Is Gareth Southgate a shiite England manager?

[croadyman]

I’d rather see Howe, Potter, Rodgers or Pochettino as our next English manager.

Deschamps if he leaves France too,like Jordan said on Talksport Tuchel has blown his chance with his personal life stuff at Chelsea.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

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.

Exactly this (and your previous post). DD is not a dogmatic coach, he's had a very pragmatic approach throughout his tenure, and even within the context of a specific competition, he's remained flexible.

 

[Abraxas]

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!



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.

How many times do you keep getting unlucky? Maybe that's a critical difference in perspective that cannot be reconciled. I would say losing 3/4 games against other major footballing nations at the crucial junctures of tournament football starts to appear more like a pattern than a matter of luck. I'm being generous to a poor German outfit there, too. I think we were favoured in that game, partly because of home advantage of course.

The great managers seem to get "lucky" pretty often. There are some qualities in managers that are very difficult to pin down but the output of it is you have winners and losers and which category is Gareth falling into?

 

[Shark]

The way some England fans talk about him is how I remember some United fans talk about Ole's supposed progress.

 

[Red in STL]

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!



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.

Greaves was initially injured so I don't think he was dropped as such, in the days of no subs it would have been a huge gamble to play him.

Personally I think Southgate should stay, he can and will learn from his mistakes, he's under contract for the next euro's anyway so it'll be his choice.

If he was to go, who would replace him, half the names this forum claims to be good enough are never going to get or even want the job.

Tuchel is a coach, he excels at day-to-day stuff, not really the remit of an international manager, Zidane, he's only ever going to consider France at international level, Pochettino, fits the required profile but he doesn't exactly have a managerial career where he's won things, Ancelotti, aside from 2001-2009 with Milan he doesn't stay more than 2-3 years ina job, a best he would be a one tournament appointment. Mourinho, knows how to win but would piss everyone off inside a week or two.

English managers, only one really springs to mind, Eddie Howe, not sure if he'd want it
though, forget Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, not gonna happen

Who else is there?

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

The way some England fans talk about him is how I remember some United fans talk about Ole's supposed progress.

Nailed it.

Both nearly men so it becomes about getting to the final not actually winning a final or as we’ve got with last Saturdays France game, acting like playing better is some kind trophy.

Big difference is England actually don’t have any suitable alternatives. Southgate hasn’t failed for me but we see managers overachieve with the talent they have at their disposal all the time - he’s not coached this talent pool up.

 

[RopersReturn]

He’s done a terrific job in unifying the squad and cares passionately about developing the talented group of players into a successful team.

After five years, I actually think he’s gone as far as he can so now is probably the right time to consider his future.

Brendon Rodger’s seems to be the right man for the job.

 

[PoTMS]

It's been 6 years. That's a long time for any manager, never mind an international manager who has won feck all. Yes, we've progressed somewhat under him but time to hand the keys over to someone else who can get us past that glass ceiling.

 

[RopersReturn]

Greaves was initially injured so I don't think he was dropped as such, in the days of no subs it would have been a huge gamble to play him.

Personally I think Southgate should stay, he can and will learn from his mistakes, he's under contract for the next euro's anyway so it'll be his choice.

If he was to go, who would replace him, half the names this forum claims to be good enough are never going to get or even want the job.

Tuchel is a coach, he excels at day-to-day stuff, not really the remit of an international manager, Zidane, he's only ever going to consider France at international level, Pochettino, fits the required profile but he doesn't exactly have a managerial career where he's won things, Ancelotti, aside from 2001-2009 with Milan he doesn't stay more than 2-3 years ina job, a best he would be a one tournament appointment. Mourinho, knows how to win but would piss everyone off inside a week or two.

English managers, only one really springs to mind, Eddie Howe, not sure if he'd want it
though, forget Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, not gonna happen

Who else is there?

Brendon Rodgers?

 

[Heinzesight]

Neil Warnock with an All or Nothing docuseries as part of the deal would be quite something.

 

[croadyman]

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.

Best post about Southgate I have seen, bravo

 

[SirReginald]

Brendon Rodgers?

