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

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

From a clearly footballing perspective, Potter is the obvious choice between the two. Having said that, if Potter doesn't hit the ground running (or, at least, have a positive start), he won't stand a chance in this dressing room. The players will eat him alive, just like it happened at Chelsea. And God help him, if he can't find roles for some of them who know that their deals have made them unmoveable, therefore untouchable. Potter will need a lot of support from upstairs and i am not sure INEOS can provide it even if they want to (to the degree it may be needed).

That's probably when Southgate comes into the picture. With reports about cash/FFP issues and a new footballing structure trying to find ways to deal with the "sins" of the previous shot-callers, the hope would be that Southgate can replicate Solskjaer's tenure: Steady the ship and keep the players happy by catering to their desires without complaining about a single thing. Play a simple game of transitions and cross your fingers it will be enough to get top-four (or five occasionally) until INEOS figure it out.

Given that they aren't similar from a tactical perspective, them being the frontrunners (according to the bookies) might be an indication that INEOS aren't sure yet about the way forward.

 

[Ayoba]

Potter.

Now, I cry.

 

[Cessna]

From a clearly footballing perspective, Potter is the obvious choice between the two. Having said that, if Potter doesn't hit the ground running (or, at least, have a positive start), he won't stand a chance in this dressing room. The players will eat him alive, just like it happened at Chelsea. And God help him, if he can't find roles for some of them who know that their deals have made them unmoveable, therefore untouchable. Potter will need a lot of support from upstairs and i am not sure INEOS can provide it even if they want to (to the degree it may be needed).

That's probably when Southgate comes into the picture. With reports about cash/FFP issues and a new footballing structure trying to find ways to deal with the "sins" of the previous shot-callers, the hope would be that Southgate can replicate Solskjaer's tenure: Steady the ship and keep the players happy by catering to their desires without complaining about a single thing. Play a simple game of transitions and cross your fingers it will be enough to get top-four (or five occasionally) until INEOS figure it out.

Given that they aren't similar from a tactical perspective, them being the frontrunners (according to the bookies) might be an indication that INEOS aren't sure yet about the way forward.

So first one, then the other aka both?

 

[TrailMonkey]

As said above, Potter played attractive football at Brighton but they didn't score goals. Would he have done better with a Toney or Mitrovic type player up front? Possibly. Hard to take many positives from his time at Chelsea. And he's sat on his arse since then.

Southgate, for all his faults in being risk averse, has had England playing decent football at times. Alright, we've been lucky to have easier paths through tournaments and we've come up short in big games against solid opposition. However, had Kane scored that pen we probably would've knocked out France - whom we outplayed - and maybe gone all the way. A real sliding doors moment.

Potter would be risky IMO. Not sure his CV will help him shape the team and deal with egos. He really shouldn't be a leading candidate for our club.

Southgate would be more conservative, and I think his man management skills would see positive changes around the club. Would we challenged for the title with decent recruitment? Don't know. I'd rather have him than Potter though.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Of those two, definitely Potter.

But I'd rather we give ETH another season than either of those two.

 

[Havak]

Potter for sure if it had to be from those two - but I don't think either ever leads a team to a Premier League title. So, it isn't good enough.

 

[Jev]

Potter. I don’t think he’s a bad option either, and don’t get why so many of you think he is.

 

[Scanny]

Of those two, definitely Potter.

But I'd rather we give ETH another season than either of those two.

Agreed. I really want to see another season under ETH without the injury plague of this season.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

So first one, then the other aka both?

Something like that. Potter gets the gig, but our form doesn't really pick up from this season's mess and just before Christmas (European Champion Sir) Southgate arrives at OT to save our season and INEOS get praised for their hand on approach. Tell me you can't see it happening.

 

[davidmichael]

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

So I guess by that equation you’re also Ten Hag in based on reaching quarter finals and semi finals ? Do you know what Southgate’s record against top 10 teams ? It’s played 27, won 7 and lost 11 with 9 draws which is about 25% and before you say this England team isn’t what it once was nor is any team.

There’s a reason why Southgate wasn’t even considered for the job until he came in as caretaker, Sam fecking Allardyce was seen as a better option. He did nothing at club level and has done bare minimum at international level.

 

[Crimson King]

Potter. I don’t think he’s a bad option either, and don’t get why so many of you think he is.

It would just be a waste of time. If you have accepted the idea that EtH isn't the person to make us successful again then that's fair enough, but replacing him with Potter is just replacing that guy with someone else who won't be good enough.

Keeping EtH is just allowing time to pass, but then so is replacing him with Potter. Might as well save your money and the unnecessary upheaval, accept where you are and focus on everything behind the scenes, plus recruiting the right players for whomever might eventually be the guy to bring success again.

 

[Jev]

It would just be a waste of time. If you have accepted the idea that EtH isn't the person to make us successful again then that's fair enough, but replacing him with Potter is just replacing that guy with someone else who won't be good enough.

Keeping EtH is just allowing time to pass, but then so is replacing him with Potter. Might as well save your money and the unnecessary upheaval, accept where you are and focus on everything behind the scenes, plus recruiting the right players for whomever might eventually be the guy to bring success again.

You are just stating your opinions as facts without any arguments.

 

[Fr. Todd Unctious]

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

He hasn't been linked with Liverpool at all is the biggest giveaway about him

 

[Patchbeard]

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.

I get that on paper

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.

I've just looked back over England's actual results at the last 3 major competitions as my hazy memory was the same as that other poster that we have been very lucky with the draw in each major competition and then just come unstuck against the first top nation we've played.

World Cup 2018 I don't think anyone argue against it being a very fortuitous run to the semi-final before failing to capitalise on a great start in a game where we were favourites on paper.

