So what's next for Sir Gareth Southgate?

[justsomebloke]

In fairness, the first loss against Belgium was a no-brainer really, winning the group would've been a nightmare. Doubt many players would call the second match against Belgium "fairly meaningless".

Point is, people focus way too much on when these losses happened. Ah, it was the semi finals, ah it was the final, you got there by the luck of draw. Tougher opposition and odds are you would've been knocked out way earlier. The world cup group and euros group were both absolutely perfectly lined up for reaching the finals, i doubt even Southgate could've dreamt of a easier route in both tournaments. It's not like you would've won against France in 2018 anyway, but Southgates inability to adjust tactics cost you big time against Italy in the Euros.

Well, playoff for third place, I didn't even watch that (and didn't remember the result). When you're out, you're out.

Anyway, I think the point is actually that there's a limit to how lucky a draw is. Generally, pretty much anyone you encounter in a quarter final or semi final is a very good team. Colombia, Sweden and Croatia were all strong opponents, it's not like it was Japan, Australia and Slovenia. Every tournament there are big teams who go out to smaller nations. Of course the opposition could have been worse and of course the odds would have been different if the draw had been worse. But you could say that about anyone. That's how the tournament works after all, sometimes you get it easier sometimes you get it harder. England however have with few exceptions gone out whether the draw turned out easier or harder, and they didn't that time.

 

[JohnnyKills]

He doesn't think the default option for England is to win? of course it is. Every game England plays they're expected to win.

Just because we often fail to produce, doesn't mean we shouldn't win more often. We should have won the Euros, we should have beaten Croatia in the world cup.

I'd say if anything expectations are too low for a Country that produces the talent we do.

All Ronay is doing is making excuses for an under achieving manager.

Totally agree.

Look at the squad FFS!

Stones, Walker, TAA, Foden and Sterling are all key players for two of the top three teams in the world, winning the toughest league and reaching the semis of the CL every year.

Grealish is a regular starter and impact sub for one of those teams.

Chilwell, James and Mount have all won the CL and reach the latter stages every year.

Kane is widely regarded as the best CF in the best league in the world.

Maguire was named in the team of the tournament at the last WC.

Rice is going to move for 100m very soon.

That's practically an entire team of elite talent, and then you've got the next tier like Shaw, Rashford, Sancho etc.

And people still apologise for Southgate by saying he's somehow over-achieved? Christ on a bike.

And btw Ronay's dig at Maguire in that interview was crass in the extreme.

 

[justsomebloke]

Your little crusade of "calling people out", telling people that they need to grow up, and calling them batshit crazy and mental for wanting a more attacking style than what we've seen under Southgate is bizarre. As we can all see, lots of England fans here disagree with you. Maybe take their perspective into account before insulting them for having an opinion which doesn't align with your own? Helpful bit of advice is all.

If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, you'd know that I'm not calling anyone mental for wanting a more attacking style. On the contrary, I wrote that that is a completely legitimate debate. What I'm calling mental are the claims that Southgate's results have so bad that they merit all this anger and outrage, as well as the baseline expectations for what England is supposed to achieve, both of whom are entirely beyond reason.

 

[Adam-Utd]

Totally agree.

Look at the squad FFS!

Stones, Walker, TAA, Foden and Sterling are all key players for two of the top three teams in the world, winning the toughest league and reaching the semis of the CL every year.

Grealish is a regular starter and impact sub for one of those teams.

Chilwell, James and Mount have all won the CL and reach the latter stages every year.

Kane is widely regarded as the best CF in the best league in the world.

Maguire was named in the team of the tournament at the last WC.

Rice is going to move for 100m very soon.

That's practically an entire team of elite talent, and then you've got the next tier like Shaw, Rashford, Sancho etc.

And people still apologise for Southgate by saying he's somehow over-achieved? Christ on a bike.

And btw Ronay's dig at Maguire in that interview was crass in the extreme.