Too lightweight. Need someone who is willing to get down and dirty.. Fat Sam… or it would have been.. So Aidy Boothroyd. Next logical FA puppet after Southgate. Also his tactical masterclass includes telling his team to hit it into the ‘cage’ (the box).

 

[croadyman]

Greaves was initially injured so I don't think he was dropped as such, in the days of no subs it would have been a huge gamble to play him.

Personally I think Southgate should stay, he can and will learn from his mistakes, he's under contract for the next euro's anyway so it'll be his choice.

If he was to go, who would replace him, half the names this forum claims to be good enough are never going to get or even want the job.

Tuchel is a coach, he excels at day-to-day stuff, not really the remit of an international manager, Zidane, he's only ever going to consider France at international level, Pochettino, fits the required profile but he doesn't exactly have a managerial career where he's won things, Ancelotti, aside from 2001-2009 with Milan he doesn't stay more than 2-3 years ina job, a best he would be a one tournament appointment. Mourinho, knows how to win but would piss everyone off inside a week or two.

English managers, only one really springs to mind, Eddie Howe, not sure if he'd want it
though, forget Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, not gonna happen

Who else is there?

He won't learn from his mistakes,if that was the case we would be European Champions now not gallant runners up

 

[Adisa]

I don't get the desperation for him to stay.

 

[croadyman]

I don't get the desperation for him to stay.

Unfortunately Southgate FC is made up of Pearce, Harry Redknapp, Neville, Wright, all of the media and tournament supporters

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

He’s done a terrific job in unifying the squad and cares passionately about developing the talented group of players into a successful team.

After five years, I actually think he’s gone as far as he can so now is probably the right time to consider his future.

Brendon Rodger’s seems to be the right man for the job.

Rodgers would take a sledgehammer to squad unity.

 

[Red in STL]

I don't get the desperation for him to stay.

Change for change's sake is pointless, most of the suggested alternatives wouldn't touch the job with a bargepole or are just plain unsuitable

 

[apotheosis]

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.

I don't think that's the case anymore tbh. I truly believe we are now as good as anybody out there, and I believe the players realise that too.

As I said, the manager has not really shown the courage to give us the best chance of winning. We have attacking talent that could really have made a difference, but he has not given them the time or the opportunity to do so.

How often do we see attacking changes make a difference generally? More often than not, I would say, if you are actually trying to win.

Surely, when confidence is low and the game is going against you, then for either player or supporter, it would usually be an attacking change that would provide that boost in belief and confidence. No change until its too late is what I see. Doesn't boost my confidence or belief personally, so why would it boost the players?

So I can't write this squad off until I actually see them used more positively and with greater intent.

 

[Abraxas]

Change for change's sake is pointless, most of the suggested alternatives wouldn't touch the job with a bargepole or are just plain unsuitable

How's it change for change sake? Shall Gareth just have the role forever more or until he personally decides, simply because we cannot be bothered assessing alternatives?

It's change because Southgate has had three cycles at major tournaments, none of which have reached the endgame. Or at least what I should think should be the endgame for a rich FA with resources at its disposal. What is the ultimate point of hiring a manager if not to win? Surely that is one of the principal expectations.

Let's not forget, Gareth did not have a fantastic resume as a manager when appointed. So let's not make the claim that there is nobody better or it'd be change for the sake of it. There are people that have had more success as managers than Gareth.

 

[Red in STL]

How's it change for change sake? Shall Gareth just have the role forever more or until he personally decides, simply because we cannot be bothered assessing alternatives?

It's change because Southgate has had three cycles at major tournaments, none of which have reached the endgame. Or at least what I should think should be the endgame for a rich FA with resources at its disposal. What is the ultimate point of hiring a manager if not to win? Surely that is one of the principal expectations.

Let's not forget, Gareth did not have a fantastic resume as a manager when appointed. So let's not make the claim that there is nobody better or it'd be change for the sake of it. There are people that have had more success as managers than Gareth.

A large percentage of the Caf seem to want anyone not named Southgate, that would be change for changes sake if that was the principle applied, if there's an attainable and better candidate out there then that would be different, but most of the names being bandied around are non-starters.

Does anyone seriously think that someone capped 108 times by France is gonna take the England job?

One of the favs appears to be a manager who's never won anything yet everyone says we need a serial winner, that doesn't equate.

