Southgate or Potter - who would you prefer as our next manager?

altodevil

Odds winner of 'Odds or Evens 2023/2024'
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
19,366
The two bookies favourites to replace ten Hag. Neither seem to come across as particularly inspiring candidates if you read their respective RedCafe threads.

But if you had to pick one, a straight binary choice, who would you prefer?

Grateful for a poll so we can get a good feel for it. It's an interesting one.

For me, I'd plump for Potter out of the two.
 
Potter by a massive distance. I don’t hold his time at Chelsea against him looking at what’s come after.
 
Is there a single good reason to go with Southgate? His club manager career is 15 years old and pathetic. This HAS to be generated from his agent assuming he flubs out of the Euros and wants a job in September.
 
If we end up with Southgate then that’s me done with Utd until his inevitable sacking, which probably won’t be too long anyway.
 
Potter wouldnt be the end of the world, I think he'd fail but as with every manager post SAF, its symptom not cause.
 
If memes were allowed in the football forum then I'd post "Best Cry Ever" from YouTube.
 
No brainier out of the two - Potter.
 
Potter. From people in the know, I had actually heard some impressive things about him prior to him joining Chelsea. He’s a football data nerd. Eye on the detail, the system. A football genius per se. He does lack personality. Used to delegate the hard nosed approach to his assistant I believe.

I don’t think he’d work out at United. Perhaps too similar to Hag.
 
Obviously Potter. He has had one bad spell at a club that is a shambles right now. Yes, that night be the case with us too but coaching wise, he isn't even on the same planet as Southgate.
 
Potter for sure. Southgate has shown he can pick a balanced team and that's about it. Nothing about the way England has played under him has impressed me.

Potter is not exactly inspiring either, but it's an easy choice between the two for me.
 
Potter, especially if we are going to sign and use young up and coming players rather than established stars. Southgate may have a better rapport if we go the Galacticos way, but which we won't. In short, Potter.
 
If we’re lucky Potter takes over as England manager in July after England do what they do in tournaments and Southgate isn’t an option seeing as his whole club CV is about 15 years old and he’s managed to do nothing with a great squad of players.
 
Potter is a good manager and given time and a structure could probably do better than most would expect. I would hope we aim a bit higher than either given managers like Nagelsmann could be available. Potter as an option but not first choice I would be fine with.
 
Southgate. What he's proven adept at - creating a cohesive and motivated unit out of star players - is a much better fit than what Potter has proven adept as (developing young players and shaping then to the requirements of his system).
 
davidmichael said:
If we’re lucky Potter takes over as England manager in July after England do what they do in tournaments and Southgate isn’t an option seeing as his whole club CV is about 15 years old and he’s managed to do nothing with a great squad of players.
Click to expand...

Nothing? The best tournament record of any England manager before or after Alf Ramsey is "nothing"? You people.
 
If these are the two choices, then it doesn't really matter. We are finished anyway.

But I'd take Potter ahead of Southgate simply on the basis he has managed clubs at Premier League level. But they are both C-tier coaches.
 
Last edited:
justsomebloke said:
Nothing? The best tournament record of any England manager before or after Alf Ramsey is "nothing"? You people.
Click to expand...
Buddy, me and you could've done that and we'd also be called the best England managers since 1966.
 
PoTMS said:
Buddy, me and you could've done that and we'd also be called the best England managers since 1966.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely ridiculous. Not just literally, but also in the sense that those results are somehow no more than what anyone half-competent would achieve. Which is also absolutely bonkers. England's squad is not that good. In fact, it's probably less good than what you had 20 years ago, when England got nowhere and was at times a joke.
 
justsomebloke said:
That's absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Not as ridiculous as you think considering we managed to beat the shite teams but lost against every single good team that had any smidge of talent and tactical nous about them.
 
I don’t want either. Unfortunately I can’t see a stand out candidate anywhere. I would take Potter over Southgate on the proviso that Chelsea are a mess and Poch and Tuchel also failed with them. Poch came in with a massive reputation though having done relatively well with Spurs and done ok with PSG. I think maybe Potter could have more about him than we think or maybe he’s already hit his peak.
 
PoTMS said:
Not as ridiculous as you think considering we managed to beat the shite teams but lost against every single good team that had any smidge of talent and tactical nous about them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PoTMS said:
Obviously Potter. He has had one bad spell at a club that is a shambles right now. Yes, that night be the case with us too but coaching wise, he isn't even on the same planet as Southgate.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there.
 
justsomebloke said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok mate. Southgate is a miracle worker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.