Bingo.

Literally every position we have apart from GK has multiple players playing at the top level for big clubs.

Who in world football apart from maybe France has the same level of depth and competition?

To be getting stuffed at home against a bang average Hungary side is frankly embarrasing. If it wasn't so close to the world cup the press would have made a much bigger deal of it IMO.

 

[UncleBob]

Well, playoff for third place, I didn't even watch that (and didn't remember the result). When you're out, you're out.

Anyway, I think the point is actually that there's a limit to how lucky a draw is. Generally, pretty much anyone you encounter in a quarter final or semi final is a very good team. Colombia, Sweden and Croatia were all strong opponents, it's not like it was Japan, Australia and Slovenia. Every tournament there are big teams who go out to smaller nations. Of course the opposition could have been worse and of course the odds would have been different if the draw had been worse. But you could say that about anyone. That's how the tournament works after all, sometimes you get it easier sometimes you get it harder. England however have with few exceptions gone out whether the draw turned out easier or harder, and they didn't that time.

One thing is the teams in your group and the odds of making it out of the group stage, another thing is the group itself and who you will have to play next. The group, in both the euros and world cup, was lined up absolutely perfectly. France had a piss easy group stage with Australia, Peru and Denmark, but after that they had to play Argentina, Uruguay and Belgium to reach the final. Obviously they lucked out, no way they would've preferred to play the mighty Colombia and Sweden instead.

Belgium, who won the group, were lined up against Japan, Brazil and then France. If Belgium had finished second, odds are they would've met France in the World Cup final instead of being knocked out in the semi final. Croatia were hardly solid, they just had an easier route.

And yes, there are always big teams who go out to smaller nations, but it's usually because of natural transitions where the national team is either on the way up or down. Just as you have to look a bit deeper than simply stating England reached the final and semi-final...You still didn't win it, and everything there is points to you only reaching the final and semi final due to the luck of the draw and how the path was lined up after the group stage.

Maybe you will improve, a lot, but i doubt it will happen under Southgate.

 

[VP89]

I called Southgate out as a bad manager back in 2018. Surprised it took this long for some to realize, and more surprised he still has fans

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

I called Southgate out as a bad manager back in 2018. Surprised it took this long for some to realize, and more surprised he still has fans

He is probably the best manager England have got since 66 if you look at the results.

He has mostly proved you wrong I say by reaching semi final and a final.

 

[VP89]

He is probably the best manager England have got since 66 if you look at the results.

He has mostly proved you wrong I say by reaching semi final and a final.

He's not proved me wrong even remotely. You're assuming that the relative competition is akin to what all previous managers had which is false. The breakout Germany side would have pulled his pants down, as would 2002 Brazil, 2006 France, etc.

The "he got to a semi and a final" is the most lazy narrative I've heard, it's like a TalkSport level argument, I'm sorry.

He skimmed Sweden, needed pens v Colombia, got a Trippier free kick 1-0 against Croatia and still threw the game with 15 mins to go. That was his World Cup.
He skimmed most of his games in Euros too, and even then underperformed against Denmark, Scotland, Croatia etc. on the way. When you're this shit you don't go all the way, it'll catch up on you.

And now he's being twatted sideways by Hungary 5-0 on aggregate. With this squad too

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

He's not proved me wrong even remotely. You're assuming that the relative competition is akin to what all previous managers had which is false. The breakout Germany side would have pulled his pants down, as would 2002 Brazil, 2006 France, etc.

The "he got to a semi and a final" is the most lazy narrative I've heard, it's like a TalkSport level argument, I'm sorry.

He skimmed Sweden, needed pens v Colombia, got a Trippier free kick 1-0 against Croatia and still threw the game with 15 mins to go. That was his World Cup.
He skimmed most of his games in Euros too, and even then underperformed against Denmark, Scotland, Croatia etc. on the way. When you're this shit you don't go all the way, it'll catch up on you.

