[Football] To all the Southgate haters / wrong again and again and again **SOUTHGATE NOW RESIGNED**

Randy McNob said:

Oh please will you all stop with 'lucky' tag.

A team does not reach 2 consecutive Euro finals because they are lucky
A team does not win 3 consecutive matches from losing positions because of luck

Click to expand...

It’s indisputable that he’s been lucky in draws . If you put value on fact

Randy McNob said:

What's the plans for haters (if we win) and have the open top bus parade?

I assume you'll boo Southgate and throw objects at him whilst holding the trophy aloft?

Click to expand...

Not sure. Combination of booze , hookers and drugs I’d imagine . I’ll ask around

hart's shirt said:

I can't speak for everyone else, but as your post came immediately after mine I felt it might be worth clearing up a few things.

Having read through the entire thread, the 2 main gripes seem to be lack of appreciation for achievements and personal abuse.

Firstly, as an England fan, I'm more than happy to give Southgate the respect due for his achievements in tournament football. Like any supporter of the national side, I wish he'd achieved more as the additional victory or two would've won a trophy.

Secondly, he's a fine man, balanced and with excellent emotional intelligence to connect with the players. Dependable and reliable. The kind of guy that would take your bins out and cut your grass when you're on holiday. So any criticism should be aimed squarely at the football side of things and not veer into personal abuse.

Nevertheless, having acknowledging both of these, Southgate lacks core components of any elite manager, let alone one that manages the national side. 2 of them would be tactical awareness and in-game decision-making. I think that's been proved over the 8 years, and especially seen in the key matches. Surrendering the midfield to Modric's Croatia and sitting back after Shaw's early goal against Italy are 2 of the more obvious ones. Misplaced loyalty to out of form players would be another when it comes to selection. I expect we'll see it again in the Final with Kane. Experimenting with TAA in midfield during a competition was never likely to be well received. And then there's the style of football - dour and ponderous - with an over-reliance on defensive midfielders. But we're talking about a guy who's still dealing with the hardship with not having a replacement for Kalvin Phillips, so I should really cut him some slack.

You cite the late stage tournament runs. Many previous England managers weren't afforded the luxury of getting up to speed in group games. The 1984 Euros tournament which France won with a football of attacking intent and élan was an 8 team tournament. With only the best teams at the tournaments, teams would be facing the best sides from the very start in the group games. Although admittedly hypothetical, with England putting in poor performance during the first 4 games against lesser opposition, there's every chance that Southgate's England wouldn't have lasted long. Recent tournament expansions, the current version containing 3 times the number of sides as those from 8 tournaments ago, favour sides that struggle in the groups with 2/3rds of them still qualifying for the knockout rounds rather than half. England put in a good 1st half against the Netherlands on Wednesday night, but they did so against a team that made it through as one of the best 3rd place teams. Portugal famously won the 2016 competition despite finishing 3rd in their group. It's easier now than before to progress through a tournament playing mediocre football throughout, which Southgate (and others) have benefited from.

Of course, should the FA get their wish and Southgate stays on, he and England fans can look forward to Nations League B football in less than 2 months time following England's relegation under Southgate from the top tier. Games against the footballing superpowers of Finland, Greece and the Republic of Ireland should be eagerly anticipated by fans, although sadly I don't think there's a trophy at the end of it even if England win Group B2.

Now none of the above should detract away from what Southgate's achieved, nor his distinct likeability as a guy. But where praise is due, criticism can also fairly be applied. It's not a binary 'either or' argument, but more of a 'yes this but also this' one.

Click to expand...

Your last paragraph is essentially the reason I've written so many posts in defence of Southgate, just in reverse. Where criticism is due, praise can also be fairly applied.

Unfortunately it so rarely is. And when it is it's nearly always caveated and damning with faint praise(all of which can be argued against quite easily). If you don't mind me saying, that's how your post comes across. You say you're more than happy to give him the respect due for his achievements in tournament football and then proceed to explain why his achievements aren't all that impressive after all.

No one has ever claimed he's an elite manager. No one has ever claimed he's a tactical genius. He's just worked out how to get England further in tournaments than pretty much any other manager in our history. That's enough for me and deserves simple respect. That's all. Why it's so difficult for some Englishman to give it is beyond me.

keaton said:

Why are teams normally in losing positions for three consecutive games?

Click to expand...

Spain were also 1-0 down in all their 3 knockout games, so for piurposes of consistency they too are lucky

You can't have it both ways

pb21 said:

He keeps getting away with it doesn't he, which suggests to me he isn't. I'm a firm believer that you make you own luck, particularly in sport.

