Is Gareth Southgate a shiite England manager?

[TheReligion]

He’s very reactive and boring

 

[marktan]

Maybe you should give him some credit for containing that Italy side during the final and preventing them create chances. Whatever your views of them doesn't change the facts. That Italy side played 37 games without losing any... Their record unbeaten run was stopped later that year against Spain when they played with 10 men since the first half (NL semifinals).

Before Spain did it with 11 vs 10, Southgate came the closest to defeating them. In the following months they lost important players and somehow failed to make the WC, but that was a very different squad to the one that won the Euros and established a new world record.



I agree with the analysis, but can't help thinking it is more complicated than we see it. I said it would have been very risky to play on the front foot against Italy 2021... Against France it would have been times 10 that. They have the fastest players of international football. A balanced approach is needed for these games.

I am not saying he managed those games perfectly. Of course not. But to think some random manager would have had England in 2021 dominate Italy (who had the better midfield and better CBs) with ease or that in 2022 you could have given France more spaces and get away with it is delusional.

Not a random manager, just one not absolutely terrible with in game management as Southgate is. It wouldn't have been playing on the front foot, it's making the changes to win a game youve got the upper hand in, against a team you're trailing against..

Against Italy it was to try attack a team that had almost no attacking threat aside from Chiesa..

You say it's better to be defensive in big games, and in general it's true, but what's the point if you're not trying to attack in games you're behind in or where there's little attacking threat? It just makes no sense. Of course don't start off too attacking, but make the changes when they're needed. Celebrating not losing by more is no consolation when you have the players to try to win the game but didn't use them.

Also just arguing the semantics here, but the 30 or so unbeaten run is a bit irrelevant, the team that turned up in the final for Italy wasn't great. If you look at the teams they faced themselves in that run there's a stretch of about 20 games facing the likes of Lichtenstein outside of 1 or 2 draws vs Portugal and Netherlands. https://www.uefa.com/uefanationslea...aly-s-world-record-37-game-unbeaten-run-ends/

 

[TheReligion]

Why he’s not making some changes is baffling.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

He’s very reactive and boring

Yep. He never makes any subs until its too late generally

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

Babe wake up, it's time for the daily "Southgate is shite" comments even though England are winning.

 

[Abraxas]

Seems to be making a habit of sending the team out strong and then playing extremely passively in the second half. Livened up in the last 10 minutes or so but it's not a trend that's very fun.

International football is not really about intensity until you reach a major tournament. The players seem to play within themselves, dropping off. Even Ukraine were not bombing around. So I guess this stuff works. It's mostly pragmatically winning that matters.

 

[horsechoker]

He's silenced his doubters

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

I can somewhat see the argument for Southgate being overrated but to call him "shite" is patently ridiculous.

There is one England manager with a better record than Southgate. The way people talk about him on here, you'd think he had one of the worst.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

I can somewhat see the argument for Southgate being overrated but to call him "shite" is patently ridiculous.

There is one England manager with a better record than Southgate. The way people talk about him on here, you'd think he had one of the worst.

Well either you are brilliant or shite for some people. I think Southgate is a decent manager, but not one of the best.

 

[Hammondo]

He's silenced his doubters

How?

 

[Pintu]

Not a random manager, just one not absolutely terrible with in game management as Southgate is. It wouldn't have been playing on the front foot, it's making the changes to win a game youve got the upper hand in, against a team you're trailing against..

I agree with this partially. I don't think he is that terrible. Maybe a WC manager would probably have gotten better results on those instances. But at the same time you can wonder whether England would have made it that far to begin with... He is the first manager to take England this far.

Against Italy it was to try attack a team that had almost no attacking threat aside from Chiesa..

You say it's better to be defensive in big games, and in general it's true, but what's the point if you're not trying to attack in games you're behind in or where there's little attacking threat? It just makes no sense. Of course don't start off too attacking, but make the changes when they're needed. Celebrating not losing by more is no consolation when you have the players to try to win the game but didn't use them.