And now he's being twatted sideways by Hungary 5-0 on aggregate. With this squad too

You would claim you are right even if he won both tournaments based on just playing bad teams. You made up your mind and try to prove yourself right.

It is clear he has done a good job before this nations league.

He should probably be replaced after the world cup though to get some fresh ideas.

I agree that losing to Croatia and Italy after going ahead was no tactical masterclass, but they are no easy sides at all.
Tight games was to be expected.

 

[Gio]

I mean if he ends up at City this summer, does that change anything?

If he were to make it at City then, yes, I've under-rated him. But I mean Phil played for United at Euro 2004 but was still clearly not good enough to go toe-to-toe with Rui Costa, Deco and Figo in a Euros quarter-final. I think the point stands that England struggle to control midfield when they come up against top quality opposition and it has proved their undoing against Croatia in 2018 and Italy in 2021. That owes partly to a lack of quality in the CM area and is partly down to the manager not finding a solution for it yet. Similar issue for Sven's England where they didn't quite have the complementary holding midfielder to free up the others to play their natural game.

 

[RedSky]

You would claim you are right even if he won both tournaments based on just playing bad teams. You made up your mind and try to prove yourself right.

It is clear he has done a good job before this nations league.

He should probably be replaced after the world cup though to get some fresh ideas.

He should have left after the final disaster against Italy. Terrible display by a Manager, one of the most gutless displays I've seen in a final. Just shockingly poor.

Tactically he's an abysmal Manager.

 

[nickm]

I think you should have a think about how you want to engage with other people. You don't come across very well.

He's right though.

 

[Highfather_24]

Coward.

 

[nickm]

Just because we often fail to produce, doesn't mean we shouldn't win more often.

And yet the guy who actually does have the best win ratio amongst England managers is "an under achieving manager".

What a joke.

 

[nickm]

Average is overstating it. People forget that prior to getting fortunate runs in the EC and WC he was the manager that got Boro relegated and kept them relegated.

And yet we had Fabio Capello, one of the greatest club managers of all time, who was useless. Club and National team management are different. I don't think Southgate would make a great club manager.

 

[nickm]

You're only looking at the end result and not the full picture. Englands national team is miles away from reaching anywhere near it's full potential considering the players available

I've been hearing that about England since the early 90s. England NEVER has reached its potential... until this last WC and Euros, where we did, but which was a fluke apparently.

 

[UncleBob]

I've been hearing that about England since the early 90s. England NEVER has reached its potential... until this last WC and Euros, where we did, but which was a fluke apparently.

You clearly didn't though.

 

[Skills]

And yet we had Fabio Capello, one of the greatest club managers of all time, who was useless. Club and National team management are different. I don't think Southgate would make a great club manager.

Capella had a much worse team, yet he still had a better win % than Southgate.

I can't imagine how bad Southgate would be with that group.

 

[Martial'sEmergingSmile]

He is probably the best manager England have got since 66 if you look at the results.

His wins have came against:

2x San Marino, 2x Kosovo, 2x Malta, 2x Lithuania, 2x Albania, 2x Croatia, 2x Czech Republic, 2x Montenegro, 2x Bulgaria, 2x Iceland, 2x Switzerland, 2x Andorra, Slovenia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Costa Rica, Tunsia, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, USA, Wales, Scotland, Belgium, Ireland, Austria, Romania, Germany, Slovakia, Ukraine, Denmark, Hungary, Ivory Coast, Panama.

England have failed to win in 90 minutes + ET against:

3x Germany, 3x Italy, 3x Belgium, 3x Hungary, 2x Spain, 2x Denmark, 2x Croatia, 2x Scotland, France, Brazil, Colombia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia.

 

[Adam-Utd]

And yet the guy who actually does have the best win ratio amongst England managers is "an under achieving manager".

What a joke.

And he's got the best squad we've had in a very long time.

