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

[altodevil]

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.

 

[Nick7]

Potter by a massive distance. I don’t hold his time at Chelsea against him looking at what’s come after.

 

[Beachryan]

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.

 

[izec]

Neither.

One choice between them, Potter obviously.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Potter obviously.

I don't think anyone would pick Southgate?

 

[Strangest Tribe]

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.

 

[M Bison]

Potter wouldnt be the end of the world, I think he'd fail but as with every manager post SAF, its symptom not cause.

 

[Kostov]

Southgate is a no go. I'd take Rafa Benitez over him.

 

[manichester]

Brain Potter for me resurrected the Phoenix twice, has huge experience of fire sales and doesn't suffer fools NEXT!

 

[Scandi Red]

If memes were allowed in the football forum then I'd post "Best Cry Ever" from YouTube.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

The club would chew up and spit out both of them but if I had to pick - Potter.

 

[VP89]

No brainier out of the two - Potter.

 

[Andy_Cole]

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.

 

[Berbaclass]

Potter without any doubt.

 

[PoTMS]

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.

 

[youngrell]

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.

 

[AngeloHenriquez]

Death

 

[Marcus]

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.

 

[Oldyella]

Death

Cake.

Potter obviously. Would worry about anyone going for Southgate.

 

[davidmichael]

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.

 

[Remember the geese]

I'd rather have Southgate shit in my eyes and let Potter lick it up than have either of these manage us.

 

[Dec9003]

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.

 

[Cessna]

This would be an interesting poll, just add "Bring back Moyes"

 

[Kaos]

I'd rather have Southgate shit in my eyes and let Potter lick it up than have either of these manage us.

Thank you for that image

 

[Robbie Boy]

Neither, obviously.

 

[sugar_kane]

I'd rather have David Moyes than Southgate.

 

[justsomebloke]

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).

 

[justsomebloke]

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.

Nothing? The best tournament record of any England manager before or after Alf Ramsey is "nothing"? You people.

 

[Telsim]

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.

 

[PoTMS]

Nothing? The best tournament record of any England manager before or after Alf Ramsey is "nothing"? You people.

Buddy, me and you could've done that and we'd also be called the best England managers since 1966.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

Potter couldn't get Brighton to score goals. Imagine him with Antony.

 

[pocco]

Potter, comfortably.

I think he's a good manager and was impressed by what he had done up until Chelsea. And I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with Chelsea due to the crazy circumstances surrounding them at that time.

 

[pocco]

Potter couldn't get Brighton to score goals. Imagine him with Antony.

You have to remember that they were largely relying on Maupay, not a consistent goalscorer by any stetch. But they did create a lot of chances, which at least implies that the system was working.

 

[justsomebloke]

Buddy, me and you could've done that and we'd also be called the best England managers since 1966.

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.

 

[PoTMS]

That's absolutely ridiculous.

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.

 

[Steve 007]

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.

 

[justsomebloke]

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.

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.

 

[LInkash]

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.

I see what you did there.

 

[Baneofthegame]

Potter, easily.

 

[PoTMS]

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.

Ok mate. Southgate is a miracle worker.