I don't want him anywhere near United. I'd honestly rather have Ole, Jose, or LVG back or, more preferably, stick with EtH.
I'd probably even take Moyes back over him
I'd probably even take Moyes back over him
Is Southgate underrated by the CAF?
- Thread starter Sir Erik ten Hag
- Start date
Doesn't this mean you prefer him at United ?
That means I do think he suits England and don't think he suits Utd.
In fairness, you said "It's perfectly fine to think he doesn't suit the England job (I do) or the Utd job (I don't)"
I understood the meaning in context (and common sense) but it could be read the complete wrong way around: i.e. "I don't think it is perfectly fine to think he doesn't suit the United job"
England team is better now than the so-called 'golden generation' imo. Problem with that generation was they had a lot of great players but in the same positions. Like the Gerrard-Lampard-Scholes the obvious one, but also the centre-backs where King and Carragher were good defenders that would start for many England teams but were behind Ferdinand, Terry, Campbell. There was a serious lack of pace as Beckham aged and Owen got injured, plus they never really had the fast, dynamic wingers of other teams. Now they have serious coverage with specialists all over their midfield and attack, in depth. Capello's team was nothing special - Heskey, Milner, Lennon, Glen Johnson etc. I don't think they'd start for England today. Very reliant on Rooney, who was injured.
You must be a very poor negotiator. Look at how quickly you bend over with your pants around your ankles.I don't want him anywhere near United. I'd honestly rather have Ole, Jose, or LVG back or, more preferably, stick with EtH.
I'd probably even take Moyes back over him
Fair enough, happy to clarify! I agree he'd be a bit like Solskjaer for us, not what we need to take the next step.
[
I agree that the current crop is better, but that team Capello had was still special.
Terry, Ferdinand, Cole in defence. Carrick, Gerrard and Lampard in midfield. Rooney up top.
There have been plenty of World Cup winners who had more squad fillers than that England side had.
I agree that the current crop is better, but that team Capello had was still special.
Terry, Ferdinand, Cole in defence. Carrick, Gerrard and Lampard in midfield. Rooney up top.
There have been plenty of World Cup winners who had more squad fillers than that England side had.
Would have been interesting if Rooney hadn't got the ankle injury to see how they would have done. Without him fully fit, they didn't really offer much.
What has Southgate won? There you go then.
He's a good vibes manager - he's created an excellent atmosphere at the England set-up, and I imagine he;s a decent man-manager and the England players like playing for him.
That's where it ends though. He doesn't have the tactical accumen to set-up a team correctly across a 38 game league season... He's also incredibly negative.
That's where it ends though. He doesn't have the tactical accumen to set-up a team correctly across a 38 game league season... He's also incredibly negative.
Relative to Brazil and Germany. They're still not particularly weaker than England. And Brazil does have a lot of depth too
Absolutely, England are in my opinion the second best team going into the euro, after France. My point isn't that England isn't great, it's that this is not an all-time great, rarely seen before squad that's expected to win everything in style. It's a great team, in the same way France is, or the various 90s Italy sides were, or the various Argentina sides of the 00s until '18, etc...
It's not Spain, and it's not vintage Brazil. It's not even 70s Netherlands, and that team won nothing either
Agree on not holding Qatar against him. They were unlucky and didn't exactly lose to Iceland.
i don't think he's particularly poor in KO games. I think he's actually great at reading games and preparing them, it's in game management were he struggles. Still, it's not a particularly notable or glaring weakness at this level. You could level that same accusation at Scaloni and the guy won the WC. Mancini, too.
Capello is the best manager to ever coach England and he was the second worst England manager in the last 30 years. He was so bad, Ferguson actially called him to berate him for risking Rooney's career in the lead up to South Africa 2010
If he becomes our manager. Yeah I think I'll be taking a break from football. He had a great England squad and couldn't win anything when they were clearly the stronger team. For quite a while
PPG means nothing in the context of England. Results at major tournaments is what matters, capellos record at the major tournaments was equally as tumescent as those who went before him.