We SHOULD be beating every team we face until we reach the likes of France/Argentina etc.

win ratio really means nothing when we are playing the likes of San Marino every year. He's now the proud owner of worst home defeat in 60 years.

I can't wait for him to play another defensive 3-5-2 and scrape 1-0 wins until we get dumped out against the first good side we play.

 

[redcucumber]

He's right though.

No he's not. Regardless, it's not about the debate. It's about how we interact with each other as human beings.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

His wins have came against:

2x San Marino, 2x Kosovo, 2x Malta, 2x Lithuania, 2x Albania, 2x Croatia, 2x Czech Republic, 2x Montenegro, 2x Bulgaria, 2x Iceland, 2x Switzerland, 2x Andorra, Slovenia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Costa Rica, Tunsia, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, USA, Wales, Scotland, Belgium, Ireland, Austria, Romania, Germany, Slovakia, Ukraine, Denmark, Hungary, Ivory Coast, Panama.

England have failed to win in 90 minutes + ET against:

3x Germany, 3x Italy, 3x Belgium, 3x Hungary, 2x Spain, 2x Denmark, 2x Croatia, 2x Scotland, France, Brazil, Colombia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia.

Well yes it is two losses that hurt though. Vs Croatia and Italy. Apart from them England has done the job in the important games.

Now you could add third place playoff vs Belgium as well which makes Englands world cup less impressive with 4 wins out of 7, but I think third place is not that highly rated.

 

[InspiRED]

what a load of rubbish, that is far from spot on.

A team with the quality of ours, the recent 'good' performances of getting to a semi + final, should not be getting stuffed at home by a bang average Hungary side.

It's not just a 1 off either. We've been stringing along poor performances for a long time.

Nobody expects us to easily beat the proper teams in world football but we should always be competitive.

Well said. I read that outrageous turd of an article that Ronay wrote, not sure why he thinks four funny metaphors per year means his opinion on what England should expect of their managers has been elevated to some sacrosanct status. These kinds of debates always attract the holier than thou types who, ironically and just like in that article, proceed to tell everyone else that they're the ones who are deluded. There's definitely delusion going on, will agree with that.

It's a simple game of numbers really. The population of England, combined with the wealth of the premier league, and that money filtering into the academies over time and inevitably producing some pretty strong talent, means that; no, England should not expect to win tournaments year after year, but they bloody well should be expected to challenge. Why on earth wouldn't they? I would argue that the opposite has been true, where years of mismanagement by the Old Boys FA club has led to this ingrained loser mentality via poor investment into the grassroots game and an accompanying attitude of 'well why should we think we deserve anything? We're shite, accept it and be grateful'. No, feck off. No other decent top national football side would ever put up with that and nor should we.

Southgate did a great job at the first world cup I must say (albeit what happened vs Croatia was a total prognostic of what will happen and what has happened against every top side since), he did great with a limited squad. That Euros final though was possibly most gutless display I have ever seen from a manager (well since actually Ole vs Villareal). Mancini literally took off all his star players and the midfield as they were gassed and we responded by hanging on for dear life content to sufferingly chase after the ball, at home in Wembley, slowly turning the atmosphere from something that could have been a twelfth man into the ambience of a morgue. By accounts, most of the foreign punditry of the game were left utterly baffled by GS's management in that final, because it was basically baffling. It's so bloody obvious Southgate can only take us so far, look at his prior history to England, he was lucky to be given the job in the first place. He did a great job considering, but any footballing nation with any ambition would be asking for more and be seeking a top tier manager, and so they bloody should. It's not life and death, we're not gonna exile Sir Gareth to St helens. I agree the fans should maybe be a bit kinder about it, he's obviously done his best, but in all honesty the FA won't listen without a few toys out of the pram. You look at other sports where England or GB has done well and they appointed teams with a no questions asked winning mentality, that's what we need from our football setup.

