It doesn't prove him right. That's such a simple minded way to look at it. this team is way too good to play a back 5, two DM's, and park the bus football. If Italy was too good for England and had 70% possession because of their dominance i would accept that. but they only had that much of the ball because Southgate's tactics allowed them to. As good as italy is (I picked them to make the finals), England has far better players. Sure, Southgate didn't play a "Paul Scholes" at LW like previous managers did, but that's not something to give him credit for (mind you, he did play Trippier at LB so there goes that theory), but he could have picked a much better starting 11 and stop playing favourites for 90 minutes every game when there are players on the bench who could possibly do better and create more chances...
Southgate doesn’t get the credit he deserves
- Thread starter FatTails
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I'm not sure i agree with the OG post i mean Southgate has been applauded just about everywhere he could be... HOWEVER, in the two single biggest games that we have had with him as our manager we have suffered the same fate in very similar circumstances. I'm talking about Italy and Croatia. We scored an early goal in both games (ironically both by full backs), however, we played the same way and crippled ourselves in exactly the same fashion both times. Not many people seem to have picked up on this.. but, it's true. If you remember Croatia in the World Cup Semi Final we did exactly the same thing. That's what is concerning me - it seems to be something that he either hasn't acknowledged or isn't able to stop and that is what is worrying me about being in similar position with Gareth as the manager in the future. I hope we can learn from this i really do. Personally think half the problem is playing two ball winning DCMs that aren't great on the ball but he loves to play that way...
In fairness England defended quite well with Philips and Rice winning plenty of possessions in midfield. It's just that Southgate failed to react to Italy's tactical switch which costed the game.
With the shite midfield options England have I've agreed with Southgate's approach up to the final, but yeah finals are there to be won, gotta go for it for longer than 90 seconds, he froze like Ole against Villrreal
If you look at the two benches, I think the difference is quite obvious. Anyway, we’re getting off topic. We’re all agreed that subs needed to be made last night.
It's more than justified to play on the counter. It's just that Southgate failed to react to Italy's tactical switch which costed the game.
I accept he's got a certain style, we are incredibly hard to beat - but I can't accept his unwillingness to make meaningful changes when it's not going our way, considering the depth of talent at his disposal.
I can sort of get it with Ole, because the United bench rarely has any real game changers. But Southgate had possibly top 3 players in England and Germany in Grealish and Sancho, the next coming of Messi (according to Pep) and atheltic strikers who would cause a nightmare for Bonucci/Chiellini
Mount stayed on the pitch far too long. And Saka must be dating Mia Southgate, because there's an obvious favoritism there.
I can sort of get it with Ole, because the United bench rarely has any real game changers. But Southgate had possibly top 3 players in England and Germany in Grealish and Sancho, the next coming of Messi (according to Pep) and atheltic strikers who would cause a nightmare for Bonucci/Chiellini
Mount stayed on the pitch far too long. And Saka must be dating Mia Southgate, because there's an obvious favoritism there.
Ole screwed up too but the difference is Ole didn't have Graelish, Sancho, Rashford, Bellingham, etc on the bench. Ole set out to attack and didn't have a bench to fall on when Plan A didn't work. Southgate set out to defend and had plenty of options for a Plan B but decided to double down and get even more negative.
How do you play on the counter with two forwards, one of which one is slow and play's like false #9, while your AM's presence (Mount) seems to be mostly for pressing purposes.
This thread is so pathetic , there is a bunch of people who dont like him and have been bashing him constantly throughout the competition and now that England finally went out on penalties they are out here telling us how they were right all along
I think it's pretty obvious that he made some mistakes but overall what he has done is very good and well beyond expectations. People tend to overrate England players and put down players playing in the other leagues. I think Italy had a really solid team who were coached well and yet they needed extra time + in 3/4 Knockout games . France were pre tournament favs but lost to Switzerland of all teams . Knockout tournament isn't as simple as let's play this 11 and we win the game . This country has not done shit feckall in ages and now suddenly this guy is being killed for a Euros final
I think it's pretty obvious that he made some mistakes but overall what he has done is very good and well beyond expectations. People tend to overrate England players and put down players playing in the other leagues. I think Italy had a really solid team who were coached well and yet they needed extra time + in 3/4 Knockout games . France were pre tournament favs but lost to Switzerland of all teams . Knockout tournament isn't as simple as let's play this 11 and we win the game . This country has not done shit feckall in ages and now suddenly this guy is being killed for a Euros final
The 2 minute goal is a pretty good demonstration. That said, Mount should never have started, or should have been taken off much earlier.