Click to expand...

You can make your own luck e.g. the more times you shoot the more chance you will get a 'lucky' deflection but we undoubtedly had an easier path to the final than Spain and that has happened before whereas the penalty against Holland was 50-50 IMO but was given. Also the team has generally remained injury free.

In the end he could be a tactical genius but no luck or just lucky it doesn't matter his record shows him to be the most successful England manager over time. and the quality of the results matter for nothing if we win.

Southgate as Albion manager would be so f***ing depressing! Luckily it won’t ever happen, although I’m sure some of his fans on here would be fecking ecstatic if TB employed him

Wardy's twin said:

You can make your own luck e.g. the more times you shoot the more chance you will get a 'lucky' deflection but we undoubtedly had an easier path to the final than Spain and that has happened before whereas the penalty against Holland was 50-50 IMO but was given. Also the team has generally remained injury free.

In the end he could be a tactical genius but no luck or just lucky it doesn't matter his record shows him to be the most successful England manager over time. and the quality of the results matter for nothing if we win.

Click to expand...

Instead of thinking if England beat Spain it will be against all odds, with the players Southgate has in the England squad it’s Spain who should be quaking.
£Millions of talent at his disposal and he plays like Burnley under Dyche pathetic.

hart's shirt said:

I can't speak for everyone else, but as your post came immediately after mine I felt it might be worth clearing up a few things.

Having read through the entire thread, the 2 main gripes seem to be lack of appreciation for achievements and personal abuse.

Firstly, as an England fan, I'm more than happy to give Southgate the respect due for his achievements in tournament football. Like any supporter of the national side, I wish he'd achieved more as the additional victory or two would've won a trophy.

Secondly, he's a fine man, balanced and with excellent emotional intelligence to connect with the players. Dependable and reliable. The kind of guy that would take your bins out and cut your grass when you're on holiday. So any criticism should be aimed squarely at the football side of things and not veer into personal abuse.

Nevertheless, having acknowledging both of these, Southgate lacks core components of any elite manager, let alone one that manages the national side. 2 of them would be tactical awareness and in-game decision-making. I think that's been proved over the 8 years, and especially seen in the key matches. Surrendering the midfield to Modric's Croatia and sitting back after Shaw's early goal against Italy are 2 of the more obvious ones. Misplaced loyalty to out of form players would be another when it comes to selection. I expect we'll see it again in the Final with Kane. Experimenting with TAA in midfield during a competition was never likely to be well received. And then there's the style of football - dour and ponderous - with an over-reliance on defensive midfielders. But we're talking about a guy who's still dealing with the hardship with not having a replacement for Kalvin Phillips, so I should really cut him some slack.

You cite the late stage tournament runs. Many previous England managers weren't afforded the luxury of getting up to speed in group games. The 1984 Euros tournament which France won with a football of attacking intent and élan was an 8 team tournament. With only the best teams at the tournaments, teams would be facing the best sides from the very start in the group games. Although admittedly hypothetical, with England putting in poor performance during the first 4 games against lesser opposition, there's every chance that Southgate's England wouldn't have lasted long. Recent tournament expansions, the current version containing 3 times the number of sides as those from 8 tournaments ago, favour sides that struggle in the groups with 2/3rds of them still qualifying for the knockout rounds rather than half. England put in a good 1st half against the Netherlands on Wednesday night, but they did so against a team that made it through as one of the best 3rd place teams. Portugal famously won the 2016 competition despite finishing 3rd in their group. It's easier now than before to progress through a tournament playing mediocre football throughout, which Southgate (and others) have benefited from.

Of course, should the FA get their wish and Southgate stays on, he and England fans can look forward to Nations League B football in less than 2 months time following England's relegation under Southgate from the top tier. Games against the footballing superpowers of Finland, Greece and the Republic of Ireland should be eagerly anticipated by fans, although sadly I don't think there's a trophy at the end of it even if England win Group B2.

Now none of the above should detract away from what Southgate's achieved, nor his distinct likeability as a guy. But where praise is due, criticism can also fairly be applied. It's not a binary 'either or' argument, but more of a 'yes this but also this' one.

Click to expand...

but you can point to just as many good tactical decisions. Misplaced loyalty to out of form players? He values experience he kept faith in Pickford who hasn't made errors. Remember when Crapello picked Rob Green who had no international experience and he let the ball through his legs v USA?. Loyal to Shaw but heś made a difference. Dropped TAA for Mainoo which paid off. Cole Palmer + Watkins = assist + winner?