And just before some predictable numptie steps in again with 'OMG you do realise Southgate has done better than any England manager EVER!' etc. It runs into the hated logical fallacy that England + x did better than England + y or z etc. assuming that variable England is some unchanging constant, not some massively changing variable of relative squad that it obviously is. Anyone who argues like it is, is by definition imo, some sort of cretin.

I'll agree he did do well, but we can all see his progress rested on putting out glorified park the bus sides that relied on Kane or Sterling to create a bit of magic on a quick counter to win. Most reasonable fans aren't expecting to turn into 1974 Brazil with every attacking talent shoehorned in, but what should be expected is at least being able to keep some of the possession in (even top opponents) halves and attempt to control the game a bit more. Hanging on for dear life will just end in failure, this time the blow will probably come sooner than in the last two tournaments.

 

[Adam-Utd]

Well said. I read that outrageous turd of an article that Ronay wrote, not sure why he thinks four funny metaphors per year means his opinion on what England should expect of their managers has been elevated to some sacrosanct status. These kinds of debates always attract the holier than thou types who, ironically and just like in that article, proceed to tell everyone else that they're the ones who are deluded. There's definitely delusion going on, will agree with that.

It's a simple game of numbers really. The population of England, combined with the wealth of the premier league, and that money filtering into the academies over time and inevitably producing some pretty strong talent, means that; no, England should not expect to win tournaments year after year, but they bloody well should be expected to challenge. Why on earth wouldn't they? I would argue that the opposite has been true, where years of mismanagement by the Old Boys FA club has led to this ingrained loser mentality via poor investment into the grassroots game and an accompanying attitude of 'well why should we think we deserve anything? We're shite, accept it and be grateful'. No, feck off. No other decent top national football side would ever put up with that and nor should we.

Southgate did a great job at the first world cup I must say (albeit what happened vs Croatia was a total prognostic of what will happen and what has happened against every top side since), he did great with a limited squad. That Euros final though was possibly most gutless display I have ever seen from a manager (well since actually Ole vs Villareal). Mancini literally took off all his star players and the midfield as they were gassed and we responded by hanging on for dear life content to sufferingly chase after the ball, at home in Wembley, slowly turning the atmosphere from something that could have been a twelfth man into the ambience of a morgue. By accounts, most of the foreign punditry of the game were left utterly baffled by GS's management in that final, because it was basically baffling. It's so bloody obvious Southgate can only take us so far, look at his prior history to England, he was lucky to be given the job in the first place. He did a great job considering, but any footballing nation with any ambition would be asking for more and be seeking a top tier manager, and so they bloody should. It's not life and death, we're not gonna exile Sir Gareth to St helens. I agree the fans should maybe be a bit kinder about it, he's obviously done his best, but in all honesty the FA won't listen without a few toys out of the pram. You look at other sports where England or GB has done well and they appointed teams with a no questions asked winning mentality, that's what we need from our football setup.

And just before some predictable numptie steps in again with 'OMG you do realise Southgate has done better than any England manager EVER!' etc. It runs into the hated logical fallacy that England + x did better than England + y or z etc. assuming that variable England is some unchanging constant, not some massively changing variable of relative squad that it obviously is. Anyone who argues like it is, is by definition imo, some sort of cretin.

I'll agree he did do well, but we can all see his progress rested on putting out glorified park the bus sides that relied on Kane or Sterling to create a bit of magic on a quick counter to win. Most reasonable fans aren't expecting to turn into 1974 Brazil with every attacking talent shoehorned in, but what should be expected is at least being able to keep some of the possession in (even top opponents) halves and attempt to control the game a bit more. Hanging on for dear life will just end in failure, this time the blow will probably come sooner than in the last two tournaments.

100% how I feel.

The final against Italy especially was a joke.

Why not use your subs, we had momentum in the game and italy were hanging on for penalties. Bring on Sancho and Rashford and give them 20/30 minutes to effect the game.

Instead what does he do? give them 1 minute and zero touches before they step up for the biggest moment in their careers.

