the relevance of the question.
Click to expand...
Just wondering if folk would like him to manage their club be it Everton, Villa, Utd etc.

You seemingly don’t rate him very highly as England manager but others do …just wondering if they’d want him to manage their own club.
 
Wilt said:
Just wondering if folk would like him to manage their club be it Everton, Villa, Utd etc.

You seemingly don’t rate him very highly as England manager but others do …just wondering if they’d want him to manage their own club.
Click to expand...

I think he's been a good England manager but isn't a good manager and would translate poorly to club football. He's done good to get the team to where they are but they need a better manager to win a major trophy but they're in a better place to do so due to Southgate.
 
I don't see how this Deschamps-Southgate comparison is useful. One is a winning international manager, the other we have to discuss at great lengths the intricacies of the job he has done and it all becomes rather fluffy and hopeful because the simple fact is he loses against teams that are on par with England. In tournament football the results are what matter, and we didn't just fail to win, we also failed to prove our worth against the better sides which is even more concerning because what can we grasp to and say he's got a great chance at the next tournament? You have to beat teams that are your equals. So let's look at some of these arguments put forward...

The cultural argument. I do think he did a nice job rebooting the culture of the side, but I'd preface that by asking was that particularly difficult? He came out of a backdrop of the lowest possible expectation after preceding fiascos, then turned to a batch of talented, young players that are all impressionable, and relatively easy to manage. It's not like he had to wrangle together a bunch of stars, he had a natural way to move the team forward utilising what he knew best as England U21 manager. So yes, some credit is due, but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill and create this fantastic achievement out of that.

The win-rate argument. He has a fantastic win-rate. Which is nice and all, but in reality when everything builds towards major tournaments is not the be all and end all and certainly not what he is judged against. Beating teams in qualifiers and group stages is nothing new for England, irrespective of the exact win rate.

The 'he's better than his predecessors' argument. He has the best success at major tournaments. Absolutely, but there is also the asterisk attached that once again, we didn't beat anyone we weren't expected to and we had great opportunities. It can never be said that he's done poorly at tournaments, that is certainly not the argument, he has done well. But he hasn't delivered the final touches in the big moments. Also, why should the standard for continuing be 'well he's better than Roy Hodgson, or Fabio Capello!' Irrelevant, what matters is whether there is a pool of managers available that are superior coaches to Southgate, or better placed to refresh our ideas. You can't just dine out on being better than those managers forever, you're hired to produce a tangible outcome and if you're England with the talent available, it is to win.

In my opinion it amounts to a body of work that is certainly not best described as shite, but he doesn't come out smelling of roses either for doing a fantastic job. He's done a decent, solid job and he's a good man. But whatever it is that winning managers have, he ain't got it and that's been shown 3 times.
 
Last edited:
Rooney in Paris said:
I mean, if you really believe your last sentence, I think we're just watching a different team.
Click to expand...
It is kind of borne out by looking at the stats for goal scored, chances created, xG, etc...

As for the penultimate one, it's an absurd conclusion - yeah Deschamps is a winner, which he's proven throughout his career both as a player and manager. I don't even think you can believe that success can be wholly boiled down to various elements of chance.
Click to expand...
My point is more that there is more to being a winner than simply being part of a team that won and declare "he's a winner". How and why he won matter, and winning with one team doing certain things doesn't guarantee the same will happen on a different team

Your analysis of the Belgium game is off, by the way, and the Kane missed penalty is not uniquely an element of chance.
Click to expand...
The analysis of the Belgium game was obviously overtly simplistic, sure, but the bottom line is France were the better team and won the game, while Belgium's best or second best player was the worst player on the pitch. Ultimately if you want to credit that on Deschamps then fair enough. It's not something I would take over Southgate on the heels of England neutralizing Mbappé

As for Kane, of course from the perspectice of France it's chance. They and Deschamps don't have any way to influence Kane into missing the penalty. He just missed. If you think that's Southgate's fault, then agree to disagree

Anyway, enjoy the semis!
Click to expand...
Crap games going to penalties anyways! Enjoy
 
Is the Rodgers hype still a thing? In the guardian.

IMO he's not much of a upgrade and i can't see him leading England to a major trophy.

 
The obvious choice, is to wait and see whether Zidane takes over France or not, hope he doesn't, and give him anything he wants. Otherwise try and steal Ancelotti from Brazil? I'm really not convinced of Tuchel or Pochettino at National Level...they're club managers as it stands, doubt they'd be interested in more than the Euros, and most of all are used to and want the day to day job of club football management...
 
Abraxas said:
The only reason he should be anywhere near it is if we really can't get anyone better. People use this argument but you have to explore the options first, not just write off the possibility there isn't someone better.
Click to expand...

That's your view and you are entitled.
1966 as a 20 years old I was privileged to watch England beat Germany to win the World Cup. Alf Ramsey was hailed as a great manager because of that, but many people thought he was lucky, especially after he dropped Jimmy Greaves a Spurs favourite at the time. Southgate played another Spurs favourite who many thought should not be played and he proved to be unlucky..... luck plays a big part in football as we all know, Southgate missed a pen as a player....so maybe he is just unlucky!