Regarding the 2021 final, I am not convinced it is Southgate fault that Rice and Philips didn't do their job. They had many situations with Italian defenders very high up the pitch where England midfielders should have tried to launch counter-attacks but instead chose to go backwards or keep the ball until they lost it. They played it like Burnley trying to hang on to 1-0 (and 1-1 after that)... Those choices were the problem, not the setup itself. I think the setup wasn't that bad at all.

Also just arguing the semantics here, but the 30 or so unbeaten run is a bit irrelevant, the team that turned up in the final for Italy wasn't great. If you look at the teams they faced themselves in that run there's a stretch of about 20 games facing the likes of Lichtenstein outside of 1 or 2 draws vs Portugal and Netherlands. https://www.uefa.com/uefanationslea...aly-s-world-record-37-game-unbeaten-run-ends/

You forget to count Belguim, Spain and Switzerland. That's 5 of Uefa's top 10 back then (Many teams from the top 20 as well, so your Lichtenstien comment is a bit exagerated).

https://football-ranking.com/rankByConfederation?zone=UEFA&period=21 October 2021


I might be wrong but I am not convinced that Engalnd had the personnel to dominate midfield possession against Barella-Jorginho-Verratti (2021 version of them 3). And it would still be difficult to beat their defense if you can't drag them away from their goal and use the pace against their old legs. They had Chiellini and Bonucci. These 2 were part of the 2012 team that lost to Spain in the final after defeating England and Germany... They were also part of the very untalented team of 2016 that defeated Belguim and Spain before losing to then World Champions Germany in the shootout. They had the experience of these kinds of games on their side. When was the last time England played a final?

 

[FrankFoot]

You're not going to succeed at trying to pull off the "look at his resumee!!" card for Deschamps with me ... I'm French and I know very well how his teams play or the fact that he only won the WC because he had by far the best squad and that all the success he has with France is down to playing anti-football with a very strong core of players that can counterattack properly.
Deschamps regularly gets outplayed by far weaker sides, we saw it with England,Morocco and Argentina
Even Platini called France out for not deserving to win any of the 3 games I've mentioned.

Tite isn't better than Scaloni no.

Santos? Like seriously? Every single Portuguese fan wanted him out long before the WC ended. He's never had Portugal play good football.

It's also funny that you don't mention how Scaloni already has more international titles than all of them ... WC+Copa while none of these managers have WC+Euro or Copa

I'll give you that Flick is probably better than Scaloni tactically though but his lack of experience at NT lvl really showed through.

Morocco didn't outplay France in the WC, they did nothing for 70 minutes, all they had was good 15 last minutes, and you are forgetting the chances that France missed.
The game should have been 3-0 for France before Morocco had their 15 good minutes of football.

Morocco proved to not know what to do when conceding first, their strategy all along the WC was defend and try to sneak a goal, it worked with Portugal and Spain cause those countries were very poor and ineffective in the last third, it didn't work against France.

Only countries who outplayed France fair and square were Argentina and England...Morocco hell NO, 15 good minutes of football out of 90 is NOT outplaying.

 

[FrankFoot]

A crap Italy side that was 30+ games unbeaten... He could have been braver and that would have given Chiesa (pre-injury Chiesa) too much space to run at your defenders.

Southgate's tactical approach was the right one, he needed to play counter-attacking football and have his forwards run at aging Chiellini/Bonucci... It didn't work because England midfielders didn't manage to release those balls into that space for the front 3 to exploit it.


But what made England look better than France? They had to chase the game most of the time and France didn't bother creating chances. As soon as England had equalized then France created a few in succession until taking the lead again... They then gifted you a penalty that Kane wasted (Rashford would have scored that pen though).


.

Yeah,i noticed than England domination came after France complacency from leading the game.
Once France had to go for the result, you could see the difference in attitude and talent between both teams, with France being more accurate and efficient.

 

[SteveCoppellFan]

I'm Welsh and there needs to be a Rob Page is a shiite manager option.

