Imagine if Ratcliffe came in and made him his first choice for United manager? Horrifying thought right there
Is Southgate underrated by the CAF?
- Thread starter Sir Erik ten Hag
- Start date
We have literally seen him be woeful as a domestic manager...so nope
No. He's a limited manager. Can you believe he is the highest paid international manager in world football? The Croatia manager for example, what he has acheived over the last decade with that country's football, or Portugal's recent management team. These people deserve plaudits. Southgate is not over-rated as a manager, not at all.
He's a decent England manager but a mediocre manager in every other regard.
Is it even possible to underrate Southgate?
No. Also Maguire when he did play was making mistakes. So hard to keep him in
Southgate is the reason why England isn't winning anything not the other way around. England probably have the best squad in the world on par with France.
Keep Southgate and you can forget a trophy for another decade.
Keep Southgate and you can forget a trophy for another decade.
Yeah probably, I personally think he's been England's second best manager of all time besides Sir Alf, albeit with arguably the most balanced 11.
The question for you now @Sir Erik ten Hag now being what is it he saw in Mason Mount exactly, and will the fans eventually be proven wrong on that too I wonder.
Define best. Would back at least: Robson, Venables and Hoodle to have done a much better job than him with this group of players.
Result England's greatest manager in my lifetime
Is a limited manager who is too slow to react.
Has done brilliantly overall.
Is a limited manager who is too slow to react.
Has done brilliantly overall.
He seems to be a very good judge of players and he’s done a fantastic job of re-instilling confidence and morale in the England team.
Where he falls down somewhat is on the tactical side. He can also be slow to recognise when players are in/out of form (see Rashford at the World Cup who should have clearly started the QF).
Overall, I think he is underrated but at the same time I think his weaknesses would be more exposed at club level. Probably has one last chance to get over the line at the upcoming Euros, otherwise I think he will feel he’s done all he can and look to move on.
Where he falls down somewhat is on the tactical side. He can also be slow to recognise when players are in/out of form (see Rashford at the World Cup who should have clearly started the QF).
Overall, I think he is underrated but at the same time I think his weaknesses would be more exposed at club level. Probably has one last chance to get over the line at the upcoming Euros, otherwise I think he will feel he’s done all he can and look to move on.
A other great generational talent of players being wasted.
He wouldn't get near a Premier League team. It's hard to underrate him because he is so limited as a manager.
England have performed because St George's Park has begun to pay off and half the team doesn't hate the other half anymore. He has also been incredibly fortunate that the depth of competition very poor at the moment. Any half competent manager would have achieved what he has with this squad and it's a travesty that this generation of players will pass with nothing more than a limp Euro final to their name.
England have performed because St George's Park has begun to pay off and half the team doesn't hate the other half anymore. He has also been incredibly fortunate that the depth of competition very poor at the moment. Any half competent manager would have achieved what he has with this squad and it's a travesty that this generation of players will pass with nothing more than a limp Euro final to their name.
Are the bolded not completely contradictory?
I don't think Southgate has shown anything remotely resembling good judgment when it comes to players. If anything, it's been the opposite and he's still, by and large, sticking to his favourites.
He's turned it around, but Maguire should have been nowhere near the starting line-up for the September internationals, and Phillips and Henderson should be nowhere near the squad.
If he was a good judge of players, he'd also be able to adjust his tactics to something that actually makes the most of the talent at his disposal, rather than still persisting with the likes of Phillips and Henderson alongside Rice.
No.
Nothing more nothing less.
Its views and opinions like this that makes you understand that the average fan dont have a clue.
Yep spot on.
Don't be daft. I said incompetent. There are 100 reasons why and I've explained them before.
Whether it's poor in game management, poor player management, poor selection or poor tactics. Take your pick and move on.
You mean a better manager than England's ever had? Because that run of results are the best ever, in the history of the Three Lions.
I will never understand this conviction of many England fans that it can be more or less assumed that Southgate's results could or would have been bettered by another manager, which seems to me totally absurd.
No he is a terrible manager, if he had anything about him England would have won a tournament, the squad he has is amazing. England have by far the best squad in the Euros and they wont win due to Southgate
To be fair, maybe the poster is 7.
/thread
This.
Relatively speaking, I've never seen an England squad so strong. We've had strong squads on paper before but France /Brazil / Italy etc. Would just be stronger. Right now we have arguably the best striker, midfielder, right winger and right back in the world in the England team (kane, Bellingham, saka, walker) along with a crazy amount of other talent. The manager however is a complete choker.
