Is Southgate underrated by the CAF?

You are entitled to your own opinion. Never your own facts. Claiming Italy "struggled" at Euro 2020 at any point is inventing your own facts.
Spain beat us from pillar to post for 120 minutes. It was an all time jailbreak win

And we did struggle against Austria's organized low block, evidence of it is we needed extra time to win and ended the game in desperation mode

That said, we were definitely seen as one of the big favourites after the group stage. After game 1, it surprised nobody how far we went. Even the win over England wasn't an upset
 
In such world class form that one of them literally had to yank Saka back by his collar to stop him breaking through.
So because Chiellini was caught in a fast transition moment for England in the middle of the pitch denying a sprint duel vs one of the fastest in the game you want to argue that Chiellini was not one of the best defenders in the world at that time? Based on one scene? Him and Bonucci had their last hurrah in that tournament and were definitely the best cb pairing of the tournament
 
So because Chiellini was caught in a fast transition moment for England in the middle of the pitch denying a sprint duel vs one of the fastest in the game you want to argue that Chiellini was not one of the best defenders in the world at that time? Based on one scene? Him and Bonucci had their last hurrah in that tournament and were definitely the best cb pairing of the tournament

And their weaknesses were there for all to see.
 
Terrible manager, won feck all.

Feck knows how he managed to blag the England job .…clueless ’yes‘ man with zero personality.
 
Terrible manager, won feck all.

Feck knows how he managed to blag the England job .…clueless ’yes‘ man with zero personality.

He got the England job because Big Sam got caught having a pint of wine with the wrong person.
 
When he decided to take Saka off (or most threatening attacker vs France) I remember just punching the table in anger.

Am I right that he only gave Rashford 5 mins to get a goal back vs France, who at the time was our top goalscorer? :lol:

It's astounding how many mistakes this guy makes, being masked by a great squad that bails him out.
 
Spain beat us from pillar to post for 120 minutes. It was an all time jailbreak win

And we did struggle against Austria's organized low block, evidence of it is we needed extra time to win and ended the game in desperation mode

That said, we were definitely seen as one of the big favourites after the group stage. After game 1, it surprised nobody how far we went. Even the win over England wasn't an upset
Spain domimated the ball and game but were like a boxer with no knockout punch. TBH even before that tie it was them or Italy I personally expected to go on an lift the trophy, given how both had been in thr tournament till then.

I felt a much improved Austria (given their historical rep) just put up a heroic defensive job. I never felt Italy were never the better side in the tie to class it as struggle. I always felt they'd find away to win though it came so late.

That's why till now I've never understood this wide held belief England were overwhelming favorites in the final let alone that Southgate was an "extreme dunce" to push them to penalties. With the "extreme dunce" narrative going as far back as that deserved loss to Croatia in 2018.
 
You are entitled to your own opinion. Never your own facts. Claiming Italy "struggled" at Euro 2020 at any point is inventing your own facts.
It says a lot about your quality of post that you have created and put in quote marks something that was never said. It is a fact that Austria had a winning goal ruled out by VAR, it is a fact the game with Belgium was quite even, it is a fact that Spain completely bosses that game but had no ability to score, that had over 70% possession and Mancini said afterwards Italy weren’t at their level on the ball so had to suffer and just play route one.

Nothing I’ve said says Italy were bad, in fact it’s the hallmark of good tournament teams to have to accept when they can’t go toe to toe and to get a result. But they were not considered amongst the favourites going in, they never really outplayed or dominated against any top teams. They were a good team, just as England were a good team that tournament but in no way were they, as you said, this amazing team that far outshone others across the whole tournament. They were gritty and hard to break down just as Mancini’s teams tend to be and England were too passive/cautious in my opinion after we scored which allowed them back in.
 
They were gritty and hard to break down just as Mancini’s teams tend to be and England were too passive/cautious in my opinion after we scored which allowed them back in.
Not you too :lol:

Seriously, did collective hysteria made brits forget how that game went? England got defensive for the last 15 minutes of the first half - by choice - because of all energy they spent in the first 30 minutes trying to outright kill the game off. In the second half, they weren't pinned back by choice - Italy forced them
 
southgate is not someone you think of when wondering who the next manager will be of mufc. The fact that hes even been suggested is alarming.
 
