UEFA World Cup Qualifiers & International Friendlies **spoilers** [1st - 8th Sept 2021]
- Thread starter explicit4u
- Start date
Caporegime
Everyone but Southgate could see it, the heat and the effort put out during a hard fought game and not a single sub. Maybe he was saving them to miss a penalty.
You know what's the most worrying thing? He defends that decision and even now, with hindsight thinks it was the right call. As I've said before, said it after the Italy game, if he learns OK but he doesn't. It's a worrying trend letting a 1-nil lead slip.
Every manager on the planet uses a sub or two if they have them left when its getting towards 90 minutes to break up play and run the clock down if they're winning, but not super Southgate.
You know what's the most worrying thing? He defends that decision and even now, with hindsight thinks it was the right call. As I've said before, said it after the Italy game, if he learns OK but he doesn't. It's a worrying trend letting a 1-nil lead slip.
Every manager on the planet uses a sub or two if they have them left when its getting towards 90 minutes to break up play and run the clock down if they're winning, but not super Southgate.
Last edited:
Caporegime
The other thing that I saw someone mention is that he is basically rinsing the players on international duty and then sending them back to their clubs. I would be furious if one of my players got injured or came back knackered from the international break because the idiot of a manager doesn't make any subs and runs the players into the ground.
But, but, he’s so nice, Fez… He got the whole team so happy and able to play with inflatable unicorns in the pool. That’s much more important than tactics, or any kind of understanding of positioning or subsitutions.
I’m glad I didn’t watch any of the games. Sounds like a load of dross as per usual for a Southgate team.
I’m glad I didn’t watch any of the games. Sounds like a load of dross as per usual for a Southgate team.
Caporegime
Thats literally all they talked about throughout the tournament and the build up to the final was something else.
Oh hes so calm, hes created such a good atmosphere in the camp, all the players get along because of Southgate.
Literally nothing about him actually being good at football related matters.
Caporegime
Tbh those things are important. Both are needed. Top tactical managers will fail without the team unity and willing to fight for each other and man managers will fail if they're not set up right on the pitch. Southgate was rightly praised for what he's done in that area, especially as it's something we've struggled with in the national team for so long.
Caporegime
Its a small part that someone without any sort of football background could do. You pick managers based on their ability to coach the team, manage games and decide on tactics first and foremost.
I really don't think we had an issue in the past either. The issue we had was a much more imbalanced and weaker squad and much stronger opposition and far more of them. They just effused about that aspect of his management because there was nothing else to praise him for. If we ever get the easy runs we have had in the last 2 tournaments again in my lifetime I will be amazed.
Caporegime
If it was a small part then more managers wouldn't get it wrong. Think of how many problems in the past France had with squad harmony, or Spain in the Madrid vs Barca days before they got it right and won things.
Caporegime
Of course they would. I'm not saying its not necessary, I'm saying that its the easiest part of the job and its the smallest part of the job in most national teams. I can't remember the last time we had an England squad where they didn't all get along. There simply isn't the issue that you are talking about with the England team so it wasn't something Southgate had to "fix". If a manager comes into a team with awful morale then yes, picking the team up and creating a good atmosphere is his first job. We didn't have that so I don't know why Southgates ability to take a harmonious team and maintain that is such an impressive feat.
Soldato
I think there's a difference in importance from people depending on perspective, i would aruge culture/team togetherness is just as important as tactics in creating a modern day high performing team.
I would argue personally that managers are the leader that can galvanise a squad, and that actually it's hardest character part to do/find. The tactics for me are easier because this expertise can be spread amongst coaches to pick up weaknesses and gaps in knowledge. Gareth could be weak tactically but if he had good coaches alongside him to challenge then it would change. May he does and they're poor tactically...
One key aspect is the inability to learn... it's quite clear from the lack of changes that gareth won't suddenly adopt an attacking and progressive stance because to his core he believes his methods are right.
I would argue personally that managers are the leader that can galvanise a squad, and that actually it's hardest character part to do/find. The tactics for me are easier because this expertise can be spread amongst coaches to pick up weaknesses and gaps in knowledge. Gareth could be weak tactically but if he had good coaches alongside him to challenge then it would change. May he does and they're poor tactically...
One key aspect is the inability to learn... it's quite clear from the lack of changes that gareth won't suddenly adopt an attacking and progressive stance because to his core he believes his methods are right.
Caporegime
No one is saying its not important but let me pose you a question. You have a team at work that all get on really well and enjoy working togethers but they are underperforming. You get a new manager in. You have two choices.
One that is known for creating good work environments and good conflict resolution but isn't really much cop when it comes to the business side of things.
One that is known for improving the functionality of departments and has improved productivity at every business he has worked at. There are no suggestions he is hard to work with or bad for existing morale.
Solving a problem that doesn't exist isn't the mark of a good manager. Taking a team that gets on and works well together and maintaining that isn't impressive. If thats his strength then we didn't need him.
The manager makes the subs, has ultimate say on where people play, the tactics and what style of football he wants to play. This is even more important at international level because you don't have these guys week in week out to really impose your ideas on them. They all play for different teams.
I think thats part of the reason he plays so defensively. Because its the easiest style of football to play and its the safest. 8 of your 11 players whose primary role is defending and then asking the other 3 to track back.
England report incident after Kamil Glik appears to pinch Kyle Walker's neck | Football News | Sky Sports
What on earth is this about?
What on earth is this about?
Soldato
Imagine this England team with a competent manager.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 5,502
I saw him messing with his beard?
Yea I know i just dont get the racism link (looks like a complaint has been raised) unless something was said.
Regarding manager traits, I've been reading a few autobiographies from England players lately and it's clear that personal interactions have a significant impact on players. Robson, Taylor, Venables, Hoddle being the ones looked at.
However, it was also clear that not all players have the same opinion of managers. So being 'good with the players' might not be good for everyone. Adams was very complimentary about Venables, less so about Hoddle. Wright, more the other way round.
Ultimately, being a manager is a multi-faceted role and I think the best situation is to be a solid tactician with enough people skills to get by, and a big enough talent pool that you can get away with alienating one or two players.
However, it was also clear that not all players have the same opinion of managers. So being 'good with the players' might not be good for everyone. Adams was very complimentary about Venables, less so about Hoddle. Wright, more the other way round.
Ultimately, being a manager is a multi-faceted role and I think the best situation is to be a solid tactician with enough people skills to get by, and a big enough talent pool that you can get away with alienating one or two players.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2019
- Posts
- 888
Not a huge Southgate fan but quite clearly people are under estimating the work he's done to get unity. If that was easy it would have been done before. Look at that 2004 England squad. What an array of talent. Manager after manager couldn't get them playing for each other and with any of those before I doubt England would have got to the semi final and them finals of Major tournaments like they have done. I was listening to Michael Gray talk about his England call ups and how awful the atmosphere was. Cliques that didn't talk to each other or mix at all, how United players wouldn't even eat with the rest of the squad. Come down grab lunch and take it back to the room. How Gerrard would rather lose the ball that pass it to give a United player a scoring opportunity and vice versa. How Owen and co would lose tens of thousands on the coach playing 3 card brag and the resentment that caused in a group.