Yes Southgate has done some good things, more behind the scenes. Pitch level though, his tactical plays are bad and he's clearly a 'don't lose' manager. With all this attacking talent we have, it's not the right fit.

 

[JohnnyKills]

100% how I feel.

The final against Italy especially was a joke.

Why not use your subs, we had momentum in the game and italy were hanging on for penalties. Bring on Sancho and Rashford and give them 20/30 minutes to effect the game.

Instead what does he do? give them 1 minute and zero touches before they step up for the biggest moment in their careers.

Yes Southgate has done some good things, more behind the scenes. Pitch level though, his tactical plays are bad and he's clearly a 'don't lose' manager. With all this attacking talent we have, it's not the right fit.

100%

Feel like he's always trying to justify himself and prove his intelligence.

With this group of players, you'd be better off picking your strongest team and letting them get on with it.

 

[FrankFoot]

Really? Perhaps you'd like to point out exactly what's rubbish in it. It certainly can't be the view that England should expect to get stuffed by Hungary at home, because that's obviously not one that Ronay has. It also can't be that he doesn't think England should always be competitive, because one of his main points is that "competitive" is exactly what England has been under Southgate, the most recent form aside.

England, except in 2016, have always been competitive IMO.
But there is a difference between 'being competitive' and 'being one of the the best teams' i don't think England has ever been between the best 3 teams in a World Cup since the 70s.

It's a combination of bad luck as well, England hasn't had the "lucky" moments that the likes of Argentina,Germany, or Italy have had at World Cups, winning matches after getting dominated.
Either England play their best or they don't win, unlike Germany, Italy, or Argentina.

But there is a first time for everything, right? so maybe this year it's their first "lucky match" moment in World Cups.

 

[nickm]

Capella had a much worse team, yet he still had a better win % than Southgate.

I can't imagine how bad Southgate would be with that group.

Well, the pointless Nations League competition hasn't helped there, going into it Southgate had the best win % of any England manager, as well as the best tournament record.

 

[nickm]

It's a simple game of numbers really. The population of England, combined with the wealth of the premier league, and that money filtering into the academies over time and inevitably producing some pretty strong talent, means that; no, England should not expect to win tournaments year after year, but they bloody well should be expected to challenge. Why on earth wouldn't they? I would argue that the opposite has been true, where years of mismanagement by the Old Boys FA club has led to this ingrained loser mentality via poor investment into the grassroots game and an accompanying attitude of 'well why should we think we deserve anything? We're shite, accept it and be grateful'. No, feck off. No other decent top national football side would ever put up with that and nor should we.

I agree with that but FA only started to put that right around 2012, putting in place the right structures to develop the team - as well as consistent management to guide the whole thing. And results and tournament placings have improved each time since then because finally we were addressing those fundamentals, planning and preparing the team correctly and it's not wrong to point to the successive improvements at each tournament as evidence that we finally have the setup right.

Southgate did a great job at the first world cup I must say (albeit what happened vs Croatia was a total prognostic of what will happen and what has happened against every top side since), he did great with a limited squad. That Euros final though was possibly most gutless display I have ever seen from a manager (well since actually Ole vs Villareal). Mancini literally took off all his star players and the midfield as they were gassed and we responded by hanging on for
dear life content to sufferingly chase after the ball, at home in Wembley, slowly turning the atmosphere from something that could have been a twelfth man into the ambience of a morgue.

I think it was England's mentality that let them down in the end. It was a relatively young team at 25 and I think the pressure got to them - and Italy were just older and more experienced. It's not always about tactics. The more times we get to semis and finals, hopefully because we do finally have a good system, then the less of that an issue it will be. Prior to that I thought we'd looked pretty in control of each game we played. I experienced the rare pleasure in the tournament as an English fan of not being freaked out every time the opponent got the ball. I thought that all by itself was a good sign of progress.