I wonder what would happen if he got the England job.

 

[VP89]

Babe wake up, it's time for the daily "Southgate is shite" comments even though England are winning.

It's OK we just have to wait to see them choke (again) against a difficult side before the Southgate fans hide again.

 

[FrankFoot]

Yes he had less to work with but he also had arguably the greatest player of all time, which none of the other guys had. That's the whole point.

Saying that Scaloni is a far better manager than the other guys is totally ridiculous, but then you know that.

Anyway, I don't want to distract from the general complaining about Southgate so I will leave you to your delusion bud.

I rather have a GOAT on my team with a decent (not great) squad than good squad but no GOAT who can change the situation in a though scenario.

I do also believe that Scaloni as manager isn't better than Deschamps,Tite,Van Gaal, etc

Let's see what Scaloni does when GOAT retires after next Copa America.

 

[VP89]

A crap Italy side that was 30+ games unbeaten... He could have been braver and that would have given Chiesa (pre-injury Chiesa) too much space to run at your defenders.

Southgate's tactical approach was the right one, he needed to play counter-attacking football and have his forwards run at aging Chiellini/Bonucci... It didn't work because England midfielders didn't manage to release those balls into that space for the front 3 to exploit it.


But what made England look better than France? They had to chase the game most of the time and France didn't bother creating chances. As soon as England had equalized then France created a few in succession until taking the lead again... They then gifted you a penalty that Kane wasted (Rashford would have scored that pen though).


.

433 and we start Bellingham we'd win the Euros.

 

[FrankFoot]

Babe wake up, it's time for the daily "Southgate is shite" comments even though England are winning.

The issue here is that it's all black and white for modern fans, you are either one of the best or pure shit, no grey areas.

I think Southgate it's an okayish manager, far from being the best, but not completely shit like some are suggesting.

 

[SirReginald]

Babe wake up, it's time for the daily "Southgate is shite" comments even though England are winning.

Southgate is shite.
England won.

These two statements can be correct at the same time.

Winning a game doesn’t make you a good coach.

Being the difference to a team when it’s a close game or going in as underdogs, that’s what separates top coaches. Southgate has not once altered the flow of a game or done anything to win the game for England.

Moreover, he doesn’t have the necessary experience, qualification, charisma or pedigree to walk into a club or international side and stop a slide. Like ETH did for United.

His “success” is merely circumstantial to the overall quality of the elite international sides. France are the only real competitively strong and consistent European side and he wouldn’t stand a chance against Brazil or Argentina.

 

[Andrade]

I rather have a GOAT on my team with a decent (not great) squad than good squad but no GOAT who can change the situation in a though scenario.

I do also believe that Scaloni as manager isn't better than Deschamps,Tite,Van Gaal, etc

Let's see what Scaloni does when GOAT retires after next Copa America.

Absolutely. He's proven to be a very astute and capable coach thus far but the notion that he's way better than Deschamps, Tite, Flick, Santos etc. is just ridiculous. And as you say, he's young so there is a very good chance we'll see him managing the team without Messi. Then we'll see how he deals with a team without a talisman like that. If he's smart, he'll step away when Messi does.

 

[Red00012]

He ain’t shite but he’s never going to win a major trophy with England

 

[Devil81]

He's perfect for what England want but I feel he cost us the Euro's with a lack of confidence to go and win the game. We had the stadium, the crowd and most of all the better side. He should have gone for it in extra time, better to lose giving it a go than weakly in pens.

The world cup I can forgive, we were beat by a side who lost the final on penalties and we didn't go out disgracefully.

How many things has he been proven right with as well, he gave us a warning shot when it came to Sancho well before we found out he's not as good as we first thought. He also had noticed there were issues with Greenwood before we found out as well.

He clearly doesn't want bad influences around the squad, that's good management.

 

[marktan]

Southgate of course is helped by a stacked England squad in almost every position.

Give him the squads Capello had to pick from with the likes of Lennon, Heskey and Crouch regularly starting and he'd be back looking for jobs in League 1.

