Does anybody get the Southgate criticism…

*I know some people are going to argue that teams like Ukraine, Germany and Denmark were good teams but they weren't. None of them were even considered as potential tournament winners and we had the massive advantage of playing at home.
of course they were. Certainly Denmark were a very good team playing very well even without Eriksson. We've also beaten Croatia in tournament football who we've already established were a great side.

Germany had some good individuals but weren't a great team agreed, a 30+ game unbeaten and on fire Italy we drew, France really it was some awful refereeing that cost us that game, we didn't bottle it, we didn't get out thought or out fought, we were blow for blow with them.

To be honest we were equal to Italy in the Euro final. We started off well, they changed it up and came back into it. we changed it up and both sides sort of negated each others threat, of course they needed to do it through the dark arts of grabbing, pulling and tripping any breaking player.
 
He has a great record in qualifying and it is obviously something we struggled with before. Not sure why because we have always been expected to qualify comfortably so I presume it is down to poor management at the time. In tournaments again he has got us through group stages where we would expect to progress and then we've been beaten by the first real challenge we have faced*. Luckily for him that was very late in tournaments until Qatar. Would he have such positive reviews if we had been knocked out by Croatia and Italy in the first knock-out rounds instead of the semi/final, of course he wouldn't. Personally I just don't think we will win anything with Southgate as manager (despite us having the players to do it) so it depends what you want. Are we happy with always doing well but never winning or would you prefer to win something?

I am a big fan of Southgate as a person and I certainly wouldn't ever say he deserves sacking but I don't think he is the manager to take us to the pinnacle. He consistently meets expectations which is definitely not a sackable offence but I just can't envision him ever exceeding expectations. If/when he leaves England I don't think he will be a success at club level either.

*I know some people are going to argue that teams like Ukraine, Germany and Denmark were good teams but they weren't. None of them were even considered as potential tournament winners and we had the massive advantage of playing at home.
This whole beaten by the first challenge we face thing could just go on forever until we win a tournament though couldn't it? You get to the quarters/semis/final and you're likely to be in a tight game that could go either way. The thing is though, teams you mention, Germany, Denmark, would've been considered a challenge if Southgate hadn't turned us into a good side. Who would fall into the category now in the Euros of being a challenge? Just France? Because they're the only team arguably better than us. Presumably not Italy, because we''ve just beaten them.
We clearly stepped up the the challenge vs France, and were probably the better side, it was just one of those things. At some point the team needs vieweing in isolation and not with the judgements of past history piled on.
 
Kane is a top class striker. He's proven that in the PL over years. His international record is very good as well but I saw the below which, while a bit harsh, shows what International football records are worth. Most games are massive mismatches and it's like letting a top PL team enter the FA Cup at the qualifying round.

I don't think the way England use Kane in big games is the most effective. He drops too deep and he doesn't get into position to do what he does best which is scoring goals. I think that is the major reason we struggle against the best teams.

View attachment 55313
That's all very well but i'd suggest he's overlooking the fact that many of those 18 penalties will have been against the teams he's mentioned. So i'm not sure why he's adding the two figures. Either through not being very bright, or to deliberately mislead. Both are possible since he's attempting to discredit the quality of Kane
 
of course they were. Certainly Denmark were a very good team playing very well even without Eriksson. We've also beaten Croatia in tournament football who we've already established were a great side.

Germany had some good individuals but weren't a great team agreed, a 30+ game unbeaten and on fire Italy we drew, France really it was some awful refereeing that cost us that game, we didn't bottle it, we didn't get out thought or out fought, we were blow for blow with them.

To be honest we were equal to Italy in the Euro final. We started off well, they changed it up and came back into it. we changed it up and both sides sort of negated each others threat, of course they needed to do it through the dark arts of grabbing, pulling and tripping any breaking player.
We had these same arguments at the start of the World Cup. Those teams weren't top teams. Denmark were the best of the bunch and they aren't a top team, not even close. They barely got through their group and lost their best player. They lost 2/3 group games and then got an even kinder draw than we did. My position when we had that argument was that we would sail through the group and get beat by the first good team we played, probably France, and that is exactly what happened so I don't feel like I need to make the arguments again.

