Is Southgate underrated by the CAF?

[MackRobinson]

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.

I honestly don't even understand what you are arguing. I mean, I do, but it has very little to do with my original point.

Many, even after Euro 2020, felt he wasn't a good manager. Would winning the shootout change the opinion of him being a good manager? No. The narrative would have most likely been the team won in spite of his management. Nobody mentioned anything about winning in normal time. You just invented that specific scenario to argue against.

 

[Andersonson]

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.

Jesus christ. Could the view be any simpler

 

[Jeffthered]

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.

Think you need to reassess your post.

Southgate stated, only a few months ago, that Phil Foden is unable to play Centre Midfield. And that's nonsense. Southgate also said 'ask Pep'. Which some people did, and surprise, surprise, Pep said that Phil can play there.

So, first of all, Southgate gets it all wrong; and secondly. why does he need to reference Pep? Who is the England manager?

Southgate is a joke. Sees himself as some moralising public figure. Steve Clarke is a better manager imo.

 

[Alex99]

I honestly don't even understand what you are arguing. I mean, I do, but it has very little to do with my original point.

Many, even after Euro 2020, felt he wasn't a good manager. Would winning the shootout change the opinion of him being a good manager? No. The narrative would have most likely been the team won in spite of his management. Nobody mentioned anything about winning in normal time. You just invented that specific scenario to argue against.

I was on my phone earlier while cooking so I've probably not explained myself very well.

1) It's clearly speculation to say what the narrative would have been even if England had beaten Italy,
2) The narrative being "they won despite him" wouldn't have necessarily been unfair or untrue.

Southgate was observably a limited manager before Euro 2020, and has remained one since.

The narrative has been that he's failing to get the most of the players available to him, precisely because he is such a limited manager. This narrative would have had to change even in the event of them winning, even via penalties, because you can't do more than win the competition. I would argue the same would be true had he reached either of the finals of the World Cups he's managed in, even if England had eventually lost.

I brought up winning the final in normal time because that would have also gone some way to changing the idea that he's a limited manager. As I said, it was precisely his limitations and decisions as a manager that saw the match reach penalties in the first place.

There's a bit of a paradox in the way the England national team/its fans are talked about. It's arrogant to expect better from a team who are widely considered to be underperforming?

 

[VP89]

Jesus christ. Could the view be any simpler

There's so many reasons why he's shite, and it's in almost every facet of management.

Whether it's over pragmatism, team selection, man management or general charisma as a manager.

The irony is you think he's half decent because he cake walked to a final. That view is the simplest mindset one could come across.

 

[r3idy]

No. He's got the riches of the world at his fingertips. Fecking acid on your eyes to watch

 

[MackRobinson]

I was on my phone earlier while cooking so I've probably not explained myself very well.

1) It's clearly speculation to say what the narrative would have been even if England had beaten Italy,
2) The narrative being "they won despite him" wouldn't have necessarily been unfair or untrue.

Southgate was observably a limited manager before Euro 2020, and has remained one since.

The narrative has been that he's failing to get the most of the players available to him, precisely because he is such a limited manager. This narrative would have had to change even in the event of them winning, even via penalties, because you can't do more than win the competition. I would argue the same would be true had he reached either of the finals of the World Cups he's managed in, even if England had eventually lost.

I brought up winning the final in normal time because that would have also gone some way to changing the idea that he's a limited manager. As I said, it was precisely his limitations and decisions as a manager that saw the match reach penalties in the first place.

There's a bit of a paradox in the way the England national team/its fans are talked about. It's arrogant to expect better from a team who are widely considered to be underperforming?

1) You're not saying anything. I'm giving an opinion so of course, some speculation is involved. However I'm based my speculation on the takes in this and other threads that he isn't a good manager despite having the best results of any England manager in quite a while.

2) You are proving my point once again. This isn't some hot take or wild suggestion when you are admitting it wouldn't be unfair or true. So again, I have no idea what grand point you're making except arguing for the sake of it.

