[Football] England squad announcement - Lewis Dunk RECALLED!

[Horses Arse]

What are Southgate's coaching methods and why are they inept?

Or are you backfilling what you think of them based on your disapproval of England's matchday performances?

Based on every managerial job he's had he's an awful coach. He's consistent certainly.

Not one PL team would want him, for good reason too. Unless it's for the U21s I guess

 

[BadFish]

Southgate has got his team deeper into tournaments that his more qualified predecessors.

For me, the quarters are par for an England team and he is doing better than that. This means he has been a success (unless you foolishly only define success as winning).

Done enough for another crack at it in 2024. IMHO like.

 

[Krafty]

What are Southgate's coaching methods and why are they inept?

Or are you backfilling what you think of them based on your disapproval of England's matchday performances?

I think the clear indicator for me is his squad selection, with the likes of Maguire and Henderson playing it is incredibly frustrating, but perhaps the lacklustre performance yesterday has caused me to feel even more annoyed about Southgate's style of play - it feels very passive.

Whether you assessment is correct or not, who do you replace him with (that wouldn't be a glorious punt, or someone who would laugh at the offer of the job)?

It would have to be Potter, I know it is very debatable and even I have some doubts about his arrival, but I feel like a change is needed if we want to progress and win trophies, that is what I think we should be aiming for - it may not happen, sure, but I find it incredibly hard to envision it with Southgate.

 

[American Seagle]

Southgate has got his team deeper into tournaments that his more qualified predecessors.

For me, the quarters are par for an England team and he is doing better than that. This means he has been a success (unless you foolishly only define success as winning).

Done enough for another crack at it in 2024. IMHO like.

I think that is falling into a big six results driven mentality. You have to look at the relative strength of the squad compared with others. Southgate has underperformed in recent years.
Success is not simply winning or losing it is getting the most out of the squad at your disposal.

 

[BadFish]

I think that is falling into a big six results driven mentality. You have to look at the relative strength of the squad compared with others. Southgate has underperformed in recent years.
Success is not simply winning or losing it is getting the most out of the squad at your disposal.

Tournaments are won by defences. Ours isn't and hasn't been that good. I would argue that with the defenders he has had at his disposal he has done very well.

Add in the forward players he has had you can probably dial that back to he has done well.

Of course you need to take into account the qualities of other squads too, although this is going to be based on opinion more than anything else. Probably fair to say in each of the tournaments he has coached in there have been better teams than us.

Well enough for another crack at it anyway.

 

[timbha]

I think the clear indicator for me is his squad selection, with the likes of Maguire and Henderson playing it is incredibly frustrating, but perhaps the lacklustre performance yesterday has caused me to feel even more annoyed about Southgate's style of play - it feels very passive.

It would have to be Potter, I know it is very debatable and even I have some doubts about his arrival, but I feel like a change is needed if we want to progress and win trophies, that is what I think we should be aiming for - it may not happen, sure, but I find it incredibly hard to envision it with Southgate.

Is that the Potter who seemingly struggled to work with Chelsea’s top players (eg Sterling), chopped and changed his team every match with little success if any and is best working with “his” group of players week in week out.

He would not be accepted as England manager by the fans or the media.

 

[Eeyore]

My point is that Southgate is the problem.
If we want to win any international tournament then we must sack the manager because he is simply inept at coaching.
We have an amazing array of creative players but many fans have decided not to watch them because the tactics on display are always predictable and utterly depressing.
The selection of players is typically wrong, and his influence on the pitch does not have that "killer instinct" that the top managers have.
I feel like change is needed, it may not work at first, but I want to be entertained by England because we have such an amazing generation of talent which is currently being wasted.

A few of my thoughts:

England have a decent crop of players, but so do a number of other nations. There is a belief that they should win something, but it's more could

The most successful international managers have often had average CVs, The most important thing about an international manager is that they are liked by the players and respected. That's most of the battle. I don't think we've had a manager who commands as much respect from the players as he does. They clearly enjoy playing for him.

The best tactician England ever had was Capello (who also had the best win ratio) and we all know happened there. Southgate has the second best win ratio.