Not you too :lol:

Seriously, did collective hysteria made brits forget how that game went? England got defensive for the last 15 minutes of the first half - by choice - because of all energy they spent in the first 30 minutes trying to outright kill the game off. In the second half, they weren't pinned back by choice - Italy forced them
And a better manager would have navigated how to get out of that situation.
Also, I was at the Euro Final, you are making it appear like England were doing some crazy klopp style energetic press that had them gassed out in the first 30 mins. That never happened.
 
And a better manager would have navigated how to get out of that situation.
Maybe. Maybe not. This idealized "better manager" thing you've got going on is plain delusional. "Better managers" have fecked up worse in similar situations. Southgate's management of the second half and ET were subpar, yeah (conversely his pregame management and preparation were exceptional)
Also, I was at the Euro Final, you are making it appear like England were doing some crazy klopp style energetic press that had them gassed out in the first 30 mins. That never happened.
Nobody does Klopp style energetic press at international level. To begin with, managers don't have the time to implement that, for another, a euro final is game number ~70 of the season for those guys, and the 7th in a month. You can't possibly expect them to play with the fitness of a mid-November game. Most likely England were even able to start like that because of Wembley
 
Last edited:
southgate is not someone you think of when wondering who the next manager will be of mufc. The fact that hes even been suggested is alarming.
This place would explode if he became uniteds mgr. I think Ratcliffe has too much sense though to think about it whereas the Glazers mistakenly would think it would be great for united supporters.
 
Not you too :lol:

Seriously, did collective hysteria made brits forget how that game went? England got defensive for the last 15 minutes of the first half - by choice - because of all energy they spent in the first 30 minutes trying to outright kill the game off. In the second half, they weren't pinned back by choice - Italy forced them
:lol:
 
Maybe. Maybe not. This idealized "better manager" thing you've got going on is plain delusional. "Better managers" have fecked up worse in similar situations. Southgate's management of the second half and ET were subpar, yeah

This is such a weird argument. "better managers have fecked up too so there's nothing to say a better manger can do better". It can be said about literally anything in any sport and is such a flawed argument.

Southgate is a manager with chronic failures with in game tactics, personnel choices and even tactics. I honestly couldn't care less if a better manager may feck up the same game in a parallel universe, my point is there would be a far less likelihood of that happening.
Nobody does Klopp style energetic press at international level. To begin with, managers don't have the time to implement that, for another, a euro final is game number ~70 of the season for those guys, and the 7th in a month. You can't possibly expect them to play with the fitness of a mid-November game. Most likely England were even able to start like that because of Wembley
I'm not expecting anything. I'm saying this argument that England ran too hard and got gassed is untrue. That's not how the game went. We got an early goal, had our tails up, and Italy just took the sting out the game by keeping ball and silencing the crowd. It wasn't an energy thing, it was just Italy being more streetwise than us.
 
This place would explode if he became uniteds mgr. I think Ratcliffe has too much sense though to think about it whereas the Glazers mistakenly would think it would be great for united supporters.
Explode is how I would describe OT when Amad's shot rolled into the far corner. Implode is probably more accurate for that
 
Not you too :lol:

Seriously, did collective hysteria made brits forget how that game went? England got defensive for the last 15 minutes of the first half - by choice - because of all energy they spent in the first 30 minutes trying to outright kill the game off. In the second half, they weren't pinned back by choice - Italy forced them
Agree re first half, not second. Second it appeared to me at least the game plan was to soak up pressure, invite you on and then counter. Modern players aren’t done after 30 mins and then have nothing left. After half time we could have contested the midfield a lot more but clearly chose not to. You’re effectively saying England ran so much in 30mins they then had nothing left in the tank but yet hung on until penalties?
 
southgate is not someone you think of when wondering who the next manager will be of mufc. The fact that hes even been suggested is alarming.

Seemingly the only thing that makes even slight sense is that he's got a good working relationship with Ashworth. Who hasn't even properly been allowed to join us yet.

But having very little club record doesn't scream a genius appointment for a huge club with massive scrutiny and expectations.
 