Personally I would prefer an English manager, English football and the mentality around the national team it is pretty unique and I'm not sue foreign managers ever get that, Sven and Capello certainly never did, Eddie Howe might be a good choice but I'm not sure he'd take it + he's not actually a "winner"

 

[Jeppers7]

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!



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.

It does matter when you’ve lost five times to good teams and beat zero

 

[Abraxas]

A large percentage of the Caf seem to want anyone not named Southgate, that would be change for changes sake if that was the principle applied, if there's an attainable and better candidate out there then that would be different, but most of the names being bandied around are non-starters.

Does anyone seriously think that someone capped 108 times by France is gonna take the England job?

One of the favs appears to be a manager who's never won anything yet everyone says we need a serial winner, that doesn't equate.

Personally I would prefer an English manager, English football and the mentality around the national team it is pretty unique and I'm not sue foreign managers ever get that, Sven and Capello certainly never did, Eddie Howe might be a good choice but I'm not sure he'd take it + he's not actually a "winner"

Well, I think there's an argument for anyone not named Southgate, and that is that we've reached the end of a cycle, and this World Cup was particularly disappointing and therefore it's a natural point of severance. These players have been listening to the same voice for 3 major tournaments now and there is usually a point in which a new direction is required unless you're an elite manager with longevity. Keeping him on is quite a conservative approach. Sometimes an FA or owner has to see the problem before it fully arrives.

Not even sure he's got the energy or wherewithal to take this team further. The noises coming out don't inspire confidence. Managing the England team is probably draining and difficult, but you don't really want to hear that your leader is not sure if he's got it in him to inspire the troops for the next tournament. Imagine if the Man United manager said it, it would be difficult to entertain.

 

[DevilRed]

Deschamps if he leaves France too,like Jordan said on Talksport Tuchel has blown his chance with his personal life stuff at Chelsea.

What’s the personal life stuff?

 

[croadyman]

What’s the personal life stuff?

Wasn't he having some sort of affair

 

[JSArsenal]

Honestly, I'm not sure what Southgate's done to be sacked on the surface of it all. But on a deeper viewing, is the right man to continue? Is he the Brendan Rodgers of this scenario with the next manager being Klopp? The one to propel the team forward to new heights.

That's the risk of it all, Southgate is a "Safe" pair of hands who literally cannot lose. He's likely to at least reach the quarters of the next Euros and if he doesn't, people will say well he made a Euro finals, World Cup semis and a World Cup quarter finals. Give him a break, how many managers make it 4 tournaments?

At the same time, would this current golden generation be "wasted" if they spend their prime years under Southgate and not a "better" manager? Whoever that may be.

If I was the FA, I wouldn't sack him, but if he wanted to resign I wouldn't try to talk him out of it either.

 

[croadyman]

Honestly, I'm not sure what Southgate's done to be sacked on the surface of it all. But on a deeper viewing, is the right man to continue? Is he the Brendan Rodgers of this scenario with the next manager being Klopp? The one to propel the team forward to new heights.

That's the risk of it all, Southgate is a "Safe" pair of hands who literally cannot lose. He's likely to at least reach the quarters of the next Euros and if he doesn't, people will say well he made a Euro finals, World Cup semis and a World Cup quarter finals. Give him a break, how many managers make it 4 tournaments?

At the same time, would this current golden generation be "wasted" if they spend their prime years under Southgate and not a "better" manager? Whoever that may be.

If I was the FA, I wouldn't sack him, but if he wanted to resign I wouldn't try to talk him out of it either.

Let me guess you wouldn’t sack him because of this stupid pointless win percentage of his. He should not be talked about in the same breath as Ramsey.

For a start Sir Alf beat some top class sides in that 1966 World Cup such as France, Argentina,Portugal and of course Germany.

 

[lex talionis]

Southgate is not a shite manager, but he’s not a manager who will take risks or snatch victory from the jaws of defeat against the better team. He’ll qualify England and get you through the group stage, after which time the players’ bags may be packed for the flight back home to watch the final game on TV.

