I feel the same way - though I don't think he's actually all that humble, I think he thinks quite highly of himself in reality.
My thoughts exactly. Watching boring football over 7 games to be able to say "ah well we made it to the semis or final", meh. Especially against "smaller" sides. But he always has the same gameplan, it's boring.
Except he's absolutely not attacking a 19yo player. You're being overly sensitive about a fair response to a dumb question.
Funnily enough, I think our best chance of a tournament win was '98. That side was pretty well balanced compared to other England teams. It was certainly better than 2002 and I think there is an argument that the starting XI was more balanced than 06; although the 06 side had more depth.
I didn't say that though, did I? I don't rate Southgate and do think he's a boring manager. I also don't think any other manager would've achieved more than him with this England team. It's really not all that.
I don't see him going even if we go out in the group. The FA love him regardless and he'll get another tournament purely because he made the semi in Russia and the final of the Euros. If the FA were forward thinking, which we know they aren't, Southgate would have got the boot after the Hungary mess.
Agree to disagree I guess.
100% wumming
Agreed! The minute Greece and Denmark came out of was clear as day.100% wumming
I don’t dislike Southgate, I don’t find him particularly offensive personally. Actually, in the Russia WC I thought he did an outstanding job with the squad at his disposal. He created great team spirit and his tactics suited a team that let’s not forget had JLingz as a starter.
It’s different now he has a host of players that play for elite sides which function by means of possession based control of games.
Comparisons with Ole are more than justified. Under qualified interim appointment gets full gig based on restoring positivity and confidence.Found success mainly by clogging up midfield with willing runner/destroyers and hitting trams with pace on the counter. Sticks with certain favourite players despite poor form and, unlike Utd, plenty of competition for places.. Lost a final, that he had a great shot at winning, with negative tactics and appalling use of substitutes. Plenty of parallels.
The idea England, or any nation for that matter, just stays at whatever level it is year in year put - became of what? Some sort of national genotypeor phenotype or something? - is absurd. It’s like arguing China is a poor country because historically it has been poor. You can’t compare like that across generations when teams change, structures change. Can’t remember Belgium being any good a couple of decades ago. Someone should tell them they’re not Belgium any more now they have good players. Maybe they can get a new name?
it’s the kind of idiot logic shouldn’t even warrant a response, but I’ve ended up biting now god dammit.
It may be idiot logic, but it's your own - what you've done here is construct a strawman to argue against. I don't think anyone have suggested that national teams have an unchanging quality. What is the case however is that the sort of unreasoning expectation level Southgate, and other England managers before him, is facing would only have been justified if England had a consistent record of major tournament success, which it doesn't.100% wumming
I don’t dislike Southgate, I don’t find him particularly offensive personally. Actually, in the Russia WC I thought he did an outstanding job with the squad at his disposal. He created great team spirit and his tactics suited a team that let’s not forget had JLingz as a starter.
It’s different now he has a host of players that play for elite sides which function by means of possession based control of games.
Comparisons with Ole are more than justified. Under qualified interim appointment gets full gig based on restoring positivity and confidence.Found success mainly by clogging up midfield with willing runner/destroyers and hitting trams with pace on the counter. Sticks with certain favourite players despite poor form and, unlike Utd, plenty of competition for places.. Lost a final, that he had a great shot at winning, with negative tactics and appalling use of substitutes. Plenty of parallels.
The idea England, or any nation for that matter, just stays at whatever level it is year in year put - became of what? Some sort of national genotypeor phenotype or something? - is absurd. It’s like arguing China is a poor country because historically it has been poor. You can’t compare like that across generations when teams change, structures change. Can’t remember Belgium being any good a couple of decades ago. Someone should tell them they’re not Belgium any more now they have good players. Maybe they can get a new name?
it’s the kind of idiot logic shouldn’t even warrant a response, but I’ve ended up biting now god dammit.
After watching it (only read it before), I think you're right. Fell into the confirmation bias, sorry!
No not really mate. The poster literally put three sentences together which typify England over entirely different generations with the summary 'This is England'. For a country with population the size of England's in addition to the amount of money that flows from the premier league and into the academies, yeah England should expect to do better in major tournaments. It's really not rocket science. Do you think shareholders would be happy with {fizer if they only made fecking calpol?