 

[GlasgowCeltic]

Think you need to reassess your post.

Southgate stated, only a few months ago, that Phil Foden is unable to play Centre Midfield. And that's nonsense. Southgate also said 'ask Pep'. Which some people did, and surprise, surprise, Pep said that Phil can play there.

So, first of all, Southgate gets it all wrong; and secondly. why does he need to reference Pep? Who is the England manager?

Southgate is a joke. Sees himself as some moralising public figure. Steve Clarke is a better manager imo.

He’s right about Foden

 

[Alex99]

1) You're not saying anything. I'm giving an opinion so of course, some speculation is involved. However I'm based my speculation on the takes in this and other threads that he isn't a good manager despite having the best results of any England manager in quite a while.

2) You are proving my point once again. This isn't some hot take or wild suggestion when you are admitting it wouldn't be unfair or true. So again, I have no idea what grand point you're making except arguing for the sake of it.

Here's what you said:

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.

If the narrative is not unfair or untrue, why would it be sad?

What is arrogant about it?

These are the bits I've taken issue with and you've yet to address them.

 

[MackRobinson]

Here's what you said:



If the narrative is not unfair or untrue, why would it be sad?

What is arrogant about it?

These are the bits I've taken issue with and you've yet to address them.

I believe the narrative is unfair and not true. Not sure what you're fishing for.

 

[Alex99]

I believe the narrative is unfair and not true. Not sure what you're fishing for.

The narrative isn't real. It's something you speculated would have been the case in the alternate history in which Southgate didn't cock up the Euros final, and decided to use as an opportunity to talk about English arrogance.

It's fine that you think this narrative would have been unfair and untrue, but you believing that to be the case doesn't actually mean it would have actually been unfair and untrue.

It's not sad that Southgate is a limited manager, nor is it arrogant for England fans to be frustrated with how his limitations have potentially prevented them reaching a World Cup final (or two) and stopped them winning their first European Championship.

 

[MackRobinson]

The narrative isn't real. It's something you speculated would have been the case in the alternate history in which Southgate didn't cock up the Euros final, and decided to use as an opportunity to talk about English arrogance.

It's fine that you think this narrative would have been unfair and untrue, but you believing that to be the case doesn't actually mean it would have actually been unfair and untrue.

It's not sad that Southgate is a limited manager, nor is it arrogant for England fans to be frustrated with how his limitations have potentially prevented them reaching a World Cup final (or two) and stopped them winning their first European Championship.

Do you not understand what a hypothetical is? And it absolutely is arrogance to think a manager who lost out on a major trophy due to penalties is somehow this shit manager. It's also arrogance to think an international side with limited opportunities to train together will play a fluid attacking style of football solely due to their talent.

 

[Alex99]

Do you not understand what a hypothetical is? And it absolutely is arrogance to think a manager who lost out on a major trophy due to penalties is somehow this shit manager. It's also arrogance to think an international side with limited opportunities to train together will play a fluid attacking style of football solely due to their talent.

Do you understand that it's a bit mental to be talking about how the "arrogance of England fans deserves to be mocked" in relation to a hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical alternate history you brought up?

I haven't said he's a shit manager. He's done a decent enough job, and far better than any other England manager I've seen has. I've said he's limited and ultimately not very good, which I don't think are particularly controversial statements.

Did he do well to reach the final? Yes.

Did England lose that final as a direct result of his limitations as a manager? Also yes.

He's got a ton of players at his disposal that "play a fluid attacking style of football" every week for their clubs, some of them together. Yes, it'll likely be a bit less fluid than at their clubs, but it's not like it's impossible to implement something of that nature. What exactly were Spain doing when they were dominant? What are Brazil historically famous for?

 

[MackRobinson]

Do you understand that it's a bit mental to be talking about how the "arrogance of England fans deserves to be mocked" in relation to a hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical alternate history you brought up?

