This is what Southgate played for

[croadyman]

England clearly aren't able to produce the quality of midfielder needed to control games against the best teams, therefore you need to have a manager who is capable of making the changes when things are going against the team and he hasn't got it in him to do that

 

[lex talionis]

From the 15th minute, he instructed his team to play on the back foot. From the moment Italy scored Southgate set up his team to take them to pens... against an absolute mammoth in goal.

Italy looked terrified at the beginning of the game. England has the best attacking options in the world, and he decided to nullify that at every opportunity. This is all entirely on Southgate. He's got away from it from the off. The quality of the team has mitigated Southgate's negativeness.

He has to go.

Southgate undeniably had England playing on the back for after the early goal. He should have put the boot on the throat of the opposition while they we were still stunned but because he didn't victory was not only not his, it would not have been deserved had he won the pk shootout.

But having to go is a different matter altogether. He can claim success that exceeded all expectations, even if it's true no trophy was brought "home". I'd stick with Southgate, if for no other reason than there is no other realistic option. England wouldn't dare, surely, even think of Mourinho, Wenger, Howe, Allardyce, Parker or Dyche.

So to whom does England turn if the FA decide to sack a manager who brought England within touching distance of both a World Cup and Euro cups?

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Southgate undeniably had England playing on the back for after the early goal. He should have put the boot on the throat of the opposition while they we were still stunned but because he didn't victory was not only not his, it would not have been deserved had he won the pk shootout.

But having to go is a different matter altogether. He can claim success that exceeded all expectations, even if it's true no trophy was brought "home". I'd stick with Southgate, if for no other reason than there is no other realistic option. England wouldn't dare, surely, even think of Mourinho, Wenger, Howe, Allardyce, Parker or Dyche.

So to whom does England turn if the FA decide to sack a manager who brought England within touching distance of both a World Cup and Euro cups?

Ship sailed a long time ago on coaches like those and one has retired. Wenger always stated that the national manager should be from that country anyway.

It's a good point however and like so many of the top countries it appears to be a poisoned chalice. No one wants it but everyone knows who should be in charge and how the national team should play. The FA knew what Southgate was about and he can't shoulder all the blame if he lives up to his philosophy

 

[MUFC OK]

England had the dream start and for some reason stopped playing after 15 mins. It was there for them to go and score a second and third. The negative tactics and inviting pressure ultimately cost us. Biggest chance England will get in our lifetime - and they weren’t brave enough.

 

[ivaldo]

Ship sailed a long time ago on coaches like those and one has retired. Wenger always stated that the national manager should be from that country anyway.

It's a good point however and like so many of the top countries it appears to be a poisoned chalice. No one wants it but everyone knows who should be in charge and how the national team should play. The FA knew what Southgate was about and he can't shoulder all the blame if he lives up to his philosophy

A cursory look at the squad should tell us how England should play. Best attacking options in Europe and he decides to go ultra defensive. His decisions had absolutely nothing to do with what he had available to him, but a preconceived notion of how teams win tournaments. The irony is his passive, negative football was soundly beaten in the final by a team that played expressive, attacking football for much of the tournament. Imagine what could've happened if he allowed Sterling, Rashford, Kane, Grealish, Sancho, Saka and Mount to play with a little more freedom? It was all summed up for me from the first game of the tournament where he inexplicably decided to drop arguably the best leftback in the world for a rightback because he wanted experience. The longer the tournament went on, the more ridiculous that decision became, and the more he appeared to be way out of his depth.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

We were way too standoffish way too early. We were holding on from the 10th minute onwards. Not sure why.

 

[BluesJr]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[#07]

He's been tremendously lucky with 2 very open halves of the draw in 2 consecutive tournaments making getting to the latter stages relatively easy if you do the things Southgate is good at organising. Keep it tight at the back etc. But to win a tournament you also need to have the ability to take a risk and go for it, whether that is for a brief period in a game or for when you see your opponent flagging.

Everyone could see Italy in the ascendancy for 10 minutes before they scored as Chiesa moved positions. England did nothing. Then they get a break as Chiesa gets injured and goes off - the Italian team is disjointed and actually arguing with each other about taking shots from long range. Southgate puts on a 19 year old who faded rapidly in the last game and who proceeds to run around the pitch, trying to get involved, but consistently loses possession.

Now I can excuse making a mistake once...he would have hoped for Saka to be more effective, but he doesn't press home and try and win the game. Given Italy had dominated possession so much I don't understand why he felt England would have more energy than Italy in Extra time.

However Southgate is Lucky again - Italy for some reason seem to just sit back and play for penalties. So Gareth is surely going to go for it with an attacking substitutions...no he just brings on Grealish for Mount...leaving an exhausted Kane and Sterling on the pitch. So bring on a creative passer...but deny him any fresh legs to pass to other than the young guy who is off form.

if he had put on 3 subs - Grealish, Sancho and rashford....can you imagine the panic that would have created in the Italian defence! - they would have scored and won the game - and - if not - would have been warmed up enough to take penalties properly.

At the next World cup if Southgate is in charge we will fail hard unless he gets lucky with the draw once again. I think his actions will mean some players have lost their confidence in him for making such basic errors. We will get a tougher draw and get turfed out early and another generation of skilful players will have been wasted by another FA stuffed shirt in a suit.

All true.

The refusal of the media to scrutinize his decisions is bizarre. It's like we are in North Korea and everyone is expected to pretend the dear leader never errs.

As you say, if we end up on the tough part of the draw at Qatar 2022 we will be burned. Southgate was a mid level player and he is a Middlesbrough level manager. He doesn't know how to do more than what we are seeing.

 

[Theonas]

England had a very good tournament. I don't see any reason to be overly harsh on Southgate, but yeah, you want to - now that a solid foundation has been built - start expanding your horizons. To win a tournament with a midfield of Rice, Mount and that Leeds fellow would have been something, but that's not enough quality in a key area of the pitch. Given the semi final finish and now the runner up finish, it's the perfect time to try to make a progressive shift so that you can genuinely look to dominate the better sides. The main challenge will be that you don't really have great CMs coming through.

The CM is indeed an interesting one. The profile of players England produce has really changed over the years but central midfielders who have the guile and control still seems elusive. Traditionally, central midfielders from Britain were mostly either attacking or box to box and physically dominant. It is really difficult to control these big games nowadays with these types of midfielders. Even we did struggle to dominate the best European sides with the best version of that type of players in Keane, Butt and Scholes. The same could be said of Arsenal in Europe with Vieira.

However you think of what Klopp could achieve with the likes of Milner, Henderson and Wijnaldum who are hardly master technicians and maybe high quality coaching can get you around that particular limitation.

Wrt to this game, it's not just the soaking up pressure tactic, it's the inability to be a threat while doing that. France won the WC by playing a pragmatic style of football but once they get the ball they hit you with speed, technique and efficiency. They got some big luck against Croatia for sure, but you always felt they could hurt their opponents. England, after taking the lead, basically became toothless in attack. You shouldn't just sit back, it has to be a combination of absorbing pressure and some quality moments on the break that scare your opponents.

I don't think France could have pulled that without Mbappé who is to me, better than any attacker England has. It's not a surprise that when he struggled, France struggled. That's the problem with this way of playing, it is too reliant on that special quality. In fact, I'd say that overall, Mbappé is the type of player who can genuinely be the difference between first and second.

 

[fergies coat]

You could see where the game was going after 25 minutes. He should of been brave at half time and switched to a back 4, and brought Sancho and Grealish on. Sterling had a great tournament, but he must of been knackered he play virtually every minute.