If Southgate won the Euros folk would still moan. I'd be happy to offer him a long term contract meself. Him and England are the perfect fit.

 

[Krafty]

I understand the points that the comments are expressing, but perhaps we are seeing different sides of the same coin.

We all want England to be successful, we wouldn't be supporters otherwise, and what we classify as success will be different amongst each other. For example, I envision winning a trophy as our current target but others may be satisfied by our recent competition runs and want a continuation of that as the squad begins to grow.

I feel like the way of reaching my target is by changing the system completely under new management, which I understand has its pros/cons, and is a risky strategy considering it could bring great gains but also possible losses - as Southgate's system, which he has built for many years, is completely gone.

Others would be happy with Southgate to stay at England and to continue the path that we are on, beating the weaker teams but perhaps struggling against stronger opponents, which also has its pros/cons but he could definitely bring silverware however I, personally, can't envision it.

I hope I'm wrong but we will see what will occur. I will always support England, and hope for the best, no matter what the future brings.

 

[herecomesaregular]

All football managers have a shelf life. Southgate did really well for a while, particularly around removing cliques and bringing stronger togetherness, getting the fans on board etc. However, he still hasn't addressed his weaknesses - the main one for me* being when the game is not going well he never makes a successful adjustment - and the game drifts away from England and you just know it (which makes it such a f***ing dull and frustrating watch when we aren't playing well). His time is nigh.

*which could have been changed if he found himself a better backup team perhaps.

 

[Muhammed - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

Tournaments are won by winning more games than other teams.
Southgate is too defensive.
Take the breaks off, do away with this safety first policy.
The only thing that is holding this Southgate squad back, is Southgate.
Big nose palace prick

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think the clear indicator for me is his squad selection, with the likes of Maguire and Henderson playing it is incredibly frustrating, but perhaps the lacklustre performance yesterday has caused me to feel even more annoyed about Southgate's style of play - it feels very passive.

It would have to be Potter, I know it is very debatable and even I have some doubts about his arrival, but I feel like a change is needed if we want to progress and win trophies, that is what I think we should be aiming for - it may not happen, sure, but I find it incredibly hard to envision it with Southgate.

How does poor squad selection equate to poor coaching ability (my question to you)?

I disagree with his squad selections, but his sin is logical - trust those you know best.

None of this has to do with how he coaches.

As for Potter, as others have said, a club manager sees his players every day and schools them accordingly. For an England manager to 'coach' it has to be a very simple mantra that can be picked up again in brief intense periods punctuated by long absences.

Southgate has show that by and large he can instill a simple, easily recapitulated rubric. And to do this he will of course reach for players well versed in it. Any coach trying something different is on a hiding to nothing, with little chance of any consistency, especially if he always selects based on club form.

Taking all that into account I see no evidence whatsoever that Potter would do a better job.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

...and, because of this, he has to leave - Southgate OUT!

He can manage the German national team as that is now available

If that was the only point that people were making I'd leave them to it. The man clearly has limitations. He also clearly has some positive qualities too.

All merited, except when you consider that If I had taken the reigns with the options available over the last decade, I could have done a better job picking players out of a hat. The Italy game was and is still unforgivable, sitting back against a paraplegic defence and losing in the manner we did. Watch it back if you ever want an unedifying experience of why Southgate was and is still patently out of his depth. It's worse on a second viewing believe me, as I have done it.

England have done well despite the man, not because of him. As ever, I hope to be proved wrong in yet another tournament (if we get there).

I have no interest in watching that game again, it was a hard enough watch the first time.

The point is, it was a final, only the second in England's history. That needs to be acknowledged. That was the 26th major tournament since 66. We had 25 attempts before southgate at getting to a final and all we managed in that time was a couple of semis. We failed to qualify for more tournaments(at least twice as many) than we made semi finals. Is this team so much better than any of the other teams we've had in the past 50+ years? Have all those other teams had such incredible bad luck year after year? Or should some credit be given to Southgate?

you’ve basically said that he hasn’t won anything because of his ‘ strange squad selections, being tactically limited and not being brave enough’. Damming praise indeed.