 

[croadyman]

Southgate is not a shite manager, but he’s not a manager who will take risks or snatch victory from the jaws of defeat against the better team. He’ll qualify England and get you through the group stage, after which time the players’ bags may be packed for the flight back home to watch the final game on TV.

Yeah that sums him up perfectly yet he still has the full backing of the FA which is mental. Why are they so closed to bringing in a different sort of manager,just look at our Cricket team to see the benefits which can be reaped by taking that leap.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

I will give Gareth some credit for finally playing a 4-3-3 and going with an attacking line up rather than a defensive one. With that being said, this should have happened 4 years ago. Why did it take this long to get England to become an attacking team? Seems he's learning on the job and finally figured out what most of the average fans have known for years. England would have at least won the Euro's and possibly would have done better this year had they been playing an attacking style for the past 4 years. So he's set the team back. And because of that, he has to go. Oh, he also has no idea how to change up a match and waits too long to make subs. England had the deepest team in the tournament and he was hesitant to use his bench despite his top scorer sitting on it...

 

[croadyman]

I will give Gareth some credit for finally playing a 4-3-3 and going with an attacking line up rather than a defensive one. With that being said, this should have happened 4 years ago. Why did it take this long to get England to become an attacking team? Seems he's learning on the job and finally figured out what most of the average fans have known for years. England would have at least won the Euro's and possibly would have done better this year had they been playing an attacking style for the past 4 years. So he's set the team back. And because of that, he has to go. Oh, he also has no idea how to change up a match and waits too long to make subs. England had the deepest team in the tournament and he was hesitant to use his bench despite his top scorer sitting on it...

Could almost of wrote this post myself

 

[RopersReturn]

In some ways Southgate reminds me of Bobby Robson, a likeable, softly spoken gentleman. Where as Robson would often frustrate with his selections, sticking by Peter Shilton when he was clearly past it by the time of Italia 90, similarly Southgate does with his cautious approach, often waiting to go a goal down before changing tactics and bringing subs on way too late to have any sort of impact.

Sentiments aside it’s a business about winning, not continually celebrating mediocrity. Trouble is it’s difficult to actually find anyone enthusiastic enough to want to take on the responsibility such is the pressure of coaching England.

 

[tenpoless]

The bobby no goal of manager

 

[Andycoleno9]

I don't like when people question some things regarding my NT so i am not trying to be smart regarding England but why people question Southgate this much? England was a team that played best football on this World cup. Were dominant in all games before France and against France, England played some good football.
France is the most complete team in the world. No shame in losing against them.

 

[Andycoleno9]

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.

I have never watched more complete team than France. Not a single flaw in that team. You always think that you are close to beating them but you are not even close in reality. They score and then they slow the game. If you do score then they score again and again slow the game. With France you have that feeling that they can score when they want.

Mix of great individual quality, pragmatism, creative football and winning mentality.

 

[Cloud7]

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.

This is probably the fairest take of them all regarding Southgate

 

[Maticmaker]

Change for change's sake is pointless, most of the suggested alternatives wouldn't touch the job with a bargepole or are just plain unsuitable

I would tend to agree, a bit like the opposite of Oscar Wilde saying "I would not want to join a club who would accept me as a member".. the managers we might want for the job won't take it!
Of course Southgate has faults, but I still think he has a better grasp of tournament requirements than many previous managers and (if he wants it) he should get a shot at the Euros, with broadly the same squad.

 

[InspiRED]

The fact that it is so hard to move on from Southgate reminds me so much of Ole.

In fact I've noticed that you end up often making the same points about Southgate as you did about Ole, often to the same posters who were adamantly behind Ole.

It's become a question of morality somehow like 'ah but Southgate such a decent bloke and he's done a pretty good job... We can't move on from that now it just wouldn't be right..'

There's also this faintly perceptible lowering of the bar 'well noone has a divine right to win tournaments, maybe we're just not very good...'

The squad is good enough to compete for one of these trophies and the FA needs to pull it's head out of it's arse and accept nothing less than success. When there is an exit from a tournament,yes there should be an inquest. With the squad available reaching latter stages of tournaments should be the bare minimum and decisions should be examined upon every exit. Doing all this won't guarantee success but at least it would maximise your chances. Look at how Chelsea have operated with managers. Admittedly classless at times and this is an extreme example, but it has certainly brought them some tangible success. This isn't a game of morality, there's not a cup awarded for nice feelings and 'a great journey together'.. the cup is awarded for who remains unbeaten til the end. Any of the managers of the favourite teams can consider their efforts a failure if they don't bring the cup home.