He did a great job considering, but any footballing nation with any ambition would be asking for more and be seeking a top tier manager

I'm interested to know who this top tier (ie champs League) Englishman might be? Who is English and has managed a champions league club in the last 5 years? Lampard?

And just before some predictable numptie steps in again with 'OMG you do realise Southgate has done better than any England manager EVER!' etc. It runs into the hated logical fallacy that England + x did better than England + y or z etc. assuming that variable England is some unchanging constant, not some massively changing variable of relative squad that it obviously is. Anyone who argues like it is, is by definition imo, some sort of cretin.

Mate, that was incomprehensible. But do carry on accusing people of being cretins nonetheless.

 

[DixieDean]

What's almost inevitable under him, is that any time we play anyone of equal or better ability, we'll lose. The Germany match in Euro's was a shock cause england actually won one of those type of matches. But even that was dam close.

It's just question of if England play them in the QF of the WC or the Rd of 16.

 

[nickm]

No he's not. Regardless, it's not about the debate. It's about how we interact with each other as human beings.

It's just blowing off steam, best not to read too much into it or you'll be in for a rough ride online. But fair point.

 

[nickm]

What's almost inevitable under him, is that any time we play anyone of equal or better ability, we'll lose. The Germany match in Euro's was a shock cause england actually won one of those type of matches. But even that was dam close.

It's just question of if England play them in the QF of the WC or the Rd of 16.

If you couldn't draw, you would expect to win games against equally capable opponents about 50% of the time! Why is this a surprise to anyone?

 

[Kush]

He's always been a charlatan, a slightly better Ole and I feel sorry for English Utd fans who have had to endure 3 years of Ole and then this pretender.

England squad is absolutely stacked and the type of putrid shit football they serve at every major footballing event is embarrassing.

Those who still back him are a lost cause, they'll eventually realize what some of us have been calling for years now. He's not good enough.

 

[JJ12]

Getting sacked after England fail to get out of the group stage.

Wales
Yanks
England
Iran

 

[InspiRED]

I agree with that but FA only started to put that right around 2012, putting in place the right structures to develop the team - as well as consistent management to guide the whole thing. And results and tournament placings have improved each time since then because finally we were addressing those fundamentals, planning and preparing the team correctly and it's not wrong to point to the successive improvements at each tournament as evidence that we finally have the setup right.



I think it was England's mentality that let them down in the end. It was a relatively young team at 25 and I think the pressure got to them - and Italy were just older and more experienced. It's not always about tactics. The more times we get to semis and finals, hopefully because we do finally have a good system, then the less of that an issue it will be. Prior to that I thought we'd looked pretty in control of each game we played. I experienced the rare pleasure in the tournament as an English fan of not being freaked out every time the opponent got the ball. I thought that all by itself was a good sign of progress.



I'm interested to know who this top tier (ie champs League) Englishman might be? Who is English and has managed a champions league club in the last 5 years? Lampard?



Mate, that was incomprehensible. But do carry on accusing people of being cretins nonetheless.

Fair points mostly, I don’t think squad average age was the sole denominator in the result. Surely doesn’t take too much insight to realise rice and Phillips chugging around for 85 minutes isn’t conducive to posing any sustained attacking threat over 120 minutes, When grealish finally got on he couldn’t make an impact as not enough time and all the other players, most notably Kane, we’re visibly spent, presumably from having to drop into midfield the entire game to help England pose any attacking threat whatsoever.

as regards to top tier, we can lower the bar from champions league managers if you like, I think a decent quality premier league manager would be acceptable, I would take Eddie Howe or graham potter over Southgate in a heartbeat.