No. I'd say that if we were serial winners and I thought that Southgates teams were nailed on to be winners as well. Neither of those things are true though. We're not serial winners. Tournament after tournament we've failed and the teams at Southgate's disposal aren't any better than the majority of teams we've had in my life time so the fact that he's got the closest to success over any manager since Ramsey deserves some respect IMO.

You’ve missed the point. Many people are simply expressing the view that they don’t like his team selections nor his style of play. You are choosing to address (aggressively) only those handful of people talking about his results.

No, I think you've missed the point. In my haste to be aggressive(?!) I've maybe not been clear enough. Southgate has taken huge amounts of abuse for years. Before every game, every tournament he is slagged off as people fall over themselves to call him a wanker, scum and everything else. They also love to say how they don't care about England, want the opposition to win because either there's a Brighton player in the opposing team or just hate the England team.

If you think it's a handful of people that think that way, well, I disagree. Or maybe it is a handful of people but they sure make their opinions known EVERY. SINGLE. GAME. They're who I'm frustrated with.

If people were 'simply expressing the view that they don’t like his team selections nor his style of play' then why the need to insult him? Why the need to belittle his achievements?

There are statics and then there's reality. Reality is that Southgate has had great draws and has not suffered the terrible luck and horrendous ref decisions that the likes of venebles and Robson suffered. Southgate had a fantastic set of players, extraordinarily kind draws and all the luck we've missed out on sine 66. What's he done with it? Failed. He's an incompetent manager, hopeless, out of his depth. Nice man, but shit at his job. Get rid.

If you are happy with that then good for you. I hope that acceptance of mediocrity serves you well.

No, I can't agree with any of this.

What horrendous reffing decision hampered Venables? Robson presumably you're talking Maradonna? What about his other tournaments? What are the other horrendous reffing decisions that cost us in the past 57 years? I can think of the soft red for Beckham in 98. Maybe Rooney's red in 06? Lampard's not given goal against Germany in 10? We lost the first two of those games on penalties, the third we stunk the tournament out with our performances, there was not a chance in the world we were winning that tournament.

Southgate made a w/c semi final with a midfield of Henderson, Alli and Lingard. He had Ashley young as a wing back. That's a team that shouldn't have got anywhere near a semi but it did.

He took a team that had Calvin Philips in it to the euros final.

He got knocked out in the quarters of the last world cup by the (then) reigning world champions and a team that only lost the final on penalties(which incidentally which if they'd won would have made them the first team since Brazil in 62 to successfully defend their title).

Do you genuinely think the teams that Southgate has had over the past 5 years are better than the majority of teams that we've had since 66?

You say I'm accepting mediocrity, I say the last three tournaments have been the best run of tournament results in, if not our history then in the past 50 odd years. That's something that needs to be acknowledged and, if you're an England fan, celebrated. Mediocrity to me is getting knocked out by Iceland, or playing a group stage against the likes of the U.S, Slovenia and Algeria and only managing one win, or not qualifying for the tournament at all.

I guess my general point to everyone is people are far too eager to put the boot into Southgate in any way they can. All I'm asking is that they give him a little respect. He has achieved more than any manager since Ramsey. Accept it, acknowledge it, don't belittle it and then debate if he's taken them as far as he can.

 

[dazzer6666]

If that was the only point that people were making I'd leave them to it. The man clearly has limitations. He also clearly has some positive qualities too.

I have no interest in watching that game again, it was a hard enough watch the first time.

The point is, it was a final, only the second in England's history. That needs to be acknowledged. That was the 26th major tournament since 66. We had 25 attempts before southgate at getting to a final and all we managed in that time was a couple of semis. We failed to qualify for more tournaments(at least twice as many) than we made semi finals. Is this team so much better than any of the other teams we've had in the past 50+ years? Have all those other teams had such incredible bad luck year after year? Or should some credit be given to Southgate?

No. I'd say that if we were serial winners and I thought that Southgates teams were nailed on to be winners as well. Neither of those things are true though. We're not serial winners. Tournament after tournament we've failed and the teams at Southgate's disposal aren't any better than the majority of teams we've had in my life time so the fact that he's got the closest to success over any manager since Ramsey deserves some respect IMO.

