England

[ponsaelius]

Southgate is the ultimate example of victim of his own success like. 

 

[Fantail Breeze]

3 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

We have a cracking set of right backs, and a truly world class striker. Foden's getting there and Sterling's hit form under Southgate. Beyond that, making a case for the likes of Pickford, Stones, Maguire, Rice, Phillips as being equal or better than their equivalents across the other teams out there is a huge stretch.

 

 

 

 

Their equivalents across other teams isn’t particularly fair though - have we ever had a team of players as good as this?

 

Comparing Pickford to David Seaman and Maguire to Terry Butcher isn’t the point. Individually we may have had better players, but this is the best team with the best options.

 

The England team pretty much used to pick itself. There are so many options now.

[Fantail Breeze]

2 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

Southgate is the ultimate example of victim of his own success like. 

 

 

Southgate has been as successful as Tottenham, who are constantly widely ridiculed for not being successful.

[Hanshithispantz]

5 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Was that the famous social media effort where he was actually offside?

 

Read a match report from the game, we started brightly, scored a goal and then completely faded. It was pretty much one way traffic from then on in.

 

It was a very similar performance to the Italy one. He didn’t learn much from that.

 

 

Extended highlights here. Not sure how that could be described as 'one way traffic' like. It was a decent game. Croatia are hardly minnows either.

 

[ilikenewcastle]

4 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

“Italian side on the back foot until they suddenly gained a foothold in the closing phase of the first half. 

Italy dominated possession, and it was no surprise when they restored parity, then looking the more likely winners as Southgate's side, so full of running early on, started to labour“

 

Our own media are willing to accept Italy were miles the better team, why can’t you? We were battered in the sense that we didn’t have the football, didn’t create chances and provided fuck all.

 

As I said earlier, almost identical to the Croatia game which he clearly took a lot of learning from.

We were disappointing, and I am as frustrated with the manner of our defeats to Croatia and Italy as anyone else. However, I simply believe you're exaggerating how bad we were in both games. Italy were never going to score a second if we played another week, their goal was scrappy as anything. I think the whole team/coaches shat themselves when we were on the brink of glory - Southgate has to avoid that this time or he should go. 

[ilikenewcastle]

1 minute ago, Hanshithispantz said:

 

 

Extended highlights here. Not sure how that could be described as 'one way traffic' like. It was a decent game. Croatia are hardly minnows either.

 

Croatia were at least as good as us on paper in 2018 and certainly far more experienced. Our squad was never capable of winning that WC.

[Kid Icarus]

7 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Their equivalents across other teams isn’t particularly fair though - have we ever had a team of players as good as this?

 

Comparing Pickford to David Seaman and Maguire to Terry Butcher isn’t the point. Individually we may have had better players, but this is the best team with the best options.

 

The England team pretty much used to pick itself. There are so many options now.

 

I wonder why that might be? Could it be down to the person responsible with turning a set of individuals into a team?

 

As for the rest, definitely not. Whether the England team picked itself or not there are countless players who couldn't get in previous teams or squads who would walk into this team, particularly in goal, central defence, and central midfield. So many strikers that would be just behind Kane in the pecking order or playing alongside him as well.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Kid Icarus

[WillingtonMag]

1 minute ago, ilikenewcastle said:

We were disappointing, and I am as frustrated with the manner of our defeats to Croatia and Italy as anyone else. However, I simply believe you're exaggerating how bad we were in both games. Italy were never going to score a second if we played another week, their goal was scrappy as anything. I think the whole team/coaches shat themselves when we were on the brink of glory - Southgate has to avoid that this time or he should go. 

They did which isn't good enough, i think that's a mentality that can't be changed. 

[Kid Icarus]

11 minutes ago, WillingtonMag said:

Who had better? France would be the only argument I think?

 

France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Croatia, Portugal, probably Spain despite having no striker.

[ponsaelius]

I'm really not sure who England are supposed to appoint instead. It's not like there is a long line of top class English managers who have won loads at club level waiting to be appointed as is the case for the likes of Italy, Germany, Spain or France.

 

In lieu of the above you are best having somebody already on the inside, who already knows the whole FA set up from top to bottom, understands the country's culture intuitively and is good at handling the press.