That just betrays an inability to grasp the randomness of tournament football. A certain disallowed goal by Lampard comes to mind. That Germany then went on to beat Argentina with prime Messi 4-0.
Germany was already a potentially WC winning team with prime Özil, Neuer, Lahm, Khedira, Schweinsteiger, Boateng, Muller etc. No shame in losing to them with the likes of Johnson, Upson, Defoe and David James starting.
So what you're essentially saying is 1 loss negates having the highest PPG ever over a 5 year period. Not just negates actually but makes him a complete clown and one of the worst England managers ever, as seems to be the common wisdom.
Last edited:
I can’t even bring myself to think this is a possibility.
I think they are, but in any case the point was (given a comparison with 70s to 00s performances) in relative terms England have an extraordinary vintage at a time their competitors don't.
Nobody is arguing they are a patch on the best international teams to date.
Agree on prep. He clearly does his homework scouting players, tracking their performance and preparing for games.
But it's the in-game management where knockouts sucker punch you. Again, I don't think there's actually that many managers around who can do all that he does well AND also have the nous and conviction to shape the course of a high stakes game.
Even if you look at those who do you find occasional mishaps due to an overuse of their strengths. E.g. Pep has at times been too clever for his own good, overthinking games and confusing the crap out of his players.
That would never happen to Southgate. He doesn't ever surprise anyone, but then, chances are he can get surprised and have the rug pulled from under him.
This is the best answer I’ve seen.
Shit, Maybe this is the best answer!
We have a winner!
Yes. It's international football. Also Capello was sacked before Euro 2012
Capello completely botched the mini-camp before the tournament and ruined what little fitness the players still had, which is why England looked so bad in every game, while alienating every important player on the team. Rooney called him the worst manager he's ever had for a reason
Eh, he did surprise Mancini actually
Solius is playing 4-d chess with words.Doesn't this mean you prefer him at United ?
I think it's you who is failing to grasp tournament football. They were only playing Germany because they failed to beat Algeria and the US in the group stage, and scraping past Slovenia 1-0 left them in 2nd place on goals scored.
Scoring an extra goal against any one of those 3 giants of world cup football would have given them a Ghana - Uruguay - Holland route to the final.
Look at Capello's treatment of Ben Foster for clarity on his ability as a man manager and of his calibre as a man.
You mean he gave him the ball and initiative, something completely alien to an Italian?
Nah. Seriously, starting the final with a 352 structure was something Italy did not expect nor was prepared for. It threw us for a loop and was part of the reason - the other being the initial adrenaline shot from Wembley - for what happened in the first 20 minutesYou mean he gave him the ball and initiative, something completely alien to an Italian?
After that, Italy getting control of the ball was an inevitability(by which I mean, given the fitness and personnel available to both squads, Italy dominating the ball for much of the game was inevitable). His mistake was trusting his defence to hold while going for the kill on the counter, instead of trying to break up Italy's tempo and control and just break the game up. And then not going hard enough for it in ET, though that's more understandable given it's ET and players are scared shitless, no matter who they are...
not giving Rashford and Sancho a few minutes to break the tension was the least excusable thing he did imo.
Last edited:
This sounds eerily familiar.
Zehner and common sense are parallels when it comes to football
Ey!
I think in football it makes no sense to solely look at results since its nature is far too random, especially when it comes to knockout tournaments. The context is important - the 'best' team (as in the one with the highest chances of succeeding) is rarely the one that wins the knockout tournament in the end yet if you decide to copy a team, it should be them. France 2018 really wasn't that great and if Southgate decided to model his England team after it, that is actually pretty telling if you ask me
I get that fans are persuaded by a cup win but a professional coach should be critical enough not to read too much into it.Tournaments, especially international tournaments like Euros and WCs which only take place every 4 years, are in fact the type of competitions where randomness means it makes no sense to look at anything but results
England commissioned a study going back a couple decades looking at the winners of WCs/Euros. The result was the playing style England tried to adopt at the Euros was the one that had been more consistently successfulThe context is important - the 'best' team (as in the one with the highest chances of succeeding) is rarely the one that wins the knockout tournament in the end yet if you decide to copy a team, it should be them. France 2018 really wasn't that great and if Southgate decided to model his England team after it, that is actually pretty telling if you ask me
And France were definitely the best team in Russia. They were favourites going in, and they strolled their way to the cup
Nah.