No, I think you've missed the point. In my haste to be aggressive(?!) I've maybe not been clear enough. Southgate has taken huge amounts of abuse for years. Before every game, every tournament he is slagged off as people fall over themselves to call him a wanker, scum and everything else. They also love to say how they don't care about England, want the opposition to win because either there's a Brighton player in the opposing team or just hate the England team.

If you think it's a handful of people that think that way, well, I disagree. Or maybe it is a handful of people but they sure make their opinions known EVERY. SINGLE. GAME. They're who I'm frustrated with.

If people were 'simply expressing the view that they don’t like his team selections nor his style of play' then why the need to insult him? Why the need to belittle his achievements?

No, I can't agree with any of this.

What horrendous reffing decision hampered Venables? Robson presumably you're talking Maradonna? What about his other tournaments? What are the other horrendous reffing decisions that cost us in the past 57 years? I can think of the soft red for Beckham in 98. Maybe Rooney's red in 06? Lampard's not given goal against Germany in 10? We lost the first two of those games on penalties, the third we stunk the tournament out with our performances, there was not a chance in the world we were winning that tournament.

Southgate made a w/c semi final with a midfield of Henderson, Alli and Lingard. He had Ashley young as a wing back. That's a team that shouldn't have got anywhere near a semi but it did.

He took a team that had Calvin Philips in it to the euros final.

He got knocked out in the quarters of the last world cup by the (then) reigning world champions and a team that only lost the final on penalties(which incidentally which if they'd won would have made them the first team since Brazil in 62 to successfully defend their title).

Do you genuinely think the teams that Southgate has had over the past 5 years are better than the majority of teams that we've had since 66?

You say I'm accepting mediocrity, I say the last three tournaments have been the best run of tournament results in, if not our history then in the past 50 odd years. That's something that needs to be acknowledged and, if you're an England fan, celebrated. Mediocrity to me is getting knocked out by Iceland, or playing a group stage against the likes of the U.S, Slovenia and Algeria and only managing one win, or not qualifying for the tournament at all.

I guess my general point to everyone is people are far too eager to put the boot into Southgate in any way they can. All I'm asking is that they give him a little respect. He has achieved more than any manager since Ramsey. Accept it, acknowledge it, don't belittle it and then debate if he's taken them as far as he can.

Welcome Clive

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Welcome Clive

I'm not sure who clive is but...having seen my post without the quotes, my goodness I wrote a lot!

 

[dazzer6666]

I'm not sure who clive is but...having seen my post without the quotes, my goodness I wrote a lot!

Gareth’s dad

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Gareth’s dad

Oh!

 

[Horses Arse]

If that was the only point that people were making I'd leave them to it. The man clearly has limitations. He also clearly has some positive qualities too.

I have no interest in watching that game again, it was a hard enough watch the first time.

The point is, it was a final, only the second in England's history. That needs to be acknowledged. That was the 26th major tournament since 66. We had 25 attempts before southgate at getting to a final and all we managed in that time was a couple of semis. We failed to qualify for more tournaments(at least twice as many) than we made semi finals. Is this team so much better than any of the other teams we've had in the past 50+ years? Have all those other teams had such incredible bad luck year after year? Or should some credit be given to Southgate?

No. I'd say that if we were serial winners and I thought that Southgates teams were nailed on to be winners as well. Neither of those things are true though. We're not serial winners. Tournament after tournament we've failed and the teams at Southgate's disposal aren't any better than the majority of teams we've had in my life time so the fact that he's got the closest to success over any manager since Ramsey deserves some respect IMO.

No, I think you've missed the point. In my haste to be aggressive(?!) I've maybe not been clear enough. Southgate has taken huge amounts of abuse for years. Before every game, every tournament he is slagged off as people fall over themselves to call him a wanker, scum and everything else. They also love to say how they don't care about England, want the opposition to win because either there's a Brighton player in the opposing team or just hate the England team.

If you think it's a handful of people that think that way, well, I disagree. Or maybe it is a handful of people but they sure make their opinions known EVERY. SINGLE. GAME. They're who I'm frustrated with.

If people were 'simply expressing the view that they don’t like his team selections nor his style of play' then why the need to insult him? Why the need to belittle his achievements?