I don't agree we were poor in prior games, they were unwatchable due to opposition playing non football, slowing the game down, time wasting, and trying to frustrate us.

no credit when credit's due = bias opinion

Justice said:

Instead of thinking if England beat Spain it will be against all odds, with the players Southgate has in the England squad it’s Spain who should be quaking.
£Millions of talent at his disposal and he plays like Burnley under Dyche pathetic.

Click to expand...

Nah . Squad wise pretty comparable . Maybe even they have the edge

Media have you believe we have the elite and everyone else has bin men

Simply isn’t true

Randy McNob said:

but you can point to just as many good tactical decisions. Misplaced loyalty to out of form players? He values experience he kept faith in Pickford who hasn't made errors. Remember when Crapello picked Rob Green who had no international experience and he let the ball through his legs v USA?. Loyal to Shaw but heś made a difference. Dropped TAA for Mainoo which paid off. Cole Palmer + Watkins = assist + winner?

I don't agree we were poor in prior games, they were unwatchable due to opposition playing non football, slowing the game down, time wasting, and trying to frustrate us.

no credit when credit's due = bias opinion

Click to expand...

1st paragraph
I've never said Pickford should have been dropped. That's not loyalty - it's just continuity.
Capello's decisons have nothing to do with Southgate - different manager, different times. We've had another 2 plus Pearce before Southgate since then. No idea why former managers are being mentioned - this thread's about Southgate.
Let's see how a recently returned Shaw gets on v Yamal. Questions regarding Southgate's squad selection at left back remain.
Southgate shouldn't have even experimented with TAA in a tournament to start with before Mainoo was introduced!
Plenty of NSC have been calling on Southgate to bring on his subs earlier all tournament. And he persists with Kane.

2nd paragraph
Seriously? Regardless of views on Southgate, virtually everybody on here plus all the commentators and analysts said that we were poor early on in the tournament. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but you're continuing to plough a very lonely furrow here. And even if other teams set up to stifle, England weren't good enough to find a solution around that. That's solely on England and Southgate's tactical flexibility - not on the opposition.

3rd paragraph
No criticism where criticism's due - bias opinion.
It works both ways. I'm happy enough to credit Southgate with his accomplishments, but will criticize where I feel it's fair to do so.
All about balance and nuance - things painfully lacking from the thread title.

Randy McNob said:

but you can point to just as many good tactical decisions. Misplaced loyalty to out of form players? He values experience he kept faith in Pickford who hasn't made errors. Remember when Crapello picked Rob Green who had no international experience and he let the ball through his legs v USA?. Loyal to Shaw but heś made a difference. Dropped TAA for Mainoo which paid off. Cole Palmer + Watkins = assist + winner?

I don't agree we were poor in prior games, they were unwatchable due to opposition playing non football, slowing the game down, time wasting, and trying to frustrate us.

no credit when credit's due = bias opinion

Click to expand...

Are you Gareth’s mum? Because even Southgate himself accepted we weren’t very good.

Garry Nelson's Left Foot said:

Your last paragraph is essentially the reason I've written so many posts in defence of Southgate, just in reverse. Where criticism is due, praise can also be fairly applied.

Unfortunately it so rarely is. And when it is it's nearly always caveated and damning with faint praise(all of which can be argued against quite easily). If you don't mind me saying, that's how your post comes across. You say you're more than happy to give him the respect due for his achievements in tournament football and then proceed to explain why his achievements aren't all that impressive after all.

No one has ever claimed he's an elite manager. No one has ever claimed he's a tactical genius. He's just worked out how to get England further in tournaments than pretty much any other manager in our history. That's enough for me and deserves simple respect. That's all. Why it's so difficult for some Englishman to give it is beyond me.

Click to expand...

And, of course, the same is equally true in reverse. Having already praised him for his accomplishments, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that fair criticism might be leveled. I don't mind you saying that it may come across as being damned with faint praise - from my side, that's a position that someone may likely come to with an overly-protective view of the manager. But people can make up their own minds on how it reads.

If I may also respectfully add, you seem more concerned with how my post reads rather than addressing any of the points that I've made such as specific tactical mistakes in key games, poor early performances not having the same qualification implications as before, and relegation to the Nations League 2nd Tier. These far outweigh any feelings or sensitivities from the reader. The points still stand regardless of how it's verbally dressed up and whether people like what I've written or not.

For the record, let me assure you that I'm quite genuine about praising Southgate's achievements. England have had much success under his managerial level. But for me, that's not enough, and I'm not talking purely about trophies here. The style of play is dreary and disjointed, and doesn't suit the players that we have, especially in attacking midfield. After 8 years, I would've hoped that England's style of play would have evolved and Southgate would have moved away from the defensive mindset. But he won't, or more likely, he can't. That's why I think that a change of manager should've been made after Qatar.