This whole beaten by the first challenge we face thing could just go on forever until we win a tournament though couldn't it? You get to the quarters/semis/final and you're likely to be in a tight game that could go either way. The thing is though, teams you mention, Germany, Denmark, would've been considered a challenge if Southgate hadn't turned us into a good side. Who would fall into the category now in the Euros of being a challenge? Just France? Because they're the only team arguably better than us. Presumably not Italy, because we''ve just beaten them.
We clearly stepped up the the challenge vs France, and were probably the better side, it was just one of those things. At some point the team needs vieweing in isolation and not with the judgements of past history piled on.
We all know who the top teams are but it is slightly different at each tournament. At the last Euros the other side of the draw had France, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Croatia. Ours had us and Germany and yes, we did beat Germany but it was a very different Germany than we are used to seeing (failed to get out of the groups in Qatar). Top level teams at the World Cup would be those mentioned plus Brazil and Argentina. We're not just talking about teams that are better than us but teams that are in the top tier. We don't beat many of them and it's not just a Southgate thing. Historically we have performed very poorly against the other top nations. In the coming Euros we are talking about the teams that could potentially win it. It's another year away so players/managers etc can change so you can't be definitive right now but the list won't change much. You' remove some teams that are under-performing (like Germany at recent tournaments) but you probably wouldn't add anyone to it. I would be massively surprised if one of the above mentioned doesn't win it.

You are right that Denmark would have been a challenge in the past but only in the sense that we were equals due to under-performing, not that they were ever top level.
 
We had these same arguments at the start of the World Cup. Those teams weren't top teams. Denmark were the best of the bunch and they aren't a top team, not even close. They barely got through their group and lost their best player. They lost 2/3 group games and then got an even kinder draw than we did. My position when we had that argument was that we would sail through the group and get beat by the first good team we played, probably France, and that is exactly what happened so I don't feel like I need to make the arguments again.


We all know who the top teams are but it is slightly different at each tournament. At the last Euros the other side of the draw had France, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Croatia. Ours had us and Germany and yes, we did beat Germany but it was a very different Germany than we are used to seeing (failed to get out of the groups in Qatar). Top level teams at the World Cup would be those mentioned plus Brazil and Argentina. We're not just talking about teams that are better than us but teams that are in the top tier. We don't beat many of them and it's not just a Southgate thing. Historically we have performed very poorly against the other top nations. In the coming Euros we are talking about the teams that could potentially win it. It's another year away so players/managers etc can change so you can't be definitive right now but the list won't change much. You' remove some teams that are under-performing (like Germany at recent tournaments) but you probably wouldn't add anyone to it. I would be massively surprised if one of the above mentioned doesn't win it.

You are right that Denmark would have been a challenge in the past but only in the sense that we were equals due to under-performing, not that they were ever top level.
I'm pretty confident that if we beat teams at the level of say Portugal and Croatia at the Euros, and then lose to France in the final or semis people will still say we failed at the first difficult test.
 
I'm pretty confident that if we beat teams at the level of say Portugal and Croatia at the Euros, and then lose to France in the final or semis people will still say we failed at the first difficult test.
Evidence of this is that we did in fact beat Croatia in the euros and lost to italy on pens and people still said we couldn't beat anyone.
 
I'm pretty confident that if we beat teams at the level of say Portugal and Croatia at the Euros, and then lose to France in the final or semis people will still say we failed at the first difficult test.

It's so true. People saying Germany weren't in any way a good side must have missed the game when they tore Portugal to shreds a week before we played them.
 
Whist I agree I don’t get the hatred towards him, there are still some issues to discuss in regards to managerial style and for me the big one is his use (or lack of use) of subs especially in these crunch big games.

He always seems to react after the event ( normally after we concede) as rarely do you see him roll the dice esp in the bigger games and take that risk.

The Wembley final v Italy was a classic case in point, one nil up at Wembley we should have cruised past Italy who were in shock but once again we failed to roll the dice and take the game to Italy we sat back and Italy capitalised on it snd grrw in confidence as a result.

We have an amazing squad of players I just hope we’d make better use of it.
 
0940ED44-DE72-4B26-8962-E345365B38DD.png

Classic example Italy made 5 subs used all their options and got the goal. Whereas we only made 3 subs in a final at Wembley one of which was rice for Henderson ( so like for like)


BE45CE29-7B54-416F-8934-6C4CD63D31A3.png

Bellingham was an unused sub and grealish came on in 99 th minute
 
View attachment 55316

Classic example Italy made 5 subs used all their options and got the goal. Whereas we only made 3 subs in a final at Wembley one of which was rice for Henderson ( so like for like)


View attachment 55317

Bellingham was an unused sub and grealish came on in 99 th minute
In fairness would you not see this pattern in just about all games with the team who are trailing making the first changes? I'd say the reaction to the changes in tactics that the substitutioins bring would be more of a point that could be criticised.
 
Anyone criticising Southgate is an idiot. It's that simple.
I don't think anyone has said that. People should feel free to criticise but expect people to challenge that criticism where it is deemed not fair.

For me, England have always been held to a higher standard than any club side, and that extends to our manager, whoever that is. For example, compare these extracts from the BBC match reports on two 2-0 home wins for England v Ukraine and Man City v Newcastle:

"England had laboured for 37 minutes in the face of a well-organised Ukraine" and "Their performances have not been perfect by any means but the results are the ideal foundations for progress in a group also containing Malta and North Macedonia."

