Is Gareth Southgate a shiite England manager?

[Gio]

Been watching England since WC 98. England is better/progressed further under Southgate than they were under

Hoddle
Eriksson
Capello
Hodgson
Who else I'm forgetting.

And this with arguably both lesser players factually and lesser hyped players. He has to be doing something right. My guess is he has got the players working together and curtailed egos very well. Not afraid of opponents but seldom overconfident either.

I think there are two aspects to this. One - the draw, which is outwith the gift of any of these managers to influence, and two - is he under or overachieving?

In 1998 Hoddle lost on penalties to a strong Argentina. Eriksson went out to Brazil in 2002 and Portugal in 2006. Capello lost to Germany in 2010. What we’ve seen from England in tournaments under Southgate is that they are good enough to beat Denmark / an average Germany, but fall short against Croatia/ Italy/ Belgium. I don’t think anything in those results suggest Southgate would have got the better of 98 Argentina, 02 Brazil or 06 Portugal. Certainly Capello and Hodgson didn't make more than the sum of the parts of their teams, while Eriksson and Hoddle did okay relative to the players at their disposal and the draw that was imposed upon them.

All of that said if we judge managers on making more than the sum of their parts, then Southgate started off well but, as the talent pool has improved, it is now becoming harder to justify he is making the most of the players at his disposal. With a more limited squad, Southgate did fine in 2018 and okay in 2021, falling short in the final against a cohesive and synergistic side that was very clearly more than the sum of its parts. The problem that was apparent in the Croatia and Italy games though is that he resorted to rudimentary tactics which were found out. Against Croatia that was basically playing long balls behind their defence every time and versus Italy it was hang on and hope for the best. That inability to control games against proper opposition is all the more damning when there are a number of players on the bench who are central to doing just that for their dominant clubs.

His whole legacy is going to hang on the likely quarter final against France. It would be the first time he has defeated stronger opposition in a tournament. He probably still saves face if they get outgunned by a piece of brilliance from Mbappe - but only provided England have tried to make the best use of the players at their disposal. But if his exit follows the same pattern as Croatia and Italy - and there were signs of this against the US - then I think he has to hold his hands up and concede he's not been able to evolve in the same way his squad has improved.

 

[FrankFoot]

I think there are two aspects to this. One - the draw, which is outwith the gift of any of these managers to influence, and two - is he under or overachieving?

In 1998 Hoddle lost on penalties to a strong Argentina. Eriksson went out to Brazil in 2002 and Portugal in 2006. Capello lost to Germany in 2010. What we’ve seen from England in tournaments under Southgate is that they are good enough to beat Denmark / an average Germany, but fall short against Croatia/ Italy/ Belgium. I don’t think anything in those results suggest Southgate would have got the better of 98 Argentina, 02 Brazil or 06 Portugal. Certainly Capello and Hodgson didn't make more than the sum of the parts of their teams, while Eriksson and Hoddle did okay relative to the players at their disposal and the draw that was imposed upon them.

All of that said if we judge managers on making more than the sum of their parts, then Southgate started off well but, as the talent pool has improved, it is now becoming harder to justify he is making the most of the players at his disposal. With a more limited squad, Southgate did fine in 2018 and okay in 2021, falling short in the final against a cohesive and synergistic side that was very clearly more than the sum of its parts. The problem that was apparent in the Croatia and Italy games though is that he resorted to rudimentary tactics which were found out. Against Croatia that was basically playing long balls behind their defence every time and versus Italy it was hang on and hope for the best. That inability to control games against proper opposition is all the more damning when there are a number of players on the bench who are central to doing just that for their dominant clubs.

His whole legacy is going to hang on the likely quarter final against France. It would be the first time he has defeated stronger opposition in a tournament. He probably still saves face if they get outgunned by a piece of brilliance from Mbappe - but only provided England have tried to make the best use of the players at their disposal. But if his exit follows the same pattern as Croatia and Italy - and there were signs of this against the US - then I think he has to hold his hands up and concede he's not been able to evolve in the same way his squad has improved.

England could have had a better draw in 2002 if they wouldn't have drawn with Nigeria, same in 2010 with Argelia and USA, that's why they got a difficult draws against Brazil 2002 and Germany 2010.