 

[Stadjer]

He ain’t shite but he’s never going to win a major trophy with England

Im not sure. The England team is really good and was very close to beating France. Had England gone to the final i would have picked them as favorite over Argentina based on the squad. Next Euros only France has a squad that is close to England in quality i think and England almost beat them last time. A bit more luck and England could beat France and win the Euros just based on pure quality in that squad.

 

[DJ_21]

Im not sure. The England team is really good and was very close to beating France. Had England gone to the final i would have picked them as favorite over Argentina based on the squad. Next Euros only France has a squad that is close to England in quality i think and England almost beat them last time. A bit more luck and England could beat France and win the Euros just based on pure quality in that squad.

It’s not all about the squad though. It’s about the tactics the manager plays. Southgates to defensive and always has been. He’s not the one to get the best out of our talented squad. If we’d of had a better manager we’d of won a couple of tournaments by now.

 

[scottser]

Given the abundance of quality that Southgate has had to work with, it's surprising England haven't won anything. A better manager would make less contentious team selections and more effective tactical switches during games.
He's not shite exactly, but you'll win feck all with him.

 

[Member 101269]

Today I was half watching the second half I couldn't pay much attention to progression since the world cup. What are peoples views on England development since the world cup? Have you observed any changes to paying style, or is it much of the same?

 

[Stadjer]

It’s not all about the squad though. It’s about the tactics the manager plays. Southgates to defensive and always has been. He’s not the one to get the best out of our talented squad. If we’d of had a better manager we’d of won a couple of tournaments by now.

Its not all about the squad but it is the most important thing. Even more on a national team level because national teams cant train tactically like a club team could. Good tactics can make lesser player perform better and make up for a lack of quality up to a certain level. However even perfect tactics can make it very hard to stop a special player doing something special. England has quite a few of those special players. Rashford, Saka, Kane, Bellingham, Foden, Grealish on his day or even Maddison can all do something special and win the game for England.

From todays team i think that Pickford, Maguire and Henderson are the weak points of the England team and those are still Premier League quality players. I think that England can still win a cup despite Southgate. Might need some luck to get past France (if they dont get knocked out by Switserland) but i dont see any other European team that is close in quality. Fairly certain that almost all the England subs from todays game would have started for my national team.

 

[Baxquux]

Yeah,i noticed than England domination came after France complacency from leading the game.
Once France had to go for the result, you could see the difference in attitude and talent between both teams, with France being more accurate and efficient.

No fan of Southgate, but I think the final result skews people's judgment both about the performance and overall team. England played better overall and, honestly, probably have a slightly higher overall level. There wasn't any point where France just controlled the game, despite a few fancy Griezmann orchestrated moves.

What they don't have, even with a resurgent Rasford and with Kane (who, penalty notwithstanding, still gets undervalued as a complete forward - as someone with split anglo-polish loyalties who's seen plenty of both players, I'd say he's better than Lewandowski as a player though not by much and would have matched him playing for BM) is a nearly messi-level one-man game changer like Mbappe. Slightly faster than Rash and with Kane's footballing IQ plus combination of both their top skillsets.

The only difference was preoccupied with Mbappe, (who didn't end up doing that much, but just having him there affects your RB/RCB in particular and opens space for someone like Giroud and for Griezmann) which affected one clutch moment, Kane not letting someone else take the 2nd pen despite the fact he doesn't have a '2nd pen' strategy, and Southgate waiting too long to put Rashford on. You take out one of those variables and England almost certainly win-- as it was, they still had a higher XG and other chances to take it into extra time. France otherwise have a good squad, and Varane is better than Maguire, say, but England's wide forwards are at least equal - Saka to Dembele, Rash to Griezmann (AG better creator, MR more dangerous in front of goal), Bellingham's more complete than anyone in that France midfield etc.

 

[Theonas]

Southgate is shite.
England won.

These two statements can be correct at the same time.