This was Southgates third stab at one of these tournaments. I think the first one he was outstanding, maybe a bit out thought bs Croatia. Second one I consider a failure with an easy draw and a final where England made virtually no attempt to win the game after 20mins and Southgate took an age to sub on players who were being outrun, outfought and outgunned. When he did finally sub on three penalty takers for the shootout they ALL missed. This is not heroic. This is quite obvious failure. Imagine it was not football and it was war. Would you keep on a general who made decisions right at the end of the battle that arguably outright caused your sides defeat? Would you feck! It is no different. He should have gone after Italy. Getting a bit more comfortable playing a 4-3-3 and needing the media to point out to you foden is better than mount is just simply not good enough.

 

[SirReginald]

The fact that it is so hard to move on from Southgate reminds me so much of Ole.

In fact I've noticed that you end up often making the same points about Southgate as you did about Ole, often to the same posters who were adamantly behind Ole.

It's become a question of morality somehow like 'ah but Southgate such a decent bloke and he's done a pretty good job... We can't move on from that now it just wouldn't be right..'

There's also this faintly perceptible lowering of the bar 'well noone has a divine right to win tournaments, maybe we're just not very good...'

The squad is good enough to compete for one of these trophies and the FA needs to pull it's head out of it's arse and accept nothing less than success. When there is an exit from a tournament,yes there should be an inquest. With the squad available reaching latter stages of tournaments should be the bare minimum and decisions should be examined upon every exit. Doing all this won't guarantee success but at least it would maximise your chances. Look at how Chelsea have operated with managers. Admittedly classless at times and this is an extreme example, but it has certainly brought them some tangible success. This isn't a game of morality, there's not a cup awarded for nice feelings and 'a great journey together'.. the cup is awarded for who remains unbeaten til the end. Any of the managers of the favourite teams can consider their efforts a failure if they don't bring the cup home.

This was Southgates third stab at one of these tournaments. I think the first one he was outstanding, maybe a bit out thought bs Croatia. Second one I consider a failure with an easy draw and a final where England made virtually no attempt to win the game after 20mins and Southgate took an age to sub on players who were being outrun, outfought and outgunned. When he did finally sub on three penalty takers for the shootout they ALL missed. This is not heroic. This is quite obvious failure. Imagine it was not football and it was war. Would you keep on a general who made decisions right at the end of the battle that arguably outright caused your sides defeat? Would you feck! It is no different. He should have gone after Italy. Getting a bit more comfortable playing a 4-3-3 and needing the media to point out to you foden is better than mount is just simply not good enough.

Disagree with this part. 1) It was the wrong formation and the wrong tactics. 2) Mount and Foden operate with different roles so it’s virtually impossible to say one should have played over the other. They can play in the same team if set up correctly. But yes Foden is the better player.

Regarding formation.

He chose to bring 4 cms with one 1 not being fit or match ready for the entire tournament. First mistake.

His next mistake was to play 3 flat midfielders and attempt to shoehorn a 10 (Mount in this case) into one of the spots. Mount, ignoring the fact that he is completely out of form, is better as an inside forward.

Third mistake. Relying heavily on Henderson to fix the first two mistakes. This is by no means Hendersons fault, but he is a 6 and at this point in his career shouldn’t be asked to dictate the phases of play for the team. He was made to press, run between the lines, alter the flow of the game, organize the team and contribute to the final third. Guess he didn’t speak to Klopp at all about what Henderson can actually bring to the team.

His fourth mistake. Selecting too many 10’s. Maddison and Gallagher unsurprisingly got 0 minutes in the tournament. Maddison a LW/AM is not as good as Foden, Grealish or Rashford and cannot play CM. Seems like a media pick because I called it before a ball had been kicked he wouldn’t play. If Southgate had gone with a 10 in his system, he may have seen some minutes. Gallagher.. inexperienced and positionally too sloppy to play CM. Wants to be in the action and leaves too much space.