 

[Djemba-Djemba]

England could have had a better draw in 2002 if they wouldn't have drawn with Nigeria, same in 2010 with Argelia and USA, that's why they got a difficult draws against Brazil 2002 and Germany 2010.

That's a very good point actually.

 

[nickm]

I think there are two aspects to this. One - the draw, which is outwith the gift of any of these managers to influence, and two - is he under or overachieving?

In 1998 Hoddle lost on penalties to a strong Argentina. Eriksson went out to Brazil in 2002 and Portugal in 2006. Capello lost to Germany in 2010. What we’ve seen from England in tournaments under Southgate is that they are good enough to beat Denmark / an average Germany, but fall short against Croatia/ Italy/ Belgium. I don’t think anything in those results suggest Southgate would have got the better of 98 Argentina, 02 Brazil or 06 Portugal. Certainly Capello and Hodgson didn't make more than the sum of the parts of their teams, while Eriksson and Hoddle did okay relative to the players at their disposal and the draw that was imposed upon them.

All of that said if we judge managers on making more than the sum of their parts, then Southgate started off well but, as the talent pool has improved, it is now becoming harder to justify he is making the most of the players at his disposal. With a more limited squad, Southgate did fine in 2018 and okay in 2021, falling short in the final against a cohesive and synergistic side that was very clearly more than the sum of its parts. The problem that was apparent in the Croatia and Italy games though is that he resorted to rudimentary tactics which were found out. Against Croatia that was basically playing long balls behind their defence every time and versus Italy it was hang on and hope for the best. That inability to control games against proper opposition is all the more damning when there are a number of players on the bench who are central to doing just that for their dominant clubs.

His whole legacy is going to hang on the likely quarter final against France. It would be the first time he has defeated stronger opposition in a tournament. He probably still saves face if they get outgunned by a piece of brilliance from Mbappe - but only provided England have tried to make the best use of the players at their disposal. But if his exit follows the same pattern as Croatia and Italy - and there were signs of this against the US - then I think he has to hold his hands up and concede he's not been able to evolve in the same way his squad has improved.

There is no shame in being beaten in a final by Italy!

Their experience under pressure counted in the end

 

[Red Pumpkin]

I think there are two aspects to this. One - the draw, which is outwith the gift of any of these managers to influence, and two - is he under or overachieving?

In 1998 Hoddle lost on penalties to a strong Argentina. Eriksson went out to Brazil in 2002 and Portugal in 2006. Capello lost to Germany in 2010. What we’ve seen from England in tournaments under Southgate is that they are good enough to beat Denmark / an average Germany, but fall short against Croatia/ Italy/ Belgium. I don’t think anything in those results suggest Southgate would have got the better of 98 Argentina, 02 Brazil or 06 Portugal. Certainly Capello and Hodgson didn't make more than the sum of the parts of their teams, while Eriksson and Hoddle did okay relative to the players at their disposal and the draw that was imposed upon them.

All of that said if we judge managers on making more than the sum of their parts, then Southgate started off well but, as the talent pool has improved, it is now becoming harder to justify he is making the most of the players at his disposal. With a more limited squad, Southgate did fine in 2018 and okay in 2021, falling short in the final against a cohesive and synergistic side that was very clearly more than the sum of its parts. The problem that was apparent in the Croatia and Italy games though is that he resorted to rudimentary tactics which were found out. Against Croatia that was basically playing long balls behind their defence every time and versus Italy it was hang on and hope for the best. That inability to control games against proper opposition is all the more damning when there are a number of players on the bench who are central to doing just that for their dominant clubs.

His whole legacy is going to hang on the likely quarter final against France. It would be the first time he has defeated stronger opposition in a tournament. He probably still saves face if they get outgunned by a piece of brilliance from Mbappe - but only provided England have tried to make the best use of the players at their disposal. But if his exit follows the same pattern as Croatia and Italy - and there were signs of this against the US - then I think he has to hold his hands up and concede he's not been able to evolve in the same way his squad has improved.

You are right in there being several aspects to consider. The quality of the opposing team, injuries, penalties, the quality of players available. But taking the team to the semis of WC and then the final of the Euros is a great achievement no matter the circumstances. There is no shame in losing to the golden generations of Croatia and Belgium or on penalties to Italy, the most in form and best team in Euro 2020.