Right now I only see France as a side that on paper has a better team. Southgate is not a good manager. Bellingham for example was ready for us in the euros and he ignored him. The gerrman media were confused by this too. He lacks European football knowledge and has a PL bias.
He also makes impressively dumb moves in key moments and persisted with a wrong formation for too long.
What do previous managers have to do with it? Historical underperformance from different managers with different squads doesn't mean that Southgate couldn't have done better.
Hodgson should have got further in 2014 and 2016, Capello should have done better in 2010, McClaren should have got them to Euro 2008, Sven should have done better in at least one of 2002, 2004 and 2006, Keegan better in 2000, etc.
Southgate is manager with very little pedigree, that fell into the job at a time when, for the first time in decades, expectations of performance were low.
He's done very well managing the rise in expectations and I won't argue that results have been far better than anything else I've ever seen, but it still seems obvious that a better manager would have done better in at least one of those tournaments, which is what I said.
When he goes, he won't do well anywhere else because he's simply not good enough.
Ramsey's were better (W-SF-QF compared with SF-F-QF).
But is there a single top team that Southgate has put to the sword in a major tournament? Because:
- Robson went toe-to-toe with eventual winners Argentina in 1986 and West Germany in 1990, and ran a classy Dutch side ragged in the group stages.
- Venables' England destroyed Holland 4-1, knocked out Spain and went to penalties against Germany in a semi-final.
- Even Hoddle took a talented Argentina to the wire with 10 men in 1998, having finished ahead of a strong Italy to qualify
Not only that, all of them played much, much better and bolder football than Southgate and let their teams express themselves.
Also far superior tactically.
Ingurland arrogance
That statement is daft and clueless. An incompetent manager getting to a final in the euros?
The sad thing about it is if England had won Euro 2020 the narrative would have been they won in spite of him. The arrogance of England fans deserves to be mocked.
fecking hell look at his run to the final, look at the performances, the team he had and the fact he played in his back yard.
Daft and clueless
The man put on two or three young penalty takers in the final when they hadn't even kicked the ball. I was at the game and there were so many groans of worry about that decision. We knew we were going to lose the shoot out right there.
This is just pure speculation.
It's a lot harder to argue that they're winning in spite of him when they actually win something.
The reality is, when it's mattered, he's lost every time he's come against a team of comparable quality, and you can often point to multiple things that contributed to those defeats that he is directly responsible for.
No
Also he lost twice to Belgium that tournament. Lucky to draw with the US in the last world cup too, feck me was that a dire match.
I've said this so many times, but it's never not true. Swap Mancini and Southgate in the Euros final and England batter Italy.
No, he isnt.
The results that he is getting are a consequence of the quality of players he has available. Given how good the current England bunch is, he should have won something by now.
The results that he is getting are a consequence of the quality of players he has available. Given how good the current England bunch is, he should have won something by now.
Look at 50-page thread on whether or not he is a shit manager created after the Euros. If you're honestly telling me winning a penalty shootout would have completely changed the opinion of Southgate you are burying your head in the sand.
Winning the penalty shootout wouldn't have made him a good manager though.
In fact, it only reached penalties because he's not a very good manager, and he massively contributed to the shootout defeat precisely because he made two of the takers players who hadn't kicked a ball all match, and the final taker a teenager who hadn't taken a competitive penalty in his professional career.
The narrative is what it is because it reflects what has actually happened.
Of course the narrative would have been different if Southgate had kept England on top in the final instead of sitting back for most of the match, just as it would have been different if his daft penalty taker decisions had paid off. It's speculative nonsense to suggest that it wouldn't have changed anything.
Then what in the hell are you arguing with me about? You're just making my point for me.
Quit arguing for the sake of it.
You weren't talking about his quality as a manager. You were talking about the narrative around him, which, if you'd read the rest of the post, I said would have changed.
The narrative would have correctly been that he's one of the best managers the team has had, but that doesn't necessarily translate to him actually being a good manager.
Winning it in normal time might have been an indicator that he's a bit more than a limited manager doing reasonably well with a golden generation of players.
Simply put, the narrative is that he's a limited manager failing to get the most of the players he has. That has to change if he wins the Euros because he simply can't have done more with them, but it doesn't necessarily mean he isn't still a limited manager.
Last edited: