Southgate's contribution to that isn't as much as you seem to think. He hasn't contributed to the development of the players and he delegates tactics to Holland. His contribution is basically removing the toxicity around England by being more open and conciliatory with the press, but that wouldn't have had any effect without the improved results and the results are basically down the the efforts of others.
Southgate or Potter - who would you prefer as our next manager?
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Southgate's contribution to that isn't as much as you seem to think. He hasn't contributed to the development of the players and he delegates tactics to Holland. His contribution is basically removing the toxicity around England by being more open and conciliatory with the press, but that wouldn't have had any effect without the improved results and the results are basically down the the efforts of others.
Hiring Southgate or Potter would confirm United as a midtable club.
I would hate to see either of them as our next manager. Neither would make us any better, but of the two I would take Potter if I'm being forced to choose, solely because I think Southgate would actively make us considerably worse.
Yikes, Potter I guess. Geez, depressing thread. 
I cannot think of a more unlikely Manchester United manager than Gareth Southgate.
Of the two, Potter would be my choice.
Potter really got that Brighton midfield working, and it would be great if he did the same here with better defenders and attackers.
I was impressed with him during Utd's one all-draw at Stamford Bridge last season.
Utd dominated for the first 30 minutes, then Potter changed shape with a substitution, and Chelsea were slightly on top. I could not imagine Southgate doing that.
We only scrapped a last-minute equaliser.
I don't know what happened at Chelsea, but three decent managers have failed under Todd Boehly. Also, I understand Chelsea had even less structure behind the scenes last season (e.g., No Director of football, transfer committee, etc.).
Southgate:
His club background was aiming for lower midtable, keeping it tight, trying to nick a goal, and being well organized in defense and at set pieces. And he seems uncomfortable playing on the front foot as he has to with England.
He would add some solidity in midfield again because he would have two sitters, and playing as the playmaking number 6 might suit Mainoo. He would probably get some harmony as well. This might be enough for the top four in some years when the rest of the challengers are poor.
He is not tactically great. He would get outmaneuvered in the Champions League and only sometimes beat City by sitting deep and counterattacking.
His subs seem to be like for like—i.e., winger for winger, attacking midfield for attacking midfield. He rarely changes the team's shape with his subs.
I see him as Solskjaer Mark 2.
Potter really got that Brighton midfield working, and it would be great if he did the same here with better defenders and attackers.
I was impressed with him during Utd's one all-draw at Stamford Bridge last season.
Utd dominated for the first 30 minutes, then Potter changed shape with a substitution, and Chelsea were slightly on top. I could not imagine Southgate doing that.
We only scrapped a last-minute equaliser.
I don't know what happened at Chelsea, but three decent managers have failed under Todd Boehly. Also, I understand Chelsea had even less structure behind the scenes last season (e.g., No Director of football, transfer committee, etc.).
Southgate:
His club background was aiming for lower midtable, keeping it tight, trying to nick a goal, and being well organized in defense and at set pieces. And he seems uncomfortable playing on the front foot as he has to with England.
He would add some solidity in midfield again because he would have two sitters, and playing as the playmaking number 6 might suit Mainoo. He would probably get some harmony as well. This might be enough for the top four in some years when the rest of the challengers are poor.
He is not tactically great. He would get outmaneuvered in the Champions League and only sometimes beat City by sitting deep and counterattacking.
His subs seem to be like for like—i.e., winger for winger, attacking midfield for attacking midfield. He rarely changes the team's shape with his subs.
I see him as Solskjaer Mark 2.
thats generous, he is a poors man's Ole
This is like Fred vs McTominay. It’s an insult to one of them
This question is the equivalent of: would you rather lose an arm or a leg.
Neither is desirable, but if you had to pick...
Neither is desirable, but if you had to pick...
Not sure I'd agree with some of the posts eviscerating Southgate here. His England record is ultimately one without silverware but it is still impressive on paper and when compared to other managers post Alf Ramsey. His record compares favourably to managers like Capello, Venables, Robson, Hoddle and Eriksson who all enjoyed a reasonable level of success.