England has seldom had the very best players for the past 20 years. Good to very good players, yes, but how many would rank top 50 of the best players during the 2000's? No english midfielder has been better than Modric or Verratti, not even Scholes or Carrick. No english attacking midfielder has been better than de Bruyne, not even Gerrard or Lampard (you might argue equals in this category to be fair). No english winger has been better than Hazard, not even Beckham or Sterling. No english goalkeeper has been better than Courtois, not even Seaman or Pickford.

I feel that the main problem for England, like for many countries, is that there is an abundance of certain types of players and a lack of certain other types. Like Portugal never producing great CF's but ton of wingers, midfielders and defenders. For England the weakness is a lack of creativity and agility. I know people want to see Foden but he disappointed in Euro 2020, he was ahead of Saka and the rest. Sancho as well failed to provide that spark. Sterling is the best in this department and rightfully a starter for me.

 

[Stactix]

There is no shame in being beaten in a final by Italy!

Their experience under pressure counted in the end

It was the way England were beaten, holding out for penalties & allowing Italy back into the game after starting well & then resorting to USA gameplan.

Grealish came on 9mins into extra time. Sancho/Rashford at 120 to take pens... The only attacking sub made in normal time was Saka at 70mins.

It was comically bad management.. Utilising Rashford/Grealish with 20mins to go could have been the difference.

 

[SydneyRoughDiamond]

That's a very good point actually.

Also, 1998, losing to Romania in the group stages was very costly.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

How are we underachieving?

Did you watch the final against that ageing, leggy Italy side…?

 

[PoTMS]

Imagine this squad under John Herdman. Top quality international coach.

 

[SteveCoppellFan]

Im surprised there is even a debate on this.

 

[phelans shorts]

Imagine this squad under John Herdman. Top quality international coach.

This aged like milk

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

I think there are two aspects to this. One - the draw, which is outwith the gift of any of these managers to influence, and two - is he under or overachieving?

In 1998 Hoddle lost on penalties to a strong Argentina. Eriksson went out to Brazil in 2002 and Portugal in 2006. Capello lost to Germany in 2010. What we’ve seen from England in tournaments under Southgate is that they are good enough to beat Denmark / an average Germany, but fall short against Croatia/ Italy/ Belgium. I don’t think anything in those results suggest Southgate would have got the better of 98 Argentina, 02 Brazil or 06 Portugal. Certainly Capello and Hodgson didn't make more than the sum of the parts of their teams, while Eriksson and Hoddle did okay relative to the players at their disposal and the draw that was imposed upon them.

All of that said if we judge managers on making more than the sum of their parts, then Southgate started off well but, as the talent pool has improved, it is now becoming harder to justify he is making the most of the players at his disposal. With a more limited squad, Southgate did fine in 2018 and okay in 2021, falling short in the final against a cohesive and synergistic side that was very clearly more than the sum of its parts. The problem that was apparent in the Croatia and Italy games though is that he resorted to rudimentary tactics which were found out. Against Croatia that was basically playing long balls behind their defence every time and versus Italy it was hang on and hope for the best. That inability to control games against proper opposition is all the more damning when there are a number of players on the bench who are central to doing just that for their dominant clubs.

His whole legacy is going to hang on the likely quarter final against France. It would be the first time he has defeated stronger opposition in a tournament. He probably still saves face if they get outgunned by a piece of brilliance from Mbappe - but only provided England have tried to make the best use of the players at their disposal. But if his exit follows the same pattern as Croatia and Italy - and there were signs of this against the US - then I think he has to hold his hands up and concede he's not been able to evolve in the same way his squad has improved.

Well said.

 

[PoTMS]

This aged like milk

He is an excellent coach, far better than Southgate. To get Canada to the World Cup topping the qualification group, part of it without their best player, and playing like this is an amazing feat on it's own.

 

[fergiewherearethou]

I am both amazed and delighted by England’s mismanagement .In my opinion England have the attacking players to win if they were let off the leash .Southgate is not going to do that though. Strictly small time .