He's rated about right, I would say.
On average, I mean. What I gather from threads on here (on Southgate) is that the average take lands somewhere near: he's not done too badly, but it's quite likely that a more progressive/innovative/up to date/whatever England manager likely could've gotten more out of what he's been given.
Which I'd agree with it. He hardly comes across as brilliant: Alright at best, that sort of thing.
Bottom line: I completely understand those who panic at the idea of INEOS being keen on him.
But I refuse to believe that INEOS are keen on him. Why the feck would they be keen on him?
He's rated about right, I would say.
On average, I mean. What I gather from threads on here (on Southgate) is that the average take lands somewhere near: he's not done too badly, but it's quite likely that a more progressive/innovative/up to date/whatever England manager likely could've gotten more out of what he's been given.
Which I'd agree with it. He hardly comes across as brilliant: Alright at best, that sort of thing.
Bottom line: I completely understand those who panic at the idea of INEOS being keen on him.
But I refuse to believe that INEOS are keen on him. Why the feck would they be keen on him?
Nobody decent was stupid enough to give Chris Coleman a job after he done a good job with Wales. Surely we aren't the ones stupid enough to hire Gareth fecking Southgate.
Why? That makes absolutely no sense to me. You'd need to look at so many comes in order to get a significant result that the data becomes too old before you can reach any reliable conclusion. Which is a good bridge to..
If they conducted such a study, the person who authorized it should be fired. What kind of relevance do decade old results have when the sport has changed drastically multiple times since then? That's pseudo-scientific at best and speaks volumes about the understanding of statistics. There are cases in which you can't make any quantitative analyses and this is one of them.
I don't think so. They weren't better than Brazil or Belgium although those teams weren't particularly strong either.
I guess he's done some good things like bringing squad unity and creating a good vibe around the camp. I can't stand him as a manager though. People say about Saka being a good decision over the others, and it was, but we all know the reason he went for Saka is that he played a bit at left-back for a while, and that's extremely attractive to a manager like Southgate, who generally picks the team based on the ability to shut down the other team. The fact he is so determined to keep Henderson around is pretty annoying, it's basically because he "is a good leader in the group" or similar Southgate logic.
With Southgate, I feel like it's watching a kid on an arcade machine, there's no coin been inserted so the game's on demo mode, but the kid thinks he is controlling it. This is what I think Southgate is doing. The team is full of genuinely top-drawer players who are coached by much better managers week in, week out. So it is not too hard to beat significantly weaker teams. When it comes to crunch time, Southgate still manages to find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - time and time again. The Italy final in particular should have seen him sacked. And any national team with some vestige of pride in their football would have hounded him out after that. No way the likes of Spain, Brazil, Argentina put up with that damp squib of a management showing in the best-ever chance to break a 60 (or however long it is) year duck, in a home stadium, against a crap Italy (regardless what anyone says, look at their qualifying record after).
People who say "second most successful England manager EVER!" can sod off. You can't compare national teams over decades like that, disregarding the mammoth amounts of money that have gone into premier league academies in the last couple of decades (as well as home-grown quotas etc) ramping up the quality level of our domestic players. I wonder how GS would have fared with the WC2010 squad. I think we all know the answer to that one.