Winning a game doesn’t make you a good coach.

Being the difference to a team when it’s a close game or going in as underdogs, that’s what separates top coaches. Southgate has not once altered the flow of a game or done anything to win the game for England.

Moreover, he doesn’t have the necessary experience, qualification, charisma or pedigree to walk into a club or international side and stop a slide. Like ETH did for United.

His “success” is merely circumstantial to the overall quality of the elite international sides. France are the only real competitively strong and consistent European side and he wouldn’t stand a chance against Brazil or Argentina.

I think international management is just a different animal. Look at the past WC winners from Scaloni, Deschamps, Löw, Del Bosque, Lippi, Scolari or Jacquet. How many of them had the bolded part before taking on their national teams. Maybe only Del Bosque and Lippi. Scolari had a decent career at club level and Deschamps did well with Monaco but apart from that, hardly anything stands out really. Southgate should not be judged on whether he's as good as the likes of Pep when it comes to pedigree and tactics as there is less of that on the international stage and more of the abstract qualities like squad harmony, setup, chemistry, managing the media and journalists, understanding the local culture, etc... Of course you still want a tactically competent manager as there will be games when that comes in handy but out of all the qualities required, it is less on the forefront than it would have been at club management. It's just two very different jobs.

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

I mean I find it almost impossible to reason with people who say "Southgate is shite", because they just insist that anything good that has happened to England throughout his tenure has happened in spite of him and not in any way because of him.

If you want to believe this, that is of course your prerogative but it does make it pretty pointless to try to have any discussion with you about Southgate. If you believe all of his successes are due to factors other than him, but all of his failures are his and his alone, then sure, I'm not surprised you think he's shite.

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

The issue here is that it's all black and white for modern fans, you are either one of the best or pure shit, no grey areas.

I think Southgate it's an okayish manager, far from being the best, but not completely shit like some are suggesting.

I think you're largely correct. The only thing I'd say, though, is that one side of the Southgate debate is eminently more reasonable to me than the other.

With Southgate it's less "he's the best" versus "he's shite", and more "he's a decent international manager who's done a decent job with England" versus "he's shite". I rarely actually see anyone go stark raving mad with praise for Southgate.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

He's silenced his doubters

He's doubted his silencers.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

At the Qatar World Cup we saw an outrageous, glorious amount of upsets. Davids slew Goliaths left and right. Those smaller teams combined a go-for-broke attitude with daring managerial decisions, and were fortunate to run up against overconfident better teams resting players or underestimating opponents. Saudi Arabia beat the eventual champions. Japan beat Germany. Australia beat Denmark. South Korea beat Portugal. Morocco beat Portugal too. England has better players.

When it comes to England, I think the disconnect is that with their squad they are definitely not minnows, so why shouldn't they be able to go toe-to-toe with the best, why can't a decent manager set them up to be brave and win? Starting out with better players than the Saudis, Japanese, Aussies, South Koreans, and Portuguese should mean that England stands a better chance of progressing. But they fail.

My country's team, USA, is not very good. We have zero world class players. I think our approach generally is looking for ways to exploit the big boys, because we know that's the only way we're advancing. We can't slug it out. We are forced to smash and grab.

So I think England's problem is they have the wrong mindset which comes from the manager. I wasted thousands of dollars watching England in Russia, and the way they played against obviously inferior opponents was shameful. England scored from a penalty Kane won by diving, and then went through in the shootout. England did not use its pace, its tricky players, they just sat back with no plan. That's the manager's fault, not the players.

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

At the Qatar World Cup we saw an outrageous, glorious amount of upsets. Davids slew Goliaths left and right. Those smaller teams combined a go-for-broke attitude with daring managerial decisions, and were fortunate to run up against overconfident better teams resting players or underestimating opponents. Saudi Arabia beat the eventual champions. Japan beat Germany. Australia beat Denmark. South Korea beat Portugal. Morocco beat Portugal too. England has better players.