Southgate is a very negative manager, afraid of making attacking changes or approaching a game on the front foot.
But it worked being like that, the results were better than expected from him, he will not change his approach until he gets the sack.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Interesting idea but how come this country seemingly can't produce these technical players

Honestly I think it’s because if a player is naturally gifted technically then it feels as though they are shunted into more attacking roles automatically, instead of in midfield or defense where they might develop into brilliant players. For example, if Sancho was Spanish would he still have been stuck on the wing? Or would they play him through the middle as either an 8 or 10 with his ability and comfort on the ball coming through the youth academies?

It just feels like overall the system still favors older ways of thinking about football and positions at times with physical attributes being favored and put a ton of emphasis on often times at the younger ages and youth levels. Hell just look at the outcry from so many pundits when we signed Martinez, people were so shocked at his height that they couldn’t fathom a world in which he was as dominant as he is both on and off the ball.

 

[croadyman]

Honestly I think it’s because if a player is naturally gifted technically then it feels as though they are shunted into more attacking roles automatically, instead of in midfield or defense where they might develop into brilliant players. For example, if Sancho was Spanish would he still have been stuck on the wing? Or would they play him through the middle as either an 8 or 10 with his ability and comfort on the ball coming through the youth academies?

It just feels like overall the system still favors older ways of thinking about football and positions at times with physical attributes being favored and put a ton of emphasis on often times at the younger ages and youth levels. Hell just look at the outcry from so many pundits when we signed Martinez, people were so shocked at his height that they couldn’t fathom a world in which he was as dominant as he is both on and off the ball.

Yeah think you are bang on about us being stuck in our ways in this country and not moving with the times enough

 

[Chief123]

I just keep envisaging Ecuador getting what they need against Senegal to get that runner up spot. And then we play Ecuador in the last 16 and get completely over run in midfield.

I don’t fancy us against the energy and intensity of Ecuador.

 

[DixieDean]

I just keep envisaging Ecuador getting what they need against Senegal to get that runner up spot. And then we play Ecuador in the last 16 and get completely over run in midfield.

I don’t fancy us against the energy and intensity of Ecuador.

I don't fancy us against anyone half decent.

 

[Chief123]

I don't fancy us against anyone half decent.

Feck it, send the taxis. Bring them home boys. Rest up ready for the prem!

 

[croadyman]

I just keep envisaging Ecuador getting what they need against Senegal to get that runner up spot. And then we play Ecuador in the last 16 and get completely over run in midfield.

I don’t fancy us against the energy and intensity of Ecuador.

We need Senegal to upset the odds

 

[shamans]

He is crap. Just like Ole. Just like Martinez. They get sacked too late due to results going their way. A proactive chairperson would sack them.

 

[mav_9me]

He is crap. Just like Ole. Just like Martinez. They get sacked too late due to results going their way. A proactive chairperson would sack them.

I think the biggest possible is lack of viable options for the national team manager role. Think that's the boat England, Portugal, Belgium, Argentina etc are in. The best want to manage the top clubs

 

[Rhyme Animal]

I think the biggest possible is lack of viable options for the national team manager role. Think that's the boat England, Portugal, Belgium, Argentina etc are in. The best want to manage the top clubs

England can surely do better than Southgate ffs.

If we’d sacked the useless cnut after the ridiculous tactical cowardice of the Italy game as we should’ve done, we could have Eddie fecking Howe in charge now.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

P.S thread title really needs correcting! Makes it sound like OP is questioning whether Southgate has converted to Islam…

 

[Zen86]

Did you watch the final against that ageing, leggy Italy side…?

Ageing, leggy? They were probably the most exciting team of the tournament and many were heralding the job Mancini had done. It was a disappointing result but at the end of the day, pragmatism got us to the final and only a moron would think of completely changing that up for the final game.

As somebody else has said, Southgate isn’t going to throw up sexy football but the tournament results have been ok. We’re England, not Brazil. International failure is ingrained in us.

 

[B20]

This aged like milk

The post was 30 minutes old when you posted. So assuming fresh and delicious?

 

[Fluctuation0161]

This is another argument that makes little sense to me. It's a cup competition. You beat who you come up against, who also got there by their own merit.

It is a perfectly logical argument, even based on your premise.