Ranked against more recent England managers, he's been far more successful and has built a sense of team spirit and loyalty towards the national team that no other coach had been able to foster. United could use that. We've still got a slightly toxic dressing room and bringing in a coach who's known for being a unifying figure rather than a hissy fit merchant might not be a bad idea at all.
The main criticism has been that he's too pragmatic when he has a depth of talent as his disposal, but in knockout football, you are punished for mistakes and its understandable why he's gone for this approach. This might not hold true in the PL and he may have a slightly more adventurous style of play. However, United could probably benefit from a coach who doesn't play gung ho football and who has created a side who are hard to beat and play against. Palpably, right now we are the opposite. I don't think you would expect to see a Southgate team ceding 30 shots against a side in the bottom half of the table.
He'd also probably play a style that would result in Mainoo having more than 15 touches in a game.
Ranked against more recent England managers, he's been far more successful and has built a sense of team spirit and loyalty towards the national team that no other coach had been able to foster. United could use that. We've still got a slightly toxic dressing room and bringing in a coach who's known for being a unifying figure rather than a hissy fit merchant might not be a bad idea at all.
The main criticism has been that he's too pragmatic when he has a depth of talent as his disposal, but in knockout football, you are punished for mistakes and its understandable why he's gone for this approach. This might not hold true in the PL and he may have a slightly more adventurous style of play. However, United could probably benefit from a coach who doesn't play gung ho football and who has created a side who are hard to beat and play against. Palpably, right now we are the opposite. I don't think you would expect to see a Southgate team ceding 30 shots against a side in the bottom half of the table.
He'd also probably play a style that would result in Mainoo having more than 15 touches in a game.
Last edited:
This thread is genuinely dismal and upsetting. Neither of them, please!
lets just throw stuff to the wall and see what sticks or stinks.
I would 100% be in favour of bringing back Moyes, Solskajer or LVG over Southgate.
Can see us going deep in the Europa Conference with Southgate at the helm. Exciting stuff.
Potter, but only because i'd take literally any other manager in football over Southgate. Both are completely uninspiring choices who will work to cement a spot as a mid table nobody.
I'm still behind ETH overall.
I'm still behind ETH overall.
I think the issue is a lot of us don't care about what he's done for England, especially in terms of results. I've watched pretty much every England match since he took over, and the best I can describe the football is 'effective...sometimes?'
All those other managers may have done poorer with England, but pretty much all of them had more success when managing at club level. The only way Southgate's England record would be relevant to me was if he not only won something, bit did it by playing dominant attacking football and showing some kind of tactical acuman.
The issue is international football is so dross outside of a few teams with so many dead rubber/friendly or unimportant games, you have to look at our tournament record i.e. the only thing that actually matters for the national team and we've generally just been average. Realistically, in the WC most want to avoid Argentina, Brazil, France, Spain and Italy/Germany depending on what's going on given their erratic form over the last 20 years or so. That's really it, Belgium, Croatia, Portugal, Holland have decent teams but nowhere near the depth of those others/England. And whenever we face one of the top 4-5 teams (which we should be among), we lose.
We're not getting hammered, one of them was a penalty shootout and Kane missed a penalty vs France but it's 0/3 against the better teams and we've only really beaten an average Germany in terms of getting 'hard' draws (and I doubt any of our resident Germans will wax lyrical about that team). The other knockout games we've had are Colombia, Sweden, Ukraine, Denmark, Senegal, we've had generally unbelievable luck on that front.
So do we play exciting football? I'd say categorically not.
Has he shown evidence of having great tactics? Again no, we're basically setup in the most 'safe' way possible in my opinion.
Does he have other managerial experience of note? Boro' which was terrible, they still have not recovered.
If I didn't know better, I'd say that waistcoat is buttoned so tight to hide his great gut after feeding so lavishly for so long at the top table without anyone really knowing why he's there.
I am not a huge advocate for Southgate becoming United boss, but I see how it could work because we need to ditch the style of play Ten Hag is attempting and go for something a little more conservative. I totally agree that Southgate should have won something by now and England have fallen short in the huge games, but I like the control that England have in games which is way beyond what we see under Ten Hag.
