So what's next for Sir Gareth Southgate?

Judas said:
Glad Ole is still getting plenty of mentions in here, there's nowhere else for people to vent on that topic, so I'm glad there's now the right place to do so.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure much of it is “venting”.

Comparisons between Sir Gareth and Ole seem inevitable as on the face of it they have a good deal in common: good blokes, say the right stuff, decent managers* but not quite good enough to win the top prizes. None of that seems unreasonable.

For what it’s worth, I’m very much of the view that Southgate is out of his depth at this level. However, this is international football we’re talking about and I’m by no means certain that a “better” manager would guarantee the sparkling attacking football some of his detractors seem to expect.

*OK let’s ignore the PE Teacher brigade.
 
His obsession with right backs is hilarious. Three of them in the starting lineup. A fourth coming on as a sub.
 
Worst thing to happen to England is that jammy run to the finals. Imagine the talent and versatility in this aside with an inventive manager like Graham Potter.
 
Winning absolutely feck all with this man in charge.
 
phelans shorts said:
They’d win feck all. Pragmatism has long been the best method on the international stage.
Click to expand...

Best method in the international stage has always been overwhelming amount of talent. If your manager cannot maximize his hand when it’s dealt, you’re fecked because sooner or later that talent pipeline runs dry, unless you are France and even they are starting to show holes with a lack of midfield creativity beyond Pogba.
 
I don’t mind pragmatism at this level, but this team is underperforming relative to its quality.

His team selections aren’t convincing either. It’s the World Cup in a matter of months and we’ve got Connor Coady and Kyle Walker as part of a back three? Come on.
 
The profile of majority of the squad ia to play attacking football. He looks really out of his depth in that context.
 
Charles Miller said:
The profile of majority of the squad ia to play attacking football. He looks really out of his depth in that context.
Click to expand...
Yeah I dont get it. All these options and he plays 3 at the back? Hungary also came with the same setup thinking we were going to attack.
 
phelans shorts said:
They’d win feck all. Pragmatism has long been the best method on the international stage.
Click to expand...
I agree that a Potter type would be both a waste and unsuccessful. I’m not sure that pragmatism alone will win through very often though. In the Euros it did in 2004 (Greece) and 2016 (Portugal) but the rest, along with all recent World Cups, have been won by sides that have played with at least a modicum of style.

It’s possible to make the best of the players at your disposal formation-wise and get them to follow instructions without going full Southgate.
 
Revaulx said:
I agree that a Potter type would be both a waste and unsuccessful. I’m not sure that pragmatism alone will win through very often though. In the Euros it did in 2004 (Greece) and 2016 (Portugal) but the rest, along with all recent World Cups, have been won by sides that have played with at least a modicum of style.

It’s possible to make the best of the players at your disposal formation-wise and get them to follow instructions without going full Southgate.
Click to expand...
Aside from Spain 2010, not really.
They were massively talented sides so it gives the illusion of style but Italy 2006, Germany 2014 and France 2018 were far from style fundamentalists , they just played to their strengths and kept it simple.
 
Round 16 or QF exit at the WC. That's what's next. And then hopefully, the sack. He's crap.
 
We got massively lucky in the Euros with our draw, which is unfortunate as I think it probably added to his reputation with the FA. Which was pretty difficult considering he could already do no wrong. Now we're going to blunder through a World Cup and probably not have the same degree of fortune.
 
Red the Bear said:
Aside from Spain 2010, not really.
They were massively talented sides so it gives the illusion of style but Italy 2006, Germany 2014 and France 2018 were far from style fundamentalists , they just played to their strengths and kept it simple.
Click to expand...
True. I’m not sure Southgate does get England playing to their strengths though.

I’m not expecting champagne football from an international team, but few if any of the club sides that the England squad is drawn from play in a way that remotely resembles Southgate’s lots-of-defensive-players formation.
 
Our game plan under his entire tenure has been park the bus and hope Kane and Sterling do the damage up front.

With Sterling out, our entire game goes out the window.
 
Revaulx said:
I agree that a Potter type would be both a waste and unsuccessful. I’m not sure that pragmatism alone will win through very often though. In the Euros it did in 2004 (Greece) and 2016 (Portugal) but the rest, along with all recent World Cups, have been won by sides that have played with at least a modicum of style.

It’s possible to make the best of the players at your disposal formation-wise and get them to follow instructions without going full Southgate.
Click to expand...
Well it depends on if you lock down pragmatism to only one style. For instance the Spain side that won so much I’d definitely describe as pragmatic. France’s World Cup win was largely built on “defend deep, Pogba can ping the ball out to Mbappe”. It’s the same stuff just dressed up different.
Red the Bear said:
True but you have to be rather competent at it.
Click to expand...
Like a semi final and a final in the only 2 major tournaments? A far better international record than, say, Fabio Capello who’s an all time great manager.
 