"Foden struck after 15 minutes, gliding in from the right and holding off two challenges before seeing his shot deflected home off Sven Botman.
Newcastle responded well and were causing plenty of problems until City substitute Bernardo Silva slotted home to put the game out of their reach midway through the second half."

Why do England's performances have to be perfect? No other team delivers perfect performances week in week out. And so what if we struggled to breakdown a team with everyone behind the ball? Ukraine are no mugs and a game of football is 90 minutes - you don't get bonus points for scoring earlier! Newcastle caused Man City far more problems than Ukraine caused England, and despite the same result England had far more attempts and attempts on target than Man City in their game, yet no one was calling Pep a negative manager.

It seems some people just have impossible standards for England. If we fall short in a tight final against Italy or a quarter-final against France, it's because Southgate is a poor manager. Yet there is no such judgement against Pep Guardiola when they lose in the Champions League Final to Chelsea (without scoring after deciding to play without a holding midfielder) or get knocked out in the QF by inferior sides such as Spurs, Lyon or Liverpool. And as for throwing away a 2 goal lead in injury time against Real Madrid last season, if Southgate ever does the equivalent as manager of England, I shudder to think how some lunatics would react. Top managers like Pep are allowed to make mistakes, but it seems that Southgate isn't.

That's the nub of the problem for me Nero - there's no balance or nuance. It's simply a case of if England don't win, it's because of Southgate and if we do win, it's in spite of Southgate and his negative football, despite all evidence showing that we are consistently amongst the winning most and highest scoring teams in Europe over the past 6 years.
 
It's so true. People saying Germany weren't in any way a good side must have missed the game when they tore Portugal to shreds a week before we played them.
They’re also ignoring the fact that they are the most successful European side historically, AND are around 40% bigger in terms of population, just as strong if not stronger economically. Beating Germany is always a big deal, especially in a knockout.
 
In fairness would you not see this pattern in just about all games with the team who are trailing making the first changes? I'd say the reaction to the changes in tactics that the substitutioins bring would be more of a point that could be criticised.
It’s about utilising all our options though grealish in 99 th minute what can he really do in such a short time.

Subs have always been Gareth’s weakness though as they were with us, he seems reluctant to change from the status quo.

In the big games those kind of decisions make the difference.
 
Whist I agree I don’t get the hatred towards him, there are still some issues to discuss in regards to managerial style and for me the big one is his use (or lack of use) of subs especially in these crunch big games.

He always seems to react after the event ( normally after we concede) as rarely do you see him roll the dice esp in the bigger games and take that risk.

The Wembley final v Italy was a classic case in point, one nil up at Wembley we should have cruised past Italy who were in shock but once again we failed to roll the dice and take the game to Italy we sat back and Italy capitalised on it snd grrw in confidence as a result.

We have an amazing squad of players I just hope we’d make better use of it.
But jedi - Italy in that tournament were absolutely flying - they had beaten everyone out of sight then came up against us which wasn't easy for them at all.
 
Whist I agree I don’t get the hatred towards him, there are still some issues to discuss in regards to managerial style and for me the big one is his use (or lack of use) of subs especially in these crunch big games.

He always seems to react after the event ( normally after we concede) as rarely do you see him roll the dice esp in the bigger games and take that risk.

The Wembley final v Italy was a classic case in point, one nil up at Wembley we should have cruised past Italy who were in shock but once again we failed to roll the dice and take the game to Italy we sat back and Italy capitalised on it snd grrw in confidence as a result.

We have an amazing squad of players I just hope we’d make better use of it.

Come off it man, we should have "cruised past Italy"?
They'd just set an all time record of unbeaten games for an International side. That's longer than all the great sides of the past like Brazil, Hungary, West Germany, France.
Italy in 2021 were incredibly hard to beat, the idea we were just going to cruise past them is laughable.
 
Southgate is the best England manager since 66, but has also raised our expectations. International football is no longer the pinnacle it used to be, apart from maybe the World Cup. Good club teams would wipe the floor with a lot of international teams. With qualifying becoming easier and easier, the relevance of these games, in terms of wider interest is harder to justify (hence most people can't wait for the championship to start again, never mind the premier league!). People need something to moan about and in this case, it's been two run of the mill internationals. Italy and Ukraine were both poor, but that is a reflection of how well England have done. We are probably the second best team in Europe after France.
 
If you look at any sides qualifying record there'll always be the odd game they get an underwhelming result. Not matter how strong they are.

In the last world cup qualifying France drew with Ukraine twice and drew with Bosnia.

People seem to think it's just a case of pick players who are smashing it for their clubs and they'll perform exactly the same for their national side after a few days training with lads they don't usually play with and who they might not have seen for months.

It's not that simple.
 
Back
Top