I have seen more progress from England since Southgate as been manager and I admit he can seem to be too defensive, at times, but we were not outplayed by France (existing World Champions), we went toe to toe and but for Lloris's performance we would have won.
Southgate should be given another shot, if he wants it!

Jeppers7 said:
Can you name me a good side we beat to get there
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter they got there. You can only beat what is in front of you, beating a 'good side' doesn't count for anything in the next stage of a tournament.
 
giorno said:
Isn't there, or is it more a case of Deschamps having Mbappé, Griezmann and Dembele to work with? Under him France have consistently been a very defensive, cautious side who mostly like to sit deep and play on the counter - in fact France under Deschamps was the biggest inspiration for Southgate to do the same - his management of games is certainly not a strong point if you have an issue with "take the lead then defend", and i don't remember his changing a game from the bench with his subs either...he's a solid manager who built a strong sense of mentality and unity through man management, created a solid defence&counter team, was lucky to work with an outrageously talented pool of players, and got the lucky breaks at the right time

The difference between him and Southgate is he's had better players and got lucky when they needed it - case in point Kane missing the penalty to send it to extra time
Click to expand...

Not really. Deschamps' approach has alway mirrored the strength of the team. During his first years France were more about outscoring the opposition because the defense was bad but over time the team leaned on the defense because it was the strength of the team with the 2018 World Cup being a prime example. Since 2018 there hasn't really been much consistency due to injuries but the focus has generally been on the attackers.
 
You want managers who can and have won knockout tournaments.

Ancelotti
Tuchel
Zidane

These guys are good cup managers and that’s what you need in International footy. I’m surprised this glaringly obvious point isn’t picked up more tbh.
 
Inside Harry Kane's head during the second penalty...

 
Rooney in Paris said:
Going back to the premise of this thread, I don't actually think he's shit, but I think the team has reached its ceiling with him.

I recognise that since he took over, there have been a lot of positives:
- the relationship between the team and the media is a lot less toxic than it was in the past; he's had a soft touch approach with the media that I really appreciate, it's open, genuine, and not unnecessarily conflictual, which I'm sure has helped the team a lot
- put an end to the silly club tribalism when the players join the camp
- created a positive environment, in link with the above - you can tell from interviews by the players that they enjoy being together and playing as a team, which is great
- trusted quite a few young players, and picked them up if they ever failed

But I just don't think he's the guy to take us to the next level - I feel he sometimes contradicts himself between his public stance of playing "in form players", and in practice trusting the tried and tested (and boring) ones. His in-game management is poor. While he's created a positive environment, I don't believe he's instilled the belief in these players that they can go above and beyond - it feels like doing well and failing well is good enough for him.

His approach to football is also quite boring in big games (and more often than not, has been in smaller games), and he doesn't know how to properly utilize creative players (Foden, Maddison, overly relying on a boring Mount in a creative position). People want to downplay this current crop of English players, but there are a lot of super talented players there (not necessarily world class, but very talented), especially in the attacking positions, and we're usually incapable of producing pleasant football - for all the good moments, and general domination over France, we didn't have that much to show for it, which is often the case. Lots of work, lots of effort, little flair.

I feel he's taken this team as far as it could go with him, and his overall legacy would be decent to good if he left now, and importantly I feel he's built a platform for someone better than him to take over and propel the team that level higher (which would probably lead a lot of us to revise his legacy a posteriori to great, rather than just good). I'm not sure who that is, it's not my job to find the next England manager, but I'd be love to have someone of a higher caliber taking over this team.
Click to expand...


V good post.
 
Maticmaker said:
;)
Because he got England to those positions in the first place. For once I agree with Piers Morgan, Southgate has the 2nd best England manager record after Alf Ramsey.
Apart from a few stutters here and there, you can see progress under Southgate, he deserves one more shot at a major tournament. We all hoped this would be it, but a Harry Kane penalty miss would never have been factored in... at least until last Saturday!
Click to expand...

When are we ever going to stop blaming that ref and the missed penalty. Wake up we didn't create enough and Southgate too late with subs AGAIN.
 
JPRouve said:
Not really. Deschamps' approach has alway mirrored the strength of the team. During his first years France were more about outscoring the opposition because the defense was bad but over time the team leaned on the defense because it was the strength of the team with the 2018 World Cup being a prime example. Since 2018 there hasn't really been much consistency due to injuries but the focus has generally been on the attackers.
Click to expand...
Yes you're right about pre-2018. I kinda still disagree that this isn't a defensive team right now. France attack more and better at even score, sure, but they generally revert to deep block and counter as soon as they can
 
Redlambs said:
Yeah, the woe is me act sums up his mentality.

He's not even had it hard in the slightest, the media by and large are backing him. Maybe he reads the caf.
Click to expand...

Yeah the media are a bunch of pussies with him because he let's them have darts tournaments with the players
 
giorno said:
Yes you're right about pre-2018. I kinda still disagree that this isn't a defensive team right now. France attack more and better at even score, sure, but they generally revert to deep block and counter as soon as they can
Click to expand...

France is neither attacking or defensive, it's a balanced team. Against teams that are better at keeping possession France will concede it without much issue and against teams that are bad with possession, France will keep the ball without issue. The defensive block is generally a mid block and France only press when the ball enters the middle third because the team isn't really good in 1v1 open space defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.