He's shit, always has been and always will be. With the quality of depth we have right now to play as defensive as we do is horrendous.

In time, we'll look back at this point of time and think what could have been had we got a better Manager. An utter waste of a quality generation. It maddens me that you have people defending him when we had to witness that shameful display against Italy in the final.
 
I will probably get abuse for this, but England fans have always, and continue to, overrate their own players.

The center back options are sparse, the midfield is functional without being phenomenal technically and the attack has very few players coming off top seasons (Foden, Kane, Saka)

There are definitely issues with the team, and certainly problems with depth through the center.

The CL final was a good example of how teams with better technical players will find a way to win.

Is Southgate boring and pragmatic? Absolutely! Are England good enough to win a World Cup with an attacking side? I don’t think they are…
 
Revaulx said:
True. I’m not sure Southgate does get England playing to their strengths though.

I’m not expecting champagne football from an international team, but few if any of the club sides that the England squad is drawn from play in a way that remotely resembles Southgate’s lots-of-defensive-players formation.
Click to expand...
I agree with you , I don't think he's competent enough to take England to the next level.
phelans shorts said:
Well it depends on if you lock down pragmatism to only one style. For instance the Spain side that won so much I’d definitely describe as pragmatic. France’s World Cup win was largely built on “defend deep, Pogba can ping the ball out to Mbappe”. It’s the same stuff just dressed up different.

Like a semi final and a final in the only 2 major tournaments? A far better international record than, say, Fabio Capello who’s an all time great manager.
Click to expand...
It's hard to argue with the result but trust to be told i just don't think he has it in him to take them to the next level, England had Italy on the ropes and instead of going for the jugular they just sat back, I like pragmatism when it gets result but sometimes you just have to go for the kill.

To be honest I don't know who England should go for but I'm 90 percent sure the won't win anything under him.
I might be wrong so you can archive this post and slap it over my head if he won the World Cup but I don't think that'll happen.
 
crossy1686 said:
I don’t think there’s another English manager who’s decent enough or ready to take the job. Probably have to go abroad, maybe see if Carlo fancies it after Madrid
Click to expand...
He's said the only job he would accept after Madrid is the Canada job.
Apparently his wife is Canadian.
 
Well he’s done the whole waistcoat thing so maybe collarless shirts and winklepickers?
 
Maluco said:
I will probably get abuse for this, but England fans have always, and continue to, overrate their own players.

The center back options are sparse, the midfield is functional without being phenomenal technically and the attack has very few players coming off top seasons (Foden, Kane, Saka)

There are definitely issues with the team, and certainly problems with depth through the center.

The CL final was a good example of how teams with better technical players will find a way to win.

Is Southgate boring and pragmatic? Absolutely! Are England good enough to win a World Cup with an attacking side? I don’t think they are…
Click to expand...

True but that pragmatism shouldn't be such that we go to a frankly average Hungary and play 5-3-2 with a serious lack of creativity or pace in the side.

England got exactly what they deserved this evening, they were so pragmatic and risk averse it was beyond a joke, England aren't good enough technically especially in the middle of the park to truly dominate but they should be willing to play with more risk and use there bags of pace and creativity in wide attacking areas to better use, instead we get the hardworking risk averse Mason mount wide left no central attacking midfielder one striker 2 defensive midfielders 3 centre backs and 2 wingbacks who are neither here or there.

Its hardly much to ask especially against Hungary, who are capable but very beatable.
 
Get to a semi final and a final in 4 years and apparently he’s crap because of 1 loss in the nations league that no one actually gives a feck about anyway.

The CAF ladies and gentlemen. The CAF.
 
Maluco said:
I will probably get abuse for this, but England fans have always, and continue to, overrate their own players.

The center back options are sparse, the midfield is functional without being phenomenal technically and the attack has very few players coming off top seasons (Foden, Kane, Saka)

There are definitely issues with the team, and certainly problems with depth through the center.

The CL final was a good example of how teams with better technical players will find a way to win.

Is Southgate boring and pragmatic? Absolutely! Are England good enough to win a World Cup with an attacking side? I don’t think they are…
Click to expand...
Brilliant post. England are a top heavy team. Ample attacking players up top and in wide areas. No next to no creative center midfielders. Just functional ones and an average collection of center backs. If Southgate didn't play pragmatic results would spiral vs mid level european opponents who are deep defenders with a counter punch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.