This is such a weird argument. "better managers have fecked up too so there's nothing to say a better manger can do better". It can be said about literally anything in any sport and is such a flawed argument.
No, you describe it in broad terms, while I'm using it for a specific situation. "A better manager would have done better in that situation" is a flawed argument. Football games have an inherent component of randomness which makes game management as much a lottery as anything. Rarely are there such clear problems requiring equally clear fixes.

Southgate is a manager with chronic failures with in game tactics, personnel choices and even tactics. I honestly couldn't care less if a better manager may feck up the same game in a parallel universe, my point is there would be a far less likelihood of that happening.
In broad terms, sure, in a single, specific situation, not really. It's not even like every better manager than Southgate is automatically particularly good at in game management either.

I'm not expecting anything. I'm saying this argument that England ran too hard and got gassed is untrue. That's not how the game went. We got an early goal, had our tails up, and Italy just took the sting out the game by keeping ball and silencing the crowd. It wasn't an energy thing, it was just Italy being more streetwise than us.
We struggled to get out of our half for the first 20 minutes of that game, had several situations where we got away with our lives because england's attackers fecked up and generally played in desperate survival mode until around the ~30 minutes mark. At which point England's aggression had started to fade, pace was slowing down and we finally managed to consolidate possession and get out. To me it looked hell of a lot more like england were gassed than anything we did
 
Agree re first half, not second. Second it appeared to me at least the game plan was to soak up pressure, invite you on and then counter. Modern players aren’t done after 30 mins and then have nothing left. After half time we could have contested the midfield a lot more but clearly chose not to. You’re effectively saying England ran so much in 30mins they then had nothing left in the tank but yet hung on until penalties?
No, I'm saying England didn't have enough to press Italy aggressively well enough to seriously trouble Italy's build up. Just so we are clear: yes, England chose to not press Italy, but it was a choice forced by context. Add to that, England's low block defence had been exceptional all tournament long and Italy's attack was deadly when it could run but fairly toothless against deep blocks, too. By ET England were the team keeping the ball and attacking, as Italy had themselves ran out of energy+our subs were a much bigger downgrade
 
No, I'm saying England didn't have enough to press Italy aggressively well enough to seriously trouble Italy's build up. Just so we are clear: yes, England chose to not press Italy, but it was a choice forced by context. Add to that, England's low block defence had been exceptional all tournament long and Italy's attack was deadly when it could run but fairly toothless against deep blocks, too. By ET England were the team keeping the ball and attacking, as Italy had themselves ran out of energy+our subs were a much bigger downgrade
That would be a reasonable take then. As opposed to the other poster who thought Italy were amazing.
 
No, you describe it in broad terms, while I'm using it for a specific situation. "A better manager would have done better in that situation" is a flawed argument. Football games have an inherent component of randomness which makes game management as much a lottery as anything. Rarely are there such clear problems requiring equally clear fixes.
A better manager would have very likely navigated that final better than Southgate did. You punting that its plausible they wouldn't does not vindicate Southgate remotely. Something being plausible is not the same as something being probable.
Moreover, southgate has actually failed chronically as a manager in big games. He's played a top 10 team on 24 occassions as England coach and won only 4. This idea that a better manager cannot navigate these bigger games in a better manner is completely false.

In broad terms, sure, in a single, specific situation, not really. It's not even like every better manager than Southgate is automatically particularly good at in game management either.
Better managers certainly wouldn't be chronically bad with in game management, like Southgate has proven in most of his big games.
We struggled to get out of our half for the first 20 minutes of that game, had several situations where we got away with our lives because england's attackers fecked up and generally played in desperate survival mode until around the ~30 minutes mark. At which point England's aggression had started to fade, pace was slowing down and we finally managed to consolidate possession and get out. To me it looked hell of a lot more like england were gassed than anything we did
We had a squad that was more than capable of not being penned back, and we retreated in doing so. This is because our manager is incredibly conservatives and safe, often lacking the balls to actually set his team up to go at teams with an attacking philosophy over the course of a game. This has been proven time and time again constantly.

There are dozens of managers who would set England up better than to be defeatist against bigger sides.
 