Of course you can only beat who you come up against. Which is why there is an element of luck, good or bad with every cup draw.

It seems a simple concept to me. Doesn't seem particularly controversial.

Southgate is a poor manager who has benefited from easier draws and by having comparatively good players to choose from.

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

If you're going to reduce it down to this ludicrously simple question then @Dion is absolutely correct: by any reasonable metric Gareth Southgate is not a "shiite" England manager. I mean if the bar for "shiite" is taking your side to the semi-final and final of the only two major tournaments you've managed them in thus far then very very few international managers can be considered anything but "shiite".

Southgate is tactically limited and has been fortunate enough with the draws he's had (although @FrankFoot is correct to point out that the likes of Eriksson and Capello somewhat created their own bad luck in this regard by fumbling key group stage matches) but the fact that the only two options when discussing Southgate now seem to be "he's great" or "he's shiite" is completely asinine.

 

[DixieDean]

If you're going to reduce it down to this ludicrously simple question then @Dion is absolutely correct: by any reasonable metric Gareth Southgate is not a "shiite" England manager. I mean if the bar for "shiite" is taking your side to the semi-final and final of the only two major tournaments you've managed them in thus far then very very few international managers can be considered anything but "shiite".

Southgate is tactically limited and has been fortunate enough with the draws he's had (although @FrankFoot is correct to point out that the likes of Eriksson and Capello somewhat created their own bad luck in this regard by fumbling key group stage matches) but the fact that the only two options when discussing Southgate now seem to be "he's great" or "he's shiite" is completely asinine.

Very good end results, but masked by lucky draws. And whatever 'thing' he had going has completely gone since the Euro final. Now, easy to create against, as well as being conservative. They're going out in either the 2rd or QF depending on who they play. Everyone can see it coming a mile away. I'm pretty sure he'll quit, afterwards. It's been a waste of a WC.

 

[phelans shorts]

The post was 30 minutes old when you posted. So assuming fresh and delicious?

Imagine the milk was in a sauna for that amount of time

 

[B20]

Imagine the milk was in a sauna for that amount of time

Add cocoa and that sounds delicious.

 

[ROFLUTION]

So: 90% people in this threat, is he still shite?

When does England go out? Place your bets!

 

[TwoSheds]

So: 90% people in this threat, is he still shite?

When does England go out? Place your bets!

They'll have too much for Senegal with no Mané, I don't know who we're likely to get in the quarters but I'm guessing them.

 

[Irwin99]

So: 90% people in this threat, is he still shite?

When does England go out? Place your bets!

They'll beat Senegal with ease I should think but after that it's probably France, Portugal (maybe Germany) and then Brazil/Spain or possibly Argentina in the final. Three very tricky games, all tough opponents.

Providing France get no more injuries i think they'll beat England. Portugal would be very tough to call as they're both good sides and I would fancy Spain and Brazil to beat anyone.

 

[SalfordRed18]

So: 90% people in this threat, is he still shite?

When does England go out? Place your bets!

Yes and quarters.

 

[Blackbeard]

England are stacked right now with attacking talent but have a ex defender defensive manager. It’s not a good fit and won’t be until he’s gone. We should be on the front foot. I’d rather us get knocked out throwing everything forward than wimper out like we will by sitting back relying on that defence.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

England are stacked right now with attacking talent but have a ex defender defensive manager. It’s not a good fit and won’t be until he’s gone. We should be on the front foot. I’d rather us get knocked out throwing everything forward than wimper out like we will by sitting back relying on that defence.

Bang on. 100% this.

 

[ROFLUTION]

England are stacked right now with attacking talent but have a ex defender defensive manager. It’s not a good fit and won’t be until he’s gone. We should be on the front foot. I’d rather us get knocked out throwing everything forward than wimper out like we will by sitting back relying on that defence.

but they were more stacked in the 90s/00s and yet didnt go to any finals.

(Of course penalty man Southgate was your destiny back then in that regard too)

 

[Slevs]

I always thought he was a devout Christian?
Could be Sunni as well, you never know in today's world

satire, please don't cancel me

 

[SilentWitness]

He has some things tactically right such as counter pressing but there were so many times in the first half and the US game where the players were running on top of each other or really poor at attacking patterns of play etc.