I haven't said he's a shit manager. He's done a decent enough job, and far better than any other England manager I've seen has. I've said he's limited and ultimately not very good, which I don't think are particularly controversial statements.

Did he do well to reach the final? Yes.

Did England lose that final as a direct result of his limitations as a manager? Also yes.

He's got a ton of players at his disposal that "play a fluid attacking style of football" every week for their clubs, some of them together. Yes, it'll likely be a bit less fluid than at their clubs, but it's not like it's impossible to implement something of that nature. What exactly were Spain doing when they were dominant? What is Brazil historically famous for?

The arrogance is a result of English fans consistently shitting on their managers and player. The hypothetical is just an extension of that. I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the word "arrogance"

To say England lost because of his limitations ignores he got them to the final and they were a penalty shootout away from winning. Again more arrogance.

France won a World Cup and nearly another one almost another playing a very pragmatic style of football. The idea that only playing an attacking style determines the quality of a manager is silly and arrogant.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one champ.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Define best. Would back at least: Robson, Venables and Hoodle to have done a much better job than him with this group of players.

Done the best job.

 

[Pronewbie]

Would you clamour to have him manage your team?

 

[Alex99]

The arrogance is a result of English fans consistently shitting on their managers and player. The hypothetical is just an extension of that. I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the word "arrogance"

To say England lost because of his limitations ignores he got them to the final and they were a penalty shootout away from winning. Again more arrogance.

France won a World Cup and nearly another one almost another playing a very pragmatic style of football. The idea that only playing an attacking style determines the quality of a manager is silly and arrogant.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one champ.

Because you said it was/is/would have been "arrogance" and I don't think it was/is/would have been.

I've reacted to what you wrote. Why is this a surprise to you?

It doesn't matter what France were successful with because they were successful with it. It worked for them, their players and their manager.

The reality, that you continue to ignore, is that it was precisely Southgate's preference for pragmatic conservatism that cost England the final. It's not arrogant to point that out. It's fact.

His limitations aren't even just his tactical inflexibility. They're his squad selection that regularly ignores the in form players and his in game management that sees him do mad things like wait until the very last moments of extra time, in a very winnable game, to bring on two attackers, not really known for specialising in penalty taking, just so they could take penalties.

There's a reason he's not been in the discussion when any of England's (or Europe's) top tier sides have been looking for a new manager, and I'd be extremely surprised if he enjoyed any success after his time as England manager is up.

I want him to prove me wrong because I'm an England fan, but I don't have much faith he will. He'll (rightly) go down as one of the best managers the national team has had whatever happens in the coming months/years.

Is Champions League winning manager, Roberto Di Matteo a good manager? What about Champions League finalist, Avram Grant (he only lost on penalties, you know)?

 

[Someone]

He's a fraud who stumbled upon a great job with a great squad, still failed to win anything. No top club in the world would even consider interviewing him for a job.

 

[Wilt]

Yes, definitely underrated .…he’s far more incompetent than people think

 

[Fortitude]

Done the best job.

I don't know what metrics you're using to say that. He's had extremely fortunate runs in tournaments, avoiding big guns, which has not been the case for most England managers. When has faced a big gun in any fighting form, he's lost. He has, in relative terms, better players at his disposal - by this, I mean England's quality vis-a-vis their opponents in this era. England sides of the past faced better sides with better man-for-man personnel.

The list goes on and has been outlined by others in this thread; Southgate has done the bare minimum with the tools he has been given to work with at one of the most opportune times England will ever have to win major trophies.

 

[Lash]

Done the best job.

Has he not just done the same job - won nothing? He may have brought a good vibe to England, but so did Venables.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

This pains me to say but the England team is brimming with talent. If you had a manager who wasn't scared of his own shadow then you might get somewhere.

 

[MackRobinson]

Because you said it was/is/would have been "arrogance" and I don't think it was/is/would have been.