 

England have in the past, with very strong squads, appointed top class club managers who have performed infinitely worse than Southgate has. All their experience and tactical nouse counted for very little in the England job. Managing a national team is such a different job.

 

My only criticism of Southgate is that he's a bit negative. But negative teams win tournaments - even the best sides revert to it late in tournaments.

 

[WillingtonMag]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

 

France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Croatia, Portugal, probably Spain despite having no striker.

And you were laughing at me ?. 

[Fantail Breeze]

4 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

 

 

Extended highlights here. Not sure how that could be described as 'one way traffic' like. It was a decent game. Croatia are hardly minnows either.

 

 

Croatia created three or four really good chances (scoring from one) and we had shots from 30 yards out.

 

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I wonder why that might be? Could it be down to the person responsible with turning a set of individuals into a team?

 

As for the rest, definitely not. Whether the England team picked itself or not there are countless players who couldn't get in previous teams or squads who would walk into this team, particularly in goal, central defence, and central midfield. So many strikers that would be just behind Kane in the pecking order or playing alongside him as well.

 

 

 

 

He hasn’t though, that’s the whole point. We’re playing dullard football and not using those individuals in the right way. 
 

I’m saying this is our best collection of individuals making a team, but the performance and success they have had hasn’t been as good as it could be - because of the very obvious limitations on the sideline.

 

So you agree the previous England teams pretty much picked themselves but there is one of two players from several generations that’d get into this one. Makes no sense as a counter point.

 

In 2010 we took Peter Crouch and Emile fucking Heskey to a World Cup  We’re now taking players like Rashford, Sancho, Saka to sit on the bench.

[ilikenewcastle]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Croatia, Portugal, probably Spain despite having no striker.

Cannot agree with this at all. Our squad was superior to most of those and I think most people from Portugal, Germany, Croatia, Spain and probably even Italy would agree,

[ponsaelius]

Reaching a World Cup semi final and the final of the Euros for the first time ever is extremely successful for an England manager. It's utter nonsense to suggest otherwise.

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, ponsaelius said:

I'm really not sure who England are supposed to appoint instead. It's not like there is a long line of top class English managers who have won loads at club level waiting to be appointed as is the case for the likes of Italy, Germany, Spain or France.

 

In lieu of the above you are best having somebody already on the inside, who already knows the whole FA set up from top to bottom, understands the country's culture intuitively and is good at handling the press.

 

England have in the past, with very strong squads, appointed top class club managers who have performed infinitely worse than Southgate has. All their experience and tactical nouse counted for very little in the England job. Managing a national team is such a different job.

 

My only criticism of Southgate is that he's a bit negative. But negative teams win tournaments - even the best sides revert to it late in tournaments.

 

 

This is the only issue, imo. We’d have to appoint a foreign manager if we wanted a decent one and that’d do nothing for the Brexiters in the stands or the media.

[ilikenewcastle]

Just now, ponsaelius said:

Reaching a World Cup semi final and the final of the Euros for the first time ever is extremely successful for an England manager. It's utter nonsense to suggest otherwise.

Exactly (and this is true even without the context of how shocking we had performed prior to 2018).

[ponsaelius]

Appointing a foreign manager hasn't worked in the past. It's not jingoistic to suggest that it usually doesn't work very well. 

 

Club managers can spend every single day on the training ground moulding a team to play the way they want, they can go out and sign players to fit a system or an ideology or mentality. Nationality barely matters in that context - particularly in the PL where the squads are so multinational.

 

It's plainly different at national team level. Your squad is monocultural, monolingual - and in the case now will have all come through the same footballing system at youth level. There isn't scope for a manager to come in with a grand tactical plan and pull up trees. You have to deal with what you've got, put a tactical system in place with limited time on the training pitch, foster a good team spirit, and keep the press at bay. As manager in this context you're basically just a placeholder to facilitate  the wider system. 

 

Southgate is an average coach tactically but he's self evidently brilliant at all of the above that is required to be England manager. I can't understand the clamour to replace him because 1. there really isn't any superior candidate screaming to come in and 2. because he's the most successful England manager since Alf Ramsey.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I’m not sure how ‘good’ a national manager can be TBH. It’s a weird kind of job.  

