Euro 2024

[Gingerfinch]

Although I've kinda stuck up for Gareth, a change was needed.

Who's it going to be?

Klopp would be good but would he take it?

[sussexpob]

This is a decent piece that in some measure reflects my personal view of Southgate, although the tactical deficiencies are perhaps a bit understated for my taste, but there is a lot in here that I agree with
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... 86pl8v9j8o

Reading articles like this gives the impression that Southgate was some footballing visionary of immense popularity. England were booed off in three matches in this tournament, and pelted by missiles from their own fans, which I add has happened in places going back 2020. To claim Southgate rekindled the English love of football is laughable... 20 million people still tuned into the 2014 WC game v Uruguay despite the bad years passed. England weren't bad, but football didn't die in the meantime... the PL became more and more popular. What a very bizarre thing to credit to him.

McNulty needs to decide which corner he is in here. You cant say Southgate was ruthless enough to drop the axe when needed, while also talking for two paragraphs about why his undying loyalty to players set him out. And you cant say he rekindled the love of he game in fans, then spend 6 paragraphs on examples of when fans showed they were really unhappy. Lets be honest, I reckon if you canvassed fan opinion after 2021, the vast majority would have wanted him gone. And close to 100% of real football fans after France.... I dont know any regular football watcher that had lost patience with him after Qatar at the very latest.

I guess where McNulty and others see strengths, I see weaknesses. Why is it good that Southgate put his undying loyalty in Maguire? He's been flat out rubbish for years, benched at his club, and has become a source of complete ridicule in the English game... he would have played this tournament in Guehi's place had Southgate not been forced to drop him.

And if dropping a fat 34 year old Wayne Rooney who couldnt get a contract anywhere in the PL and had to bugger of to a second rate American team for a farewell tour is the prime example of the required "steel" to make tough decisions, then my god...... a tough decision was working out in 2012 that Rooney was declining, by the time he'd been released by United, rubbish at Everton and buggered off to DC United, I don't think anyone would have seen that as much as decision to make.... the fact he played a single game in 2017 and 2018 for England is itself an embarrassment and reflected 100% badly on Southgate.

So what? We are left with him being a nice guy? Great. I can remember Sun Tzu saying in the Art of War that its really important to be a generally nice guy. Thats the art of leadership....

I wonder how Spain won the last major tournament before this with a squad composed of 90% of players who walked out to have the manager sacked.... far from being a nice guy, he was apparently an abusive mentalist. I mean, a sensible guy would probably say being nice menas f*** all about winning, but what do I know.

After all, whats that saying again?? Ah yes... Nice guys finish first!!

[sussexpob]

I don't really get all this idea for instance that Southgate is some great ambassador for England in the way he talks. You really think anyone in the rest of the world cares about what the England manager has to say about a nothing game held in Bulgaria?

I watched this Euros in 4 different languages, in 5 different countries.... they all thought England were rubbish and playing well below themselves. None of them lingered on Southgate being a nice guy or a great representative. Just that his football was rubbish to watch, and his team underperformed.

This stuff doesnt mean anything. All that people remember is the stuff on the pitch... and if they don't, then they are probably my mum. The person who never watches a single minute of football every 2 years until England make it to a big match, and then she has a super strong opinion based on absolutely nothing.

[Durhamfootman]

I could see them going foreign again though, but I guess it would have to be someone who'd successfully managed a PL club in the past. They won't want to go full Capello again, imo

Klopp would hold out for the Germany job, I reckon.

which reminds me.... I remember Ancelotti saying that the easiest game he had to manage was the final against Liverpool, because (as he put it) Liverpool had such a strong playing style (which I took to mean that they were completely predicable) that he knew exactly how Liverpool would play and which players would start, making his job of countering that really simple. The same could be said about Southgate

is that the same Liverpool that beat them in 2005?

the CL final last year or the year before or something. The one in Paris... with the police and the 'rampaging' 'uncontrollable', yet strangely peaceful fans

[Arthur Crabtree]

In the last couple of years I've developed a really pointless liking for order which I never used to have. Like lining up groceries on the conveyor belt at a supermarket checkout. So I've taken some satisfaction that the years-of-hurt will extend to 60 years, thirty years after Three Lions song which itself was 30 years after winning the WC.

So I've got a bit of an urge growing for England winning the WC in '26. Unless there's a pandemic. And then another hit single in '56 lamenting the wait, a few years before my hundredth birthday. Assuming Trump didn't blow everything up.