As regards the stated as ‘incomprehensible’. Really it isn’t, try harder. If England did better under Southgate than England did under previous managers do we just assume Southgate is the best manager, ignoring the fact they were all charged with totally different squads? England + x where x = Southgate, doing better than England + y where y = Glenn noddle or Kevin keegan or Sven or whoever the feck…Does not mean that x is the bit that ‘made the difference’. This is because this conclusion would assume that England (a variable in this logical construct) is a constant. An incorrect assumption as England is obviously a totally different squad on each occasion.

i’m sorry if you still feel encompassed by my definition of cretin after this updated explanation. Thanks for the permission though matey.

 

[Varane around town]

Interesting reaction to England losing a couple of glorified friendlies.

I've long thought Southgate is massively overrated. He has been gifted two of the easiest draws imaginable in two successive tournaments. On both occasions England have been knocked out by teams that we should've beaten.

If England underperform at the World Cup this year then Saint Gareth is going to find himself in a world of trouble and rightly so.

 

[redcucumber]

It's just blowing off steam, best not to read too much into it or you'll be in for a rough ride online. But fair point.

I've been online long enough bud. I've always made it a rule to conversate with people online as I would in real life. I reckon it's a fairly sound rule. If people don't do the same, I don't mind saying something. If we told every single person we disagreed with to grow up, the world would be a cesspit of fecking tedium. I think we can do better.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Getting sacked after England fail to get out of the group stage.

Wales
Yanks
England
Iran

I can feel an early exit too

 

[JohnnyKills]

Who'd be the next manager?

For me it should be an older guy with loads of CL experience. You can't buy or develop the players, so the primary value you can add is providing the right tactics in clutch games.

Ancelotti seems ideal to me.

 

[Woziak]

I did not include the 1968 Euros actually - it's a bit of an arguable case at which point in time you start treating that as a major tournament.

I totally agree there's a legitimate debate whether England would be better served by a more attacking-minded approach, and I also agree that in terms of squad quality, England is in a better place than has normally been the case historically. And I'd love to see England blow away opponents with dazzling attacking football as much as anyone. But I do think it needs to be acknowledged that there are arguments on both sides of that question, and that the results that have been achieved with the more careful style have yielded results that make a pretty good case too. It's hardly an unconventional approach to winning football tournaments, and have been used by teams more talented than England. To argue, like lots of people do, that the only thing preventing England from winning tournaments with attacking football is Southgates incompetence and cowardice is just, well, obviously stupid and ignorant.

What I'm primarily getting at though is the total lack of real perspective among many on the results Southgate have actually achieved, and also on what is reasonable to expect and demand from an England manager. Which is so out of kilter that the overall result is something absurd and really kind of sickening - a fan base so unable to recognise what they're getting (or remember what they've usually been getting) that their dominant reaction to the most high-winning manager England has had in 50 years is one of barely contained rage. The disconnect between sentiment and reality is so enormous and so obvious that I think we're actually talking about something that has a real and negative effect on England's ability to succeed. What it must be like for the players to try to perform for a fanbase with that attitude - it can't be very motivating, to say the least.

Not including the 68 Euros is like saying Uruguay never won the World Cup when 13 countries participated ? Tell Uruguayan fans this but in general I agree with your view on English fans entitlement of which I’m one as well and sometimes I’m as big a hypocrite as any other England Fan!
One day I’ll love Southgate and wear a waste coat the next I’ll swear at the TV, isn’t that why the game and the World Cup are so special?

 

[nickm]

For me it should be an older guy with loads of CL experience. You can't buy or develop the players, so the primary value you can add is providing the right tactics in clutch games.

As a long term England watcher and fan, I just don't think it is that simple. We've seen very disjointed England teams. We've seen teams who couldn't control games. We've seen teams over reliant on key individuals. We've seen teams lose grip when under pressure. We've seen teams lack a way of playing. We've seen tired teams. We've seen teams with glaring technical deficiencies. England manager has to be able to address all these things in the preparations, as well as manage the tournament itself. And I think realistically the next England manager needs to be familiar with, and able to work within, the overall England structure that's been in place this last decade - and I think which has done a decent job so far of addressing many of those historic issues. That might preclude a lot of people.