No, I can't agree with any of this.

What horrendous reffing decision hampered Venables? Robson presumably you're talking Maradonna? What about his other tournaments? What are the other horrendous reffing decisions that cost us in the past 57 years? I can think of the soft red for Beckham in 98. Maybe Rooney's red in 06? Lampard's not given goal against Germany in 10? We lost the first two of those games on penalties, the third we stunk the tournament out with our performances, there was not a chance in the world we were winning that tournament.

Southgate made a w/c semi final with a midfield of Henderson, Alli and Lingard. He had Ashley young as a wing back. That's a team that shouldn't have got anywhere near a semi but it did.

He took a team that had Calvin Philips in it to the euros final.

He got knocked out in the quarters of the last world cup by the (then) reigning world champions and a team that only lost the final on penalties(which incidentally which if they'd won would have made them the first team since Brazil in 62 to successfully defend their title).

Do you genuinely think the teams that Southgate has had over the past 5 years are better than the majority of teams that we've had since 66?

You say I'm accepting mediocrity, I say the last three tournaments have been the best run of tournament results in, if not our history then in the past 50 odd years. That's something that needs to be acknowledged and, if you're an England fan, celebrated. Mediocrity to me is getting knocked out by Iceland, or playing a group stage against the likes of the U.S, Slovenia and Algeria and only managing one win, or not qualifying for the tournament at all.

I guess my general point to everyone is people are far too eager to put the boot into Southgate in any way they can. All I'm asking is that they give him a little respect. He has achieved more than any manager since Ramsey. Accept it, acknowledge it, don't belittle it and then debate if he's taken them as far as he can.

Wow that's long. One hell of a defense for a clearly inept manager too.

If you work at the FA I guess I'm just going to have to enjoy laughing at England continuing to fail. I've come round to finding it particularly funny and really quite enjoyable.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Tournaments are won by defences. Ours isn't and hasn't been that good. I would argue that with the defenders he has had at his disposal he has done very well.

Add in the forward players he has had you can probably dial that back to he has done well.

Of course you need to take into account the qualities of other squads too, although this is going to be based on opinion more than anything else. Probably fair to say in each of the tournaments he has coached in there have been better teams than us.

Well enough for another crack at it anyway.

Yep exactly. As per my reply to @Krafty (who never did give us the starting XI he’d pick) we have a limited defence and too many AM / 10s.

Breaking it down, all of our keeping options are shit. Perhaps Jack was right with his Jason Steele for England banner.

You almost certainly have to play 4-2-3-1 because we don’t have three decent centre backs to play a 3/5 at the back and we need to play 4 of our attacking talent at least. We have four almost equally as good right backs. Combine Dunk with Stones and you get one decent centre back. Shaw and Chilwell are both bang average by international standards.

Now you’ve got the two genuine midfielders. Rice is one. Who’s the other? Henderson? Phillips? Bring Bellingham back when he’s scored a goal a game for Madrid? No great option.

From there it’s an embarrassment of riches. You can pick three from around eight for the wings and 10 plus Kane, with Toney or Watkins waiting in the wings.

We have the same issue as the “golden generation”. Lots of great players playing in the same positions, big holes elsewhere. Rice and a right back apart our defence would be exposed over and over again if we were too gung ho - in fact we saw that with Ukraine’s opener.

 

[nwgull]

Tournaments are won by winning more games than other teams.
Southgate is too defensive.
Take the breaks off, do away with this safety first policy.
The only thing that is holding this Southgate squad back, is Southgate.
Big nose palace prick

Tournaments are won by not losing in the KO stages.

 

[Javeaseagull]

Southgate has reached the end of this cycle, it’s as simple as that. We will have to live through the turgid end months just as we did with Chris Hughton. Managers all have a shelf life apart from Fergie and Arsene and that didn’t end well. Personally I would like to see Potter get the job next because I think an Englishman should do the National job. It smacks of cheating otherwise like having a Brazilian centre forward. Other English managers I can think of like Eddy Howe, not leaving Newcastle and Sean Dyche, no thanks, so that leaves Potter.

A bit like taking over from Chris, we won’t win anything but the football was better. That will do for me.