[Gingerfinch]

I could see them going foreign again though, but I guess it would have to be someone who'd successfully managed a PL club in the past. They won't want to go full Capello again, imo

Klopp would hold out for the Germany job, I reckon.

which reminds me.... I remember Ancelotti saying that the easiest game he had to manage was the final against Liverpool, because (as he put it) Liverpool had such a strong playing style (which I took to mean that they were completely predicable) that he knew exactly how Liverpool would play and which players would start, making his job of countering that really simple. The same could be said about Southgate

is that the same Liverpool that beat them in 2005?

the CL final last year or the year before or something. The one in Paris... with the police and the 'rampaging' 'uncontrollable', yet strangely peaceful fans

Aah fair enough. Liverpool did have a certain German manager in charge!

[Durhamfootman]

my point entirely

[Gingerfinch]

my point entirely

[alfie]

The Sven v Southgate comparison is another one you can dig deeper into.

In 2002, we beat Argentina. Southgate has never beaten a side of that level in his career. There is no comparison. After beating the Argies, we then smashed Denmark and then played a Brazil team considered their best arguably ever. That team had 4 ballon d'or winners in it and one player who finished second in voting. Has an International side ever fielded so many Ballon D'Or winners together? I'd guess not. The 3 R's attack is considered the greatest to ever play international football... we lost the game 2-1 and were not outplayed or outclassed.

In 2004, we would have beaten a world class France team had it not been for the referee not sending off Mikael Silvestre for the clearest red card ever. Beckham missed a penalty late to win the game 2-0, and then Zidane/David James happened, but the eventual loss was better than we have played against any Southgate matches against a top side.

We then lost to Portugal on penalties twice. People seem to remember these teams as terrible, but Deco was runner up in the ballon d'or in 2004 and considered the best attacking midfielder in the game. Figo won the ballon d'or a couple of years before. Carvalho won world's best defender in 2004. And then of course there is the matter of the second best player to play the sport in 2006.

All "reasonable' arguments , true. The only thing I would say in response is that what actually counts at the end of a game - or a tournament - is the actual score. Which is surely what should define Southgate - for both the good and the not so good... Consider :

In 1966 England won three knockout games to take the title. Two years later , won a third place Euro's play off over USSR. In the next fifty years they won some six knockout matches in total over those two big tournaments. Southgate has in 8 years presided over nine knockout wins...but sure , he didn't ever land the Big One. Strip out all the subjective opinions and his record is second only to Ramsey's.

I am comfortable enough with the prevailing view that this was the right time for a change - just hope whoever comes in is able to take the team forward ( and get results as well as style points ). At least he will inherit a better starting point than Southgate did in 2016...

[Durhamfootman]

I am comfortable enough with the prevailing view that this was the right time for a change - just hope whoever comes in is able to take the team forward ( and get results as well as style points ). At least he will inherit a better starting point than Southgate did in 2016...

he will indeed. No pressure, then

I'll settle for a decent tactician with no need for god or faith healers

[sussexpob]

All "reasonable' arguments , true. The only thing I would say in response is that what actually counts at the end of a game - or a tournament - is the actual score. Which is surely what should define Southgate - for both the good and the not so good... Consider : In 1966 England won three knockout games to take the title. Two years later , won a third place Euro's play off over USSR. In the next fifty years they won some six knockout matches in total over those two big tournaments. Southgate has in 8 years presided over nine knockout wins...but sure , he didn't ever land the Big One. Strip out all the subjective opinions and his record is second only to Ramsey's

You have to remember that the format of these tournaments has changed beyond comparison. Nowadays a team with a high ranking is guaranteed a seeded group with a playoff qualifier inside and a guaranteed 3rd place group finisher in the second round if they win. There are more teams than in the past, which dilutes the quality, and more rounds and qualifiers past the group.

Just to illustrate that point, if this tournament had been held in the 2010s, Switzerland would not have qualified, Slovakia would not have qualified and the Netherlands would have been knocked out of the group in 3rd place. So its hardly a comparison.... England managers of the past wouldn't of had the luxury of facing such low ranked sides at a tournament like this. Switzerland only won 2 matches out of 8 in their qualifier group! You'd never get a side of that calibre qualifying in the past..... probably worth noting the only other team we beat was the automatic qualifier with the worst record in the group (Serbia). Slovenia were behind Slovakia by a place....

So in short, we scraped through playing terribly against a set of teams that 2-3 tournaments previous would not have even qualified. The sole team with we played (Denmark) with a top half ranking that would have been at the tournament under the previous decades format absolutely battered us and were thoroughly unlucky not to win the game.

I mean, just look at the 1970 World Cup. Back then the only seeding was to separate the host team from the Champions. England drew a group with the 1,2,4 and 9th ranked side and then drew a QF against the 3rd best ranked side. That is now impossible, it cannot occur. But I doubt there has ever been a tougher set of matches dished out in the history of a major tournament.