Despite the individual moments of brilliance shown and every chance in a one-off game, we will still go into tomorrow's Final as underdogs based on our our tournament performances compared with Spain's. That's on Southgate. The buck ultimately stops with the manager, irrespective of whether it's bouquets or brickbats that will be received by 10pm or so tomorrow night.

Fair play if O Lucky Man manages to somehow nick it at the death. He's got previous. Lots and LOTS of previous

Tom Hark Preston Park said:

Fair play if O Lucky Man manages to somehow nick it at the death. He's got previous. Lots and LOTS of previous

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting this gets played for the celebrations?

Randy McNob said:

Spain were also 1-0 down in all their 3 knockout games, so for piurposes of consistency they too are lucky

You can't have it both ways

Click to expand...

They weren’t ever behind against Germany.


Georgia they were behind for 21 first half mins, had 35 shots and scored 4.

Wasn’t exactly an injury time equaliser with their only shot on target

Bold Seagull said:

They weren’t ever behind against Germany.


Georgia they were behind for 21 first half mins, had 35 shots and scored 4.

Wasn’t exactly an injury time equaliser with their only shot on target

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is apart from the first part being wrong and the second part being irrelevant, he's basically right?

hart's shirt said:

And, of course, the same is equally true in reverse. Having already praised him for his accomplishments, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that fair criticism might be leveled. I don't mind you saying that it may come across as being damned with faint praise - from my side, that's a position that someone may likely come to with an overly-protective view of the manager. But people can make up their own minds on how it reads.

If I may also respectfully add, you seem more concerned with how my post reads rather than addressing any of the points that I've made such as specific tactical mistakes in key games, poor early performances not having the same qualification implications as before, and relegation to the Nations League 2nd Tier. These far outweigh any feelings or sensitivities from the reader. The points still stand regardless of how it's verbally dressed up and whether people like what I've written or not.

For the record, let me assure you that I'm quite genuine about praising Southgate's achievements. England have had much success under his managerial level. But for me, that's not enough, and I'm not talking purely about trophies here. The style of play is dreary and disjointed, and doesn't suit the players that we have, especially in attacking midfield. After 8 years, I would've hoped that England's style of play would have evolved and Southgate would have moved away from the defensive mindset. But he won't, or more likely, he can't. That's why I think that a change of manager should've been made after Qatar.

Despite the individual moments of brilliance shown and every chance in a one-off game, we will still go into tomorrow's Final as underdogs based on our our tournament performances compared with Spain's. That's on Southgate. The buck ultimately stops with the manager, irrespective of whether it's bouquets or brickbats that will be received by 10pm or so tomorrow night.

Click to expand...

I'm going to start by repeating my final paragraph of my last post because that is as succinct as I can get my view across:

No one has ever claimed he's an elite manager. No one has ever claimed he's a tactical genius. He's just worked out how to get England further in tournaments than pretty much any other manager in our history. That's enough for me and deserves simple respect. That's all. Why it's so difficult for some Englishman to give it is beyond me.

I don't think I'm being overly protective of him by thinking that someone saying 'I really respect your achievements but here's a list of reasons why your achievements are worth very little' is damning with faint praise. That's just giving with one hand and talking with the other, surely?

The reason I didn't engage in detail with your tournament points is that I've done it too many times in other posts with other posters. It gets tiring after a while. Also I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of the tactical analysis. I don't think he's a great manager tactically. I think he's mediocre at best and I wouldn't want him anywhere near the Albion as a head coach.

That said he's clearly made the England environment much more positive, he's made it a place the players love being which has helped them perform, or in this tournaments case, come together, never give up and grind out results. He's also done excellent work concerning penalty shoot outs. That might seme negligible but if previous managers had been able to solve that conundrum I wouldn't be able to point out to all the tournamnet success he's had as being worthy of respect. We'd probably have a wc win in 90, a euros win in 96 and who knows what in 98, 04,06 and 12? But they didn't and we didn't. They failed where Southgate succeeded.

That all being said I think the crux of our difference of opinion is this sentence:

England have had much success under his managerial level. But for me, that's not enough,

For me, it pretty much is. I'd like us to play more attractive football. Prior to the last Euro's I was all for loading up in attack and going out in a blaze of glory 5-4 in the last 16 or quarters. I had long since given up on England ever going deep into a tournament, the previous 20+ years of mostly absolute dross had sucked the life out of that hope.

