justsomebloke
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2020
- Messages
- 5,985
Which is why he's the better option for United!
Which is why he's the better option for United!
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.That's the most convoluted and reverse-engineered piece of crap argument you'll find in football discussion, which is saying something. You only make that work by fitting the definition of which teams are "shite" and which teams are not to the conclusion you've already reached. Just pure bollocks.
I've followed international tournaments since 1978, always with a special fondness for England. With the sole exception of Euro 96, the past couple of tournaments is the only period in those almost 50 years where England has felt in any way like a proper, serious title contender. You'd think that'd count for something, but apparently that only convinces people that if this is the case the only possible explanation must be that it's so easy that anyone could have achieved that. It's beyond laughable.
thats generous, he is a poors man's OleSouthgate:
I see him as Solskjaer Mark 2.
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?'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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
ThisNeither but if I absolutely have to choose one of those two then it would be Potter
It was actually Keane.Cantona stamped on southgate. That means it Potter for me.
I feel the same way.This question is the equivalent of: would you rather lose an arm or a leg.
Neither is desirable, but if you had to pick...
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)This question is the equivalent of: would you rather lose an arm or a leg.
Neither is desirable, but if you had to pick...
Potter has lost almost as many games as he won at every club he has been at.Potter is Pep to Southgates Hodgeson.
Both are stupid suggestions.