The Euros was only 4 teams to the 1990s. And only 8 to the 2000s.... there was no Slovenia, Slovakia and Georgia to scrape past back then. You made it out of a top quality group stage, and you were playing a side capable of winning instantly.

[sussexpob]

Another big factor favouring bigger sides is the size of squad allowed and 5 subs. Most international teams simply don't have a depth in their squad anywhere near comparable to top sides.... but nowadays you are allowed 5 subs.... If this was the 2010s, Cole Palmer and Ollie Watkins aren't on the field vs Netherlands as 4-5th sub to combine for the goal. It really makes a difference in long tournaments and big games to be able to replace quality...

[sussexpob]

All "reasonable' arguments , true. The only thing I would say in response is that what actually counts at the end of a game - or a tournament - is the actual score. Which is surely what should define Southgate - for both the good and the not so good... Strip out all the subjective opinions and his record is second only to Ramsey's

Isnt the result that matters winning the tournament? I find this argument that is widespread in support of Southgate a little duplicitous, because if we were to remove all context from the performances and progression at these tournaments, then all that matters is we didn't win any; it feels bizarre to say results are the only thing that matters, but then ignore the fact that if we use that metric, the only conclusion is he failed. Anything else is context that this point attempts to remove.

To win a tournament you have to be capable of beating an elite side on form. The way England played under Southgate, they were not capable of doing that. When things didn't go to plan, he had no capacity to identify what was going wrong, and that is a simple ability a manager needs at that level. I honestly never watched England at a tournament and thought he played well enough to beat the top sides at the business end. It always felt deep down like we had a shelf-life... sooner or later we would need to dig deep and find something extra, but it never came. Other teams did it to us over and over.

I tell a lie. I actually did have faith back in 2018, but that faith ended with Croatia. On that day in 2018, I watched an inferior side to England make the most simple of adaptations to their play, and completely change the game. Southgate watched 75 minutes of football unable to identify the most simple errors in his tactics, even when they were plainly obvious. It was at that moment that it became clear we had a manager with an infantile level of football understanding.

I guess it says a lot why England have never won anything in decades, while every single other important football nation has since 66....our football culture accepted that day in Croatia happened without the manager being sacked. We were too busy lauding the manager's waistcoat to notice he had a tactical grasp of the game that would not befit the coach of a sunday league pub side. Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal, France, Argentina or Brazil.... he'd have been sacked before arriving home. 100%..... In England, we get some plank like Alan Shearer crying with joy that we nearly beat an average side. The majority of football pundits in England still think its 1968 and football is about how much you run around like a headless chicken. And that is imprinted on our culture. You watch football elsewhere in Europe, its not the same. You get sound tactical analysis from people who know the deep parts of the game.... and they all said the same. Southgate is useless.

I wonder why English managers can't get near jobs in their own leagues, let alone abroad... well no I dont wonder why. It is what it is, although I hope it slowly improves with the investment we have made in the coaching levels in the English game. Maybe in 10-20 years the fruit will start to come from those trees planted, and we will have a manager who can actually compete tactically with other nations.

We can grasp at the results, but England under Southgate were a bit like watching a batsman facing a decent pace bowler in the nets. They block the ball well, look to have a compact defence, have some shots they can call on.... you then put a quality spinner on, and he has them in knots. You'd never pick a batsman with such an obvious weakness, because they might make buckets of runs in certain conditions, but as soon as they are faced with their weakness, it all comes crashing down.

That was Southgate.

[Durhamfootman]

I tell a lie. I actually did have faith back in 2018, but that faith ended with Croatia. On that day in 2018, I watched an inferior side to England make the most simple of adaptations to their play, and completely change the game. Southgate watched 75 minutes of football unable to identify the most simple errors in his tactics, even when they were plainly obvious. It was at that moment that it became clear we had a manager with an infantile level of football understanding.

I still had faith after that. I thought that Southgate would realise what went wrong and take steps to remedy it

That faith was tested to destruction during the '21 Euro's culminating in the carbon copy final against Italy. I can still see the Italian players arguing amongst themselves as realisation dawned that they were probably going to get a caning in that match.... only to then watch an ascendant England sit back and dare Italy to try and break down the 2 ranks of 5 parked in front of the England box for 80 mins or whatever it was. It was one of the more shocking footballing moments that I've seen.... and I've seen Suarez biting someone's ear off and Rivaldo going down with his hands on his face after being hit on the leg

[Arthur Crabtree]

Funny take on the end of Gareth. I laughed anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/pi ... th-england