I think the main reason can be explained as follows;
imagine you have a wife and every 6 months you buy her a diamond. after 5 years you have a great collection of diamonds. your wife is a very sexy woman and naturally you want to parade her in front of all of her friends looking her best. However, instead, of wearing the shiny diamonds she puts those in her purse just in case and wears the ones she had already from before she met you which are not expensive or particularly shiny but do the job.
Not really. It was a brilliantly taken goal, but Italy were caught cold in the opening rather than be hit on the counter. They literally had 6 defenders in the box when they conceded. They just lost track of the run of Shaw.
Even if you classify it as a counter attack, England had another 130 minutes to perform something similar, as Italy pressed. If the counter attacking method worked with that personnel, then you'd think they'd manage more than 1 other (tame) shot on target during that whole period of over 2 hours of football. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of Southgate's counter attacking tactics.
Last edited:
Sack him and give it to Potter.
You may argue it is not a counter attacking goal, but it demonstrates how England set up to score. It works for 60 minutes of the game with England winning plenty of set pieces and there's a penalty shout from Sterling, until Italy starts to make tactical switches and Southgate fails to cope.
While I agree with the counter attacking approach, it doesn't mean I agree with the personnel on the pitch. Like I said, Mount should never have started, or should have been taken off much earlier. Other fresh legs should have been brought in to create more threats to the veteran CBs.
It is natural for any game really. Chelsea did it a lot when they beat City in the final.
Southgate deserves all the credit for turning Shaw into the player he has become.
If he learns from his mistakes then there could be a great future for England. If he doesn't then we will fall short in every tournament.
If you mean that it demonstrates how wingbacks in a 3-4-3 can be the extra man in attack and sneak in at the back to assist or score, then yes. But that's not counter-attacking football. If anything, it works equally or better against deep defenses.
I didn't find that England were set up to counter attack at all. They just set up to play like they did against Germany, same line up except Mount starting over Saka. It wasn't a counter-attacking set up there and it wasn't yesterday.
Once they scored though they abandoned any intent to attack and just defended hoping to see out the game. Just hitting long balls to Kane and hoping something breaks kindly.
EDIT: Counter attacking isn't hit and hope. It means fast players breaking from midfield and wings to join the attack. We didn't see any of that yesterday. And my point is, that this wasn't a line up to play counter attacking football. It had only one fast player with the ability to hit the Italians on the counter, Sterling. It was a team set up to overload the wings and create goals like they did against Germany. But after the goal, all ambition disappeared and it just became an attempt to cling on.
Last edited:
Their attacking options are complete garbage and once they have to bring somebody off they’re considerably weaker. Probably their best player in the tournament missed the last two games as well. Give Mancini the squad England had and it would not have gone as far as extra time. You should get an extra medal for winning something with Immobile as your starting striker.
Kinda nuts that England went unbeaten in the whole tournament and I'm still unhappy.
Portugal looked similar to England when they played with Danilo and Carvalho. Bypassing the midfield doesn't work most of the time against good opponents.
Not true at all . Immobile scored 20 goals in Serie a last season & 36 the season before that . Insigne scored 19 and he doesn't even play centrally . Chiesa has been sensational all tournament
I don't like his tactics. England works best with a 4-2-3-1. Kane should be receiving assists constantly, but he isn't.
England midfield is average.
I would take Verrati,Barella, and Jorginho over England's midfield anyday.
The only advantage England has is better attackers, that's it, and even in that area Italy had Chiesa.
You are overrating England talent...i don't rate Southgate at all, but England's midfield is below Spain,France,Germany, and Netherlands (if Van de Beek is fit).
Not sure even Harry has enough magic to win a trophy with this team.
Chiesa is a good player. The other two were complete garbage for 90% of the tournament.
It's overall pretty talented. Not much magic needed.
Insigne wasn't garbage.
I would agree. Which makes it all the more stupid that Southgate didn’t take advantage of the advantage England had. Especially given the fact that Italy’s two centre backs are going to struggle against pace. Playing in front of them played into their hands completely.
England’s midfield is average, but Van de Beek? Fit or not he wasn’t going to be playing for Holland and he wouldn’t play for England either.
Do you work for The Guardian?
Matter of opinion really, but his shots threatened the corner flag more often than they threatened a goalkeeper.
Guess you didn't get it!!
He’s spared Saka and thrown Rashford and Sancho under the bus, by not including them in his defence of those who missed pens. Absolute cock.