I've reacted to what you wrote. Why is this a surprise to you?

Oh the irony. You are engaging in speculation, yet this is what you had a problem with. It's quite silly and uninteresting.

To the rest of your post:

This is just pure speculation.

Cheers.

 

[Alex99]

Oh the irony. You are engaging in speculation, yet this is what you had a problem with. It's quite silly and uninteresting.

To the rest of your post:


Cheers.

My issue wasn't with you speculating. My issue was with you speculating about the reaction to a hypothetical alternate history and branding actual England fans as arrogant for the reaction you speculated they'd have to that hypothetical.

It was a mad thing to do anyway, and even madder that you did it to make out that Gareth Southgate was anything more than a limited manager.

 

[Alex99]

This pains me to say but the England team is brimming with talent. If you had a manager who wasn't scared of his own shadow then you might get somewhere.

No, see, that's arrogant.

 

[OldSchoolManc]

His selections are insular and regressive. Henderson should have gone from the England team a year ago. Phillips is nonsensical. Maguire has turned it round in spite of Southgate. Rashford should have been dropped completely half a dozen games ago.
Players should always be picked on good form and regular playing time, otherwise you’re pissing in the wind.
England will only win the next trophy if the stars align. It won’t be because of good management

 

[MackRobinson]

My issue wasn't with you speculating. My issue was with you speculating about the reaction to a hypothetical alternate history and branding actual England fans as arrogant for the reaction you speculated they'd have to that hypothetical.

It was a mad thing to do anyway, and even madder that you did it to make out that Gareth Southgate was anything more than a limited manager.

Completely made the bolded up in your head to have this uninteresting and frankly weird back and forth rather than just starting off by saying, "I disagree because ...."

You win.

 

[Tyrion]

There's so many reasons why he's shite, and it's in almost every facet of management.

Whether it's over pragmatism, team selection, man management or general charisma as a manager.

The irony is you think he's half decent because he cake walked to a final. That view is the simplest mindset one could come across.

I find it convenient that his route in competitions is always incredibly easy. I think it's more likely that he's better than his critics think.

 

[Alex99]

Completely made the bolded up in your head to have this uninteresting and frankly weird back and forth rather than just starting off by saying, "I disagree because ...."

You win.

Made up?

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.

 

[MackRobinson]

Made up?

I know you fixated on this but the arrogance had more to do with the post I responded to. I didn't write that post in a vacuum. Nothing wrong with speculating on hypothetical. Standard stuff.

I'm not sure why you want to continue this back-and-forth. Tbh at this point, I'm just amusing myself by figuring out how dedicated you are to getting the last word in.

 

[VP89]

I find it convenient that his route in competitions is always incredibly easy. I think it's more likely that he's better than his critics think.

Yes if that's what you choose to believe. Even though he's been played off the park whenever he's had half a test, bar a completely over the hill Germany side. He found a way to be played off the park at Wembley, he found a way to throw a 1-0 lead at 70 mins to Croatia, and he finds a way to almost always underwhelm with shit football.

But no, he must be doing well. With all those average players at his disposal he's doing great. Really overperforming. It's not like he has the best striker, right winger, central midfielder and right back in the world among other huge talent.

 

[Alex99]

I find it convenient that his route in competitions is always incredibly easy. I think it's more likely that he's better than his critics think.

I think there is a trend for people to downplay the quality of the teams England beat (and this predates Southgate), but:

WC 2018: One half of the knockouts had France, Argentina, Brazil, Portugal, Uruguay and Belgium, and it wasn't England's.

Euro 2020: Italy played Belgium and Spain in the quarters and semis, England played Ukraine and Denmark.

WC 2022: USA, Iran and Wales in the group, Senegal in the first knockout round.