[Smal]

 

I'm pretty sure 90% of the tactics come from Steve Holland, not Southgate. The ideas behind the tactical approach are sound.

 

You could see it yesterday. We were trying to play like Conte's Chelsea did with constant switches of play to try and outnumber their full backs. It just didn't work. Primarily I would say because we aren't coached well enough, but also because Harry Maguire and Conor Coady are trash and very slow with the ball, Jarrod Bowen looked like he'd never played for England before (who knew), Declan Rice seemed to want to play in defence most of the game and James Justin and Mason Mount playing on the same side as two right-footers makes no sense. Kane also maybe drifts too much to the extent that he doesn't occupy the centre back enough.

 

It makes far more sense to judge England when they're at full strength though, like when they're in tournament football. They've done pretty well there. 

 

edit: I mean look at this. Maguire is so bad with the ball that Rice basically decided he had to come and take the ball off him.

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Smal

[Yorkie]

I think Southgate's replacement ideally would come from within, as was the case with Southgate himself. After decades of seemingly not doing so, the current regime has fostered a culture from which success can actually emerge (that being Southgate's biggest achievement). Replacing arguably the most influential individual in creating that environment with X club manager - just because he's more adept tactically - would be a problematic and unnecessary shift imo, which would serve only to unsettle things.

 

That being said, it is going to come at some point (the need to change the manager), so it's definitely something they need to be planning for. But as of right now he's still the most appropriate person to be going into the WC as manager. 

[Kid Icarus]

41 minutes ago, WillingtonMag said:

And you were laughing at me ?. 

Yes

[Hanshithispantz]

47 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Croatia created three or four really good chances (scoring from one) and we had shots from 30 yards out.

 

 

He hasn’t though, that’s the whole point. We’re playing dullard football and not using those individuals in the right way. 
 

I’m saying this is our best collection of individuals making a team, but the performance and success they have had hasn’t been as good as it could be - because of the very obvious limitations on the sideline.

 

So you agree the previous England teams pretty much picked themselves but there is one of two players from several generations that’d get into this one. Makes no sense as a counter point.

 

In 2010 we took Peter Crouch and Emile fucking Heskey to a World Cup  We’re now taking players like Rashford, Sancho, Saka to sit on the bench.

So just completely ignoring our own chances then, nee botha 

 

We were fucked in extra time (hence the Croatians being weird after the game) but up until they scored the 2nd it was a decent game.

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Croatia created three or four really good chances (scoring from one) and we had shots from 30 yards out.

 

 

He hasn’t though, that’s the whole point. We’re playing dullard football and not using those individuals in the right way. 
 

I’m saying this is our best collection of individuals making a team, but the performance and success they have had hasn’t been as good as it could be - because of the very obvious limitations on the sideline.

 

So you agree the previous England teams pretty much picked themselves but there is one of two players from several generations that’d get into this one. Makes no sense as a counter point.

 

In 2010 we took Peter Crouch and Emile fucking Heskey to a World Cup  We’re now taking players like Rashford, Sancho, Saka to sit on the bench.

 

So what I originally thought, which is just absolutely crackers. It's not 1 or 2 players, it's the full spine of the team minus Kane that would miss out to players from more or less every tournament in my lifetime. Even then Kane misses out to 96 Shearer and 86/90 Lineker.

 

In 2010 we also started Gerrard, Lampard, Ashley Cole, John Terry, Wayne Rooney, and had Michael Carrick and Jermaine Defoe on the bench. The argument just doesn't make sense, particularly as Saka and Rashford are regular starters too.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Kid Icarus

[The Prophet]

The England team has loads of talent at full back and attacking midfield, but they're lacking in too many key positions to be considered one of the best about.

[Mattoon]

It's a tough argument, I can see both sides tbh, Southgate is very rigid and lacks in game intelligence, most pertinently in the Euro final. Having said that, you can't ignore the fact he got to the Euro final, nor the World Cup semi final. He has also completely changed the ethos of the England set up which in itself has brought better long term results. He has more than earned a shot at this World Cup. His pragmatic approach can be very frustrating, especially with the attacking talent at his disposal, last night was testament to that frustration, but it's also what wins you silverware and probably why he wants us to master a certain way of playing.

 

The major problem is who do you replace him with realistically?