However, we got to the final without setting the world alight but also we weren't anywhere near as bad/boring as people are now making out. Yes, the final. The prime example of Southgate's tactical and managerial weakness. But, and here we get to the crux of our difference again, it was the final. The final. Only the second in our history and the first in 50+ years.

We were also pretty good at the world cup. We brushed aside the weaker teams(something we can't historically take for granted) and then went toe to toe with France. Small margins cost us there. Was there a foul on Saka before the French goal? What if Kane had scored the penalty?

So for me, those first three tournaments are all very good. This one has been undeniably a tougher watch but even then we've had plenty of other tournaments where we've stunk the place out and gone home early. This time, we've stunk it out, produced some incredible late drama and made the final. The final, again.

So at least there has been some reward for enduring the performances.

Which is, I think, an important point. It's not like historically we've set the world alight at the major tournaments. Going back as far as I can remember we've been mediocre or downright god awful in 88, 92, 2000, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 and failed to qualify for 94 and 08. That just leaves 90, 96, 98, 02, 04 and 06 where we've been o.k or better.

I said earlier that I can't be bothered to address your tournament points as I've done it too many times in other posts. I don't think anything I 'd say would make you change your mind in the same way that you talking about Euro 84 will change mine. What I will do, in the spirit of where criticism is fair then praise where it is due is too, is mention that if you're going to use the nations league to criticise then it's only fair to point out that we've also finished third in it.

So, England's best tournament performances:

World cup: 1st
Euros: 1st or 2nd
Euros: 2nd
Nations league 3rd
World cup: 4th
World cup: 4th
Euros: 4th

Guess how many of those finishes have been under Southgate?

I'm going to finish by going back to the start.

Southgate isn't an elite manager, he's tactically weak but he's worked out tournament football and given the country more success than anyone apart form Sir Alf Ramsey. Amidst his managerial flaws that deserves respect and it's a shame that not enough people are willing to give it.

Football opinions so poisonous thrse days. Just like Graham Potter and Roberto De Zerbi, Southgate is very very good at some things and awful at others.

Not sure why everything has to be so extreme in either direction but that's the post-Brexit country we live in sadly

Garry Nelson's Left Foot said:

...I think the crux of our difference of opinion is this sentence:

England have had much success under his managerial level. But for me, that's not enough,

For me, it pretty much is.

Click to expand...

In fairness, you're probably right. The purist and the pragmatist will rarely agree on the fundamentals. For me, it's also about falling in love with the football a side plays, not winning by default because you've bored the other side and your own fans to death.
"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It's nothing of the kind. The game is about glory."
- Danny Blanchflower

As I've pointed out in previous posts, it is quite possible to win tournaments with attacking football, at least more attacking than England are currently playing which is not admittedly not hard. Spain are going into tomorrow night's game as favourites playing a more expansive style of football with effective use of wingers. So it's never a straight choice between playing football that's easy on the eye or winning tournaments. There's an argument to be made that if you do the former, you're more likely to get the latter.

But for what it's worth, we're probably closer than at first, so thank you for the detailed reply which clarifies a few things. The football that I'd prefer wouldn't be gung ho throwing bodies desperately forward. To lose 5-4 would mean that there'd be at least 5 occasions where we'd have lost control of the ball, so I wouldn't be in favour of that. Besides, even the most attacking sides will often press - defend from the front, attack from the back. It's more to do with a fluid style and clever movement off the ball. Of all the players England have, Cole Palmer would be the one I'd liked to have seen a lot more of this tournament.

As regards your lengthy replies to other posters on the other topics, there's no point in repetition so that's fair enough. And clipping your post to the crux probably allows us to talk about the main thing rather than whether a 3rd place Nations League finish in the past outweighs a relegation in the present among other things. But it's always been a game of opinions.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the balance of praise/criticism that's acceptable. There are probably different lines in the sand here, but as long as it's backed up with argument and there's civility and respect despite disagreement, robust debate about football on a football message board shouldn't ever be off limits. Nuance is important and whilst I'm not likely to put on any kid gloves for typing about Southgate any time soon, I'll always try and look for things to agree on rather than the opposite.

Finally, I really hope we win tomorrow and Southgate will get more appreciation from everyone, myself included. I'll be more than happy to do that. Despite what the mischievous title of the thread might suggest, it wouldn't be a case of being "wrong" as the poor performances earlier in the tournament haven't remotely suggested an England win. But equally, if it doesn't happen, I won't feel vindicated, just disappointed that it hasn't happened mixed with the nagging doubt that someone else might have got them there with a different style. But that's for tomorrow. In the meantime, enjoy the game and may the best team win!