When it comes to England, I think the disconnect is that with their squad they are definitely not minnows, so why shouldn't they be able to go toe-to-toe with the best, why can't a decent manager set them up to be brave and win? Starting out with better players than the Saudis, Japanese, Aussies, South Koreans, and Portuguese should mean that England stands a better chance of progressing. But they fail.

My country's team, USA, is not very good. We have zero world class players. I think our approach generally is looking for ways to exploit the big boys, because we know that's the only way we're advancing. We can't slug it out. We are forced to smash and grab.

So I think England's problem is they have the wrong mindset which comes from the manager. I wasted thousands of dollars watching England in Russia, and the way they played against obviously inferior opponents was shameful. England scored from a penalty Kane won by diving, and then went through in the shootout. England did not use its pace, its tricky players, they just sat back with no plan. That's the manager's fault, not the players.

I mean we went out of the Qatar World Cup against the runners up, and one of the best teams in the tournament, France because our star striker uncharacteristically skied a penalty. It was a very close fought game and we were honestly arguably the better side.

People just need to realise that, in international football, there's always going to be an element of luck involved. It's just like the Champions League; you can be as tactically brilliant, high quality as you like but if you make a mistake at the wrong moment you're still going home.

I don't think Southgate is a brilliant coach. I don't think he's a tactical genius. I don't think he's been infallible in his decision-making as England manager. But I do think he has successfully created an excellent atmosphere within an England squad that has until recently been known to be fractious, and I think he is yet to have a major international tournament that can be considered a failure. On that basis alone, I don't see how he can be considered "shite".

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

I mean we went out of the Qatar World Cup against the runners up, and one of the best teams in the tournament, France because our star striker uncharacteristically skied a penalty. It was a very close fought game and we were honestly arguably the better side.

People just need to realise that, in international football, there's always going to be an element of luck involved. It's just like the Champions League; you can be as tactically brilliant, high quality as you like but if you make a mistake at the wrong moment you're still going home.

I don't think Southgate is a brilliant coach. I don't think he's a tactical genius. I don't think he's been infallible in his decision-making as England manager. But I do think he has successfully created an excellent atmosphere within an England squad that has until recently been known to be fractious, and I think he is yet to have a major international tournament that can be considered a failure. On that basis alone, I don't see how he can be considered "shite".

Southgate isn't very good but he has a team at his disposal that is better than average. He just doesn't know how to use them.

 

[JulesWinnfield]

Southgate of course is helped by a stacked England squad in almost every position.

Give him the squads Capello had to pick from with the likes of Lennon, Heskey and Crouch regularly starting and he'd be back looking for jobs in League 1.

Where does this myth England are so stacked in talent come from? England have very good strength in depth for wide forwards and right back. That's it. There is no notable depth elsewhere, and the depth in central defence and central midfield - the spine of the team - is flat out bad.

 

[duffer]

Southgate of course is helped by a stacked England squad in almost every position.

Give him the squads Capello had to pick from with the likes of Lennon, Heskey and Crouch regularly starting and he'd be back looking for jobs in League 1.

Capello had Rio, JT, Ashley Cole, Carrick, Gerrard, Rooney, and Lampard. Perhaps the shit from Capello's days was shitter, I'll give you that.

 

[duffer]

Where does this myth England are so stacked in talent come from? England have very good strength in depth for wide forwards and right back. That's it. There is no notable depth elsewhere, and the depth in central defence and central midfield - the spine of the team - is flat out bad.

Right backs but that's the only area England are "stacked" in.

 

[Cheesy]

By all accounts he's a good man manager who instilled some belief in this generation of England players, but a relatively average tactician who'd probably struggle with the constant demands of club football.

He's pretty much done about as well as you'd have expected England to in each tournament where he's managed them when you look at the fixture lists they've had, which is more impressive than some previous managers who squandered good opportunities.

World Cup probably epitomised that. Solid group stage and last 16 performances, no real scares or failings, then narrowly knocked out by a team slightly better than them. Just about meeting expectations without doing much more.