With Southgate, I feel like it's watching a kid on an arcade machine, there's no coin been inserted so the game's on demo mode, but the kid thinks he is controlling it. This is what I think Southgate is doing. The team is full of genuinely top-drawer players who are coached by much better managers week in, week out. So it is not too hard to beat significantly weaker teams. When it comes to crunch time, Southgate still manages to find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - time and time again. The Italy final in particular should have seen him sacked. And any national team with some vestige of pride in their football would have hounded him out after that. No way the likes of Spain, Brazil, Argentina put up with that damp squib of a management showing in the best-ever chance to break a 60 (or however long it is) year duck, in a home stadium, against a crap Italy (regardless what anyone says, look at their qualifying record after).
People who say "second most successful England manager EVER!" can sod off. You can't compare national teams over decades like that, disregarding the mammoth amounts of money that have gone into premier league academies in the last couple of decades (as well as home-grown quotas etc) ramping up the quality level of our domestic players. I wonder how GS would have fared with the WC2010 squad. I think we all know the answer to that one.
Because it's an isolated 7 games, happening every 4 years, played with whoever was available at the time. Spain can win a world cup in 2010, show up with the same players, manager, everything, 4 years later and lose 5-1 to the netherlands and then get dismantled by Chile, and they're out at the group stage. Nothing of what happened before those 2 games mattered as far as those 2 games went. There is no reliable data to gain from it. It's too few games, and the conditions too different.
Why? It was a study aimed at identifying trends. It identified one, the last example of which were the winners of the last major tournament studied, 3 years before the Euros
international football =/= club football and, see above
7 games. What kind of statistical model are you creating based on that small a sample? A worthless one.
They were clearly better than Belgium, which they beat easily. Brazil? Went out to Belgium because Casemiro was suspended and Fernandinho, key player for 100 points Manchester City, had his usual disasterpiece for Brazil. Also they just couldn't fecking score to save their lives
Southgate… with one of the most talented, technical sides in Europe, played defensive football in the Euros. THIS says everything I need to know. I pray to gods I don’t believe in to hope that Southgate isn’t our next manager.
Oh, I agree he shouldn’t be anywhere near the United job. He’d need to come back to club management and do an amazing job somewhere else first before he should be anywhere near that role (even if he wins the Euros in the summer).
My point is solely related to England. If, just after we’d got knocked out by Iceland in 2016, you had asked anybody how England would do in the next three tournaments, I doubt anybody would have suggested SF, F, QF. Yes, we have had some good players come through but two of his stars are Pickford and Maguire, who are consistently derided on here. He’s had Phillips and Henderson in midfield, and it’s only recently there have been obviously better options.
He’s also been gradually improving - I thought we were much better in the last World Cup and were very unlucky to go out.
Wouldn’t such a study show that every World Cup since 2002 has been won by sides playing 4231?
Why then would they put up with Southgate playing with 5 defenders and 2 defensive midfielders and a wealth of attacking talent sat in the stands?
Yeah, they're not interested in him. It was a Daily Star story, I believe. "The process by which the Daily Star creates content is so simple, the mind is repelled." In this case, it was the genius of linking a troubled top club manager seat with the international manager just as the international break descended (coincidence I'm sure!). There's maybe some very loose connection to Dave Brailsford, and voila: 'INEOS Top Brass Eye Southgate for Utd Hot Seat." And then we all have a meltdown like the muppets we are and discuss it endlessly for hours. Tried and tested. Rinse and repeat. It will be Chelsea next!
Any story from the Sun,Star and mirror is to be seriously doubted. They are still in business though by rumours.
Any how I say he is not a good candidate mainly because of his brand of football. He is a mold of Mouriniho and Moyes both failed managers at Manutd and Utd history and identity is based on attacking football. Hiring him would be disregarding these great values.
Any how I say he is not a good candidate mainly because of his brand of football. He is a mold of Mouriniho and Moyes both failed managers at Manutd and Utd history and identity is based on attacking football. Hiring him would be disregarding these great values.
I felt more comfortable with the Potter rumours.
He”s secretly a tactical genius.
No, He is a donkey who failed to win anything with a very talented England squad.
It might be more to do with Jim's vision of young English talent.. long term project. I.E. he's not the tactician to go toe-to-toe with Guardiola but he can work well with Ashworth to setup 'phase 1'