Ultimately it’s clear he wanted Bellingham to be his main man. A dynamic exciting box to box midfielder and he went for 4-3-3 to try and get the best out of him. Jude had a great tournament and can leave proud of what he achieved but this really only worked out for 2 out of 5 games.

From the personnel he selected he was better of going a fluid 4-2-3-1. Make no mistake this isn’t the same as a rigid defensive 4-2-3-1 which everyone has misconceptions about on here. The reason this formation is so widely used is it can seamlessly become different shapes. 5-4-1, 5-2-3, 5-3-2, 4-5-1, 4-3-3, 4-1-4-1, 4-4-1-1 etc based on the flow of the game. With Harry Kane best as a false 9 he should have played Foden at 10 with no set position and had Rashford playing on the left. Harry needs runners cutting inside because he is never in the box.

Starting positions:

———————Pickford——————
Walker—Stones—Maguire—Shaw
————Rice—-Bellingham————
——-—————Foden———————-
Saka————-Kane————Rashford

With Foden drifting all over, when the momentum is with England it still gives Jude the opportunity to bomb forward. Saka can both stay wide and come inside, Harry gets the chance to drop down and Rashford can cut inside. No need to passing between Rice, Maguire and Stones.

Attacking example:

———————Pickford——————
-—Stones—Maguire—Shaw——
————————Rice————————
Walker-——Kane———Bellingham—-
—|——Saka——-Rashford——|——Foden
..|………….\…………………/…………|………
..V…………………………../…………..V………

All of a sudden England have some options in attack and aren’t relying on any one person to make something happen. Rashford was criminally underused and is the perfect foil for Kane. Here Kane is able to play his natural game as is Bellingham and Rashford. Foden or Grealish can create space by forcing teams to follow their movements and suddenly Saka and Rashford can use their pace to get in behind.
Unfortunately Southgate has no concept of tactics and that’s why he should step aside.

 

[Van Piorsing]

The fact that it is so hard to move on from Southgate reminds me so much of Ole.

In fact I've noticed that you end up often making the same points about Southgate as you did about Ole, often to the same posters who were adamantly behind Ole.

It's become a question of morality somehow like 'ah but Southgate such a decent bloke and he's done a pretty good job... We can't move on from that now it just wouldn't be right..'

There's also this faintly perceptible lowering of the bar 'well noone has a divine right to win tournaments, maybe we're just not very good...'

The squad is good enough to compete for one of these trophies and the FA needs to pull it's head out of it's arse and accept nothing less than success. When there is an exit from a tournament,yes there should be an inquest. With the squad available reaching latter stages of tournaments should be the bare minimum and decisions should be examined upon every exit. Doing all this won't guarantee success but at least it would maximise your chances. Look at how Chelsea have operated with managers. Admittedly classless at times and this is an extreme example, but it has certainly brought them some tangible success. This isn't a game of morality, there's not a cup awarded for nice feelings and 'a great journey together'.. the cup is awarded for who remains unbeaten til the end. Any of the managers of the favourite teams can consider their efforts a failure if they don't bring the cup home.

This was Southgates third stab at one of these tournaments. I think the first one he was outstanding, maybe a bit out thought bs Croatia. Second one I consider a failure with an easy draw and a final where England made virtually no attempt to win the game after 20mins and Southgate took an age to sub on players who were being outrun, outfought and outgunned. When he did finally sub on three penalty takers for the shootout they ALL missed. This is not heroic. This is quite obvious failure. Imagine it was not football and it was war. Would you keep on a general who made decisions right at the end of the battle that arguably outright caused your sides defeat? Would you feck! It is no different. He should have gone after Italy. Getting a bit more comfortable playing a 4-3-3 and needing the media to point out to you foden is better than mount is just simply not good enough.

The irony about FA is that they already took the risk and appointed Sarina Wiegman and after one year England Women are champions. Can't see why they can't try this again with men.

Tbh If United can appoint from time to time a decent manager, FA with their funds should be more than able. I do think England got higher ceiling than Croatia who are performing superbly, every tournament. Perfect time to show that with proper management and more relentless mentality.

 

[DixieDean]

Give it to Lampard. Please.