Germany in the Euros was a decent scalp, but it's hard to argue against the notion that the draws could have been less kind.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

I don't know what metrics you're using to say that. He's had extremely fortunate runs in tournaments, avoiding big guns, which has not been the case for most England managers. When has faced a big gun in any fighting form, he's lost. He has, in relative terms, better players at his disposal - by this, I mean England's quality vis-a-vis their opponents in this era. England sides of the past faced better sides with better man-for-man personnel.

The list goes on and has been outlined by others in this thread; Southgate has done the bare minimum with the tools he has been given to work with at one of the most opportune times England will ever have to win major trophies.

Every other England manager in my life has done below the bare minimum.

This really isn't even remotely controversial or questionable.

 

[marktan]

He's a nice guy probably and had built a good atmosphere in the camp, which is different to most of the previous 15 years preceding that.

But he has one of if not the most gifted attacking squad England has ever had, and he still manages to lose to the first comparable team England comes across.

We should've beaten Italy - they were poor. We played better than France too - and had Rashford and Grealish on the bench and gave them about 5 minutes total whilst trailing; add to that he panicked and subbed our best attacker in Saka for Sterling the minute France went ahead. I really think we're a better side than Argentina too, but we'll never know how that would've played

He's not a great football coach or in game tactician - he's okay but is carried by the talent in the squad. Yes he compares favourably to Sam Allardyce or us starting the likes of Lennon and Heskey up front under Capello - but that's hardly hard to do.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Has he not just done the same job - won nothing? He may have brought a good vibe to England, but so did Venables.

Final and Semi Finals, that is better than going out in the quarter finals, last 16 or group stage.

We had a better FA Cup run last season than anyone apart from Man City.

 

[stevoc]

Absolutely most of the Caf think he's an atrocious manager, truth is he's an awful manager.

 

[Chipper]

I'm not sure how highly he is rated by the Confederation of African Football so wouldn't like to comment.

 

[Alex99]

I know you fixated on this but the arrogance had more to do with the post I responded to. I didn't write that post in a vacuum. Nothing wrong with speculating on hypothetical. Standard stuff.

I'm not sure why you want to continue this back-and-forth. Tbh at this point, I'm just amusing myself by figuring out how dedicated you are to getting the last word in.

It's nice and convenient for you to claim they were unrelated sentences now, but when you've already said this (while also directly referencing your speculation):

it absolutely is arrogance to think a manager who lost out on a major trophy due to penalties is somehow this shit manager.

it doesn't seem like that was the case up until this point.

Forgetting all of that though, answer the questions I asked earlier:

Is Di Matteo a good manager because he won the Champions League with Chelsea?

Is Avram Grant a good manager because he only lost a final on penalties?

 

[MackRobinson]

It's nice and convenient for you to claim they were unrelated sentences now, but when you've already said this (while also directly referencing your speculation):

I never said they were unrelated did I?

it doesn't seem like that was the case up until this point.

Forgetting all of that though, answer the questions I asked earlier:

Is Di Matteo a good manager because he won the Champions League with Chelsea?

Is Avram Grant a good manager because he only lost a final on penalties?

Are we comparing a manager in charge for years to two interim managers? Ok.

This is boring.

 

[Alex99]

I never said they were unrelated did I?

Apart from here where you quite clearly tried to separate it from the hypothetical you speculated about?

I know you fixated on this but the arrogance had more to do with the post I responded to.

Why do you keep pretending you haven't said things when it's all literally right here?

Are we comparing a manager in charge for years to two interim managers? Ok.

This is boring.

Just trying to gauge what exactly makes a manager good in your view, and if not winning (or in Di Matteo's case, actually winning) a major final is definitely indicator of a manager's quality.

Quite telling that you've dodged the questions twice.

How about Chris Coleman?

He took a far worse Wales squad all the way to the semis of the Euros and was only beaten by the eventual winners. Topped a group containing England and beat Belgium (twice, if you include qualifying) on the way there too.

Is he a good manager?

What about Solskjaer? I love the man to bits, but I don't think it'd be particularly unfair to describe him as a limited manager, regardless of his accomplishments at United.