I just don't think he's a bad manager and actually, pretty good. England are difficult to beat and if they do lose, as you say, it's by a narrow margin. He has a possession-based system that, if implemented at United, would mean Kobbie Mainoo having more influence on games. Under ETH, Mainoo is a gem of a player in the wrong system, but Mainoo's potential is worth more than a style of football that just doesn't look like it will bring success. Mainoo could be the focal point of a great Manchester United side if used correctly.
Bringing in a manager who will get the best out of Mainoo and giving him more of the ball is crucial and takes precedence.
Not going to lie, one of the most different takes I have seen on here. Setting a team up to be safe and hard to beat when you generally have the better players isn’t something I’d applaud as being the trait of a good manager if you are just surviving until you get a good team.
Might take Southgate if he brings Bellingham, Kane, Saka, Foden, Rice and Stones with him.
Potter, without a shadow of a doubt. Thought Brighton played good football when he was there.
Neither but if I absolutely have to choose one of those two then it would be Potter
This
It was actually Keane.
Think Potter would do well with a structured management unlike the Chelsea shitshow he endured.
Potter by a country mile but if Nagelsmann is an option as well then I’d be more than happy with him coming in.
I feel the same way.
Aren't there any other choices? Maybe losing just a kidney oy my hair?
its more the case of whether you lose an arm (Potter) or losing the rest of the body but only after having an elephant stepping on your balls twice (Southgate)
A bit like asking someone would you prefer a punch in the stomach or a kick in the balls. Obviously the punch but prefer neither.
If its only these two options, Potter and hopefully we get the version before Chelsea. Southgate I dont want him regardless of which version.
It's Potter and it's not close.
Him not doing well at Chelsea I don't think is much of a blemish on his record, he's a good manager. Still completely unknown if he is good enough for a big team, more of a wildcard.
Southgate is not a good manager. He's fine for a national team where it's more about just keeping some good vibes in a group where it's easy to do that, especially during a tournament where it's just 1 month and everyone wants to focus and group together. But it takes a lot more than that at club football, and he's not even a premier league level manager for me at club level. Would be a joke if we brought him in.
Him not doing well at Chelsea I don't think is much of a blemish on his record, he's a good manager. Still completely unknown if he is good enough for a big team, more of a wildcard.
Southgate is not a good manager. He's fine for a national team where it's more about just keeping some good vibes in a group where it's easy to do that, especially during a tournament where it's just 1 month and everyone wants to focus and group together. But it takes a lot more than that at club football, and he's not even a premier league level manager for me at club level. Would be a joke if we brought him in.
Neither would even be on my long list.
But I'd rather have Potter. Who himself has shown no capability to manage a club this size. In fact I think he demonstrated the opposite, that he was wholly incapable at this stage. If ever, it also takes a certain personality.
Which as it happens I am absolutely sure Gareth Southgate also doesn't have, as well as no credibility as a club manager.
But I'd rather have Potter. Who himself has shown no capability to manage a club this size. In fact I think he demonstrated the opposite, that he was wholly incapable at this stage. If ever, it also takes a certain personality.
Which as it happens I am absolutely sure Gareth Southgate also doesn't have, as well as no credibility as a club manager.
Neither but of i had to potter- he will be sacked in a year if we get him in - watch this space
Is this thread's existence due to United fans having irrational fears about who Sir Jim and Co are going to appoint?
New phrase
Brexits choice
Brexits choice
Id take Beatrix Potter over Southgate
Potter is Pep to Southgates Hodgeson.
Both are stupid suggestions.
Both are stupid suggestions.
Potter has lost almost as many games as he won at every club he has been at.
Southgates win percentages for England and England U21 are exceptional although you do have to factor in the fact that a some of the games he has won were against much smaller nations.
Gun to the head of course it would have to be Potter. England under Southgate are unwatchable and only get results against mediocre opposition.
You can’t honestly suggest that Southgate is the better club manager? Just look at their records.
Southgate was essential to England in the same way that Ole was essential to United. Both did hugely impressive jobs. Both outstayed their level of impact. One by months. Southgate by YEARS.