We had a squad that was more than capable of not being penned back, and we retreated in doing so.
I'm not sure that's true, and I don't think it was that much of a fault on his part anyways. His gameplan was working until the ~55th minute, and Italy scored 10 minutes later. That was the window he didn't use to change things up. He did try to change things after the 1-1(switch back to 433, Saka, Henderson and Graelish subs), they just didn't work until ET

This is because our manager is incredibly conservatives and safe, often lacking the balls to actually set his team up to go at teams with an attacking philosophy over the course of a game.
I mean, that is something you could accuse him of at the euros, but certainly not at the last WC
 
I'm not sure that's true, and I don't think it was that much of a fault on his part anyways. His gameplan was working until the ~55th minute, and Italy scored 10 minutes later. That was the window he didn't use to change things up. He did try to change things after the 1-1(switch back to 433, Saka, Henderson and Graelish subs), they just didn't work until ET
His gameplan was chronically flawed. You don't sit deep and counter at home against Italy, who are doing the same thing. It's ill suited to our attackers in the match day squad, it killed our momentum coming into the final and it was a sure hit way of quietening our own crowd from "lets fecking go at them" into " feck, worried here, lets hold on against their attacks". It's completely defeatist and, no, it wasn't working because we got played off the park almost the entiregame.
Even if you somehow acknowledge a counter approach, it's astounding heeven didn't bother playing our best threat in a counter attack (Rashford) the entire game (?!)

I mean, that is something you could accuse him of at the euros, but certainly not at the last WC
Not quite, he hooked our biggest creative outlet in Saka (who was proving very tricky to handle). And he didnt go for the equaliser until too late (overly conservative, true to form). Again, his leading goal scorer was Rashford, who got what 5 minutes against France?

This is a manager who has 4 wins out of 24 attempts against sides ranked top 10 in the World. It's borderline offensive to suggest there aren't dozens of coaches out there who can manage a better record than him with the same squad. There is literally no redeeming quality in him as a coach outside of him being a likeable bloke. His set up is poor, his tactics are conservative, he almost always makes mistakes in starting XIs and he has proven time and time again to get in game subs wrong.

He has such a terrific squad this Euros, I genuinely think (thankfully) that there are so many superb alternatives to the first XI that he can't possibly feck it up. However I also wouldnt be surprised if he found a way to.
 
Last edited:
He reminds me of a assistant manager who's been promoted to full time coach.
 
He was a loser as player and now a manager, achieved nothing. Criminal he's not won something with that England group, the best squad by a distance. Unbelievable he's been linked with us, not exactly mentioned for Real, Bayern or Liverpool. This would be the kind of appointment that makes me terrified of Ineos vision, anti football Southgate.
 
You are entitled to your own opinion. Never your own facts. Claiming Italy "struggled" at Euro 2020 at any point is inventing your own facts.
Only game Italy weren't clearly the best team in was the Spain semi-final. That was even and could've gone either way. But up to that point Italy had been the best team in the tournament from the start of the opening game against Turkey. Worthy winners.
 
Southgate is Ted Lasso. He needs to find a Nathan to do the tactics for him.
 
He is, but still not good enough for us.

Exactly. He's done better than most England managers have (the argument that this is the best England squad ever is BS) and isn't given fair credit.

He shouldn't be given the United job and I'd be amazed if he got a full season.
 
Seemingly the only thing that makes even slight sense is that he's got a good working relationship with Ashworth. Who hasn't even properly been allowed to join us yet.

But having very little club record doesn't scream a genius appointment for a huge club with massive scrutiny and expectations.
Its almost as dumb as the moyes appointment. I'll never forgive the club for that feckin level of idiocy. Southgate should stay where he is.
 
His record in club football is woeful, less than 30% win rate over 150 games. International football is totally different animal.

He might have improved in club football but will only find out if someone takes a chance on him.
 
Exactly. He's done better than most England managers have (the argument that this is the best England squad ever is BS) and isn't given fair credit.

He shouldn't be given the United job and I'd be amazed if he got a full season.
I think he would do well at club level. The only question is tournaments with him. Other than that I believe he would work wonders with a youthfull side like united. I really hope united don’t go for him .
 
Exactly. He's done better than most England managers have (the argument that this is the best England squad ever is BS) and isn't given fair credit.

He shouldn't be given the United job and I'd be amazed if he got a full season.
i dunno whos arguing about this being the best england squad ever, but we have had better players who have won feck all collectively. The golden Generation my feckin ass..