Euro 2020 it was a very uninspiring group stage with narrow wins and a draw against Scotland, and then my main memory of the knockouts was of struggling to get past Denmark and then again failing to capitalise on an early lead in the final.

But to be fair to Southgate I had forgotten about the beating Germany 2-0 and then smashing Ukraine 4-0 (albeit not a top nation but an impressive result) in the 2nd round and QF, so looking back I do remember being very positive ahead of the SF and final which is maybe why the performances in those games seem worse than they actually were.

And then WC 2022/23 we were actually looking pretty great, and played pretty well against France in a game that really could have gone either way.

So all in all, if he had a bit more fortune in the final against Italy and QF against France he would be held in such different esteem. Maybe it's the uninspiring performances in those defeats that leaves a slight sour memory for a lot of England fans which then overrides some of the more impressive performances prior in the last two tournaments.

England probably could have done with some fresh impetus after that and unless we win the next Euros his tenure will be labelled as a failure by a lot of people even though he's done fairly well. A bit like Ole with us really, fine margins in knock out games.

Anyway, regardless of how he's done alright with England, Potter any day over him for us. Southgate has done nothing to suggest he would be a better club manager than Potter.

 

[justsomebloke]

Ok mate. Southgate is a miracle worker.

Ah, there comes that one, as reliable as clockwork - "if you don't believe in my ridiculous absolute, then you must believe in the opposite ridiculous absolute".

No he isn't. But he's obviously a competent manager.

 

[padzilla]

There's nothing to suggest Southgate would have more success than Potter.

International football is a totally different kettle of fish than the day to day running of a club.

Look at Scolari when he went to Chelsea, and also Potter - but at least he had the success with Brighton and showed that under the right set-up he can flourish.

I would not be enthusiastic about either to be honest, it's a pretty depressing choice, but when opposing supporters are gleefully hoping we appoint Southgate then you know it's perhaps not the right move.

 

[Paul778]

Southgate teams are dull as hell. He is at risk of wasting yet another very strong england squad.

I cannot imagine a Southgate team playing the utd way

 

[tomaldinho1]

Which nutter picks Southgate in this match up? He's dreadful.

 

[Smores]

I don’t think any of us are capable of judging whether a manager will be a success if we're honest.

All we can do is say which styles of play we don't want to see. For me Southgate plays terribly boring football so i have no desire to see him here. Potter has managed a team playing good football so happy to roll the dice and see how he does.

 

[BorisManUtd]

Potter.

 

[harms]

Southgate, obviously. Bringing Henderson in will solve our captaincy issue.

 

[pocco]

Since this place was keen to hire Ole permenantly, then went crazy for Ten Hag, I think everyone needs to be open to options that they wouldn't choose. Basically, we've been wrong too many times, time to trust the club in their next appointment.

 

[stu_1992]

I can't imagine you'd find more than a handful of people who'd choose Southgate over Potter, and those are probably just Southgate himself and his alt accounts.

Uninspiring choices, but Potter over Southgate. It's not even a contest.

 

[UpWithRivers]

The same people who say no Southgate will refuse to sack him after he gets fourth and a minor cup playing boring sht football. And the players will fkn love him.

 

[Fully Fledged]

None of the above.

 

[bond19821982]

ETH.

 

[PoTMS]

Ah, there comes that one, as reliable as clockwork - "if you don't believe in my ridiculous absolute, then you must believe in the opposite ridiculous absolute".

No he isn't. But he's obviously a competent manager.

He isn't. But carry on.

 

[pocco]

ETH.

Wouldn't that just be the definition of insanity?

 

[Lee565]

Clearly potter, with southgate we will be stuck with Maguire as first choice for the next 5 years

 

[MancunianAngels]

It would just be a waste of time. If you have accepted the idea that EtH isn't the person to make us successful again then that's fair enough, but replacing him with Potter is just replacing that guy with someone else who won't be good enough.

Keeping EtH is just allowing time to pass, but then so is replacing him with Potter. Might as well save your money and the unnecessary upheaval, accept where you are and focus on everything behind the scenes, plus recruiting the right players for whomever might eventually be the guy to bring success again.

This would be my next step. On the proviso ttheres a wider long term plan being developed especially with regards to player recruitment.

 

[SteveCoppellFan]

This is a silly question.

Southgate would lose out vrs virtually any manager option.

The only manager Southgate would probably beat in a poll would be Steven Gerrard and any other ex Liverpool player.

 

[Insanity]

McKenna.

If the choice is only the two mentioned in the OP, then Potter, begrudgingly.

 

[hobbers]

This is a silly question.

Southgate would lose out vrs virtually any manager option.

The only manager Southgate would probably beat in a poll would be Steven Gerrard and any other ex Liverpool player.

Worst 4 manager options in order of preference

1. Bodgers
2. Lampard
3. Gerrard
4. Southgate

 

[thisisnottaken1]

If we had to pick between the two it’d be Potter; but I’d rather it be neither. It’s like choosing between eating shit or eating vomit.

 

[Cloud7]

Potter. I don’t think any manager could have walked into that situation at Chelsea and been a success. I also thought his work at Brighton was quite good.

 

[Ghirahim]

Neither if I were a United fan.

 

[adexkola]

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

It's crazy to us non-England fans.

But anyways, Potter

 

[Woziak]

One word;
“Neither!”

 

[Revan]

Potter easily. Southgate is one of the very few big-name managers, that I would prefer keeping EtH instead of replacing with Southgate.

Southgate's England has been as boring as Mourinho's teams but without the winning factor.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Obviously Potter but I would still be disappointed if we hire him when we could potentially get Nagelsmann. I would prefer De Zerbi to Potter too.