Gareth Southgate

[TimRam]

Not seen England pass the ball around like they did in most of the games for a long time. Refreshing to see. Don't forget Italy were on a big unbeaten run and it took a scrambled goal and penalties to win.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, DCFClks said:

Yes he's managed to get to a final and semi-final whilst only having to beat one (possibly two) top team(s) over two tournaments, how lucky can you get? I honestly think Sven could have done just as good, if not better than Southgate had he had the same opponents. 

Potters clearly a very good modern tactical coach who's already being linked to top teams. Why do England always seem to hire managers whose tactics are already 10 years out of date?

So Potters credentials are that you think he is a 'good modern tactical coach'? Does that go on his cv out of interest?

I'd say that thinking there are many easy games at international tournaments these days is a voew that is at least 10 years out of date...

[Rammy03]

1 hour ago, DCFClks said:

Yes he's managed to get to a final and semi-final whilst only having to beat one (possibly two) top team(s) over two tournaments, how lucky can you get? I honestly think Sven could have done just as good, if not better than Southgate had he had the same opponents. 

Potters clearly a very good modern tactical coach who's already being linked to top teams. Why do England always seem to hire managers whose tactics are already 10 years out of date?

What a load of nonsense. Do you expect to play all the 'best teams' in a tournament. You know it never works like that.

You could just as well flip the narrative and say Italy had an easy run. They beat Turkey who were one of the worst teams in the tournament, Wales whose star players are past their best. They needed extra time against Austria who had a goal disallowed. They just about beat Belgium with an old back line, no Hazard and a half fit Kevin de bruyne. Got dominated by Spain and were lucky to win on penalties.

Why is it always England who are 'lucky.' People like you will never give Southgate credit no matter what happens. You will always find a way to pick it apart. 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

1 hour ago, DCFClks said:

Yes he's managed to get to a final and semi-final whilst only having to beat one (possibly two) top team(s) over two tournaments, how lucky can you get? I honestly think Sven could have done just as good, if not better than Southgate had he had the same opponents. 

Potters clearly a very good modern tactical coach who's already being linked to top teams. Why do England always seem to hire managers whose tactics are already 10 years out of date?

I sometimes wonder what it will take for some England fans to be happy. You don't just sleepwalk in to a world cup semi then follow it up by getting to the final of the Euros. 

[DCFC Kicks]

1 hour ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Can’t agree with this. Southgate got England playing together, defensively strong (hardly conceded any goals). Didn’t lose a match apart from penalties. Managed his team well. Have had no issue with his subs apart from I thought yesterday he could have brought on players earlier.

The fact he didn't bring players on sooner possibly cost us the game. Italy changed formation and Southgate didn't have an answer. The worst thing is the match played out almost exactly the same as the Croatia semi-final. The game was there for England to win but he decided to try and hold on to a 1-0 for 45mins and it was the wrong decision, I wish it wasn't but it just was.

Edited July 12, 2021 by DCFClks

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

I sometimes wonder what it will take for some England fans to be happy. You don't just sleepwalk in to a world cup semi then follow it up by getting to the final of the Euros. 

Probably only be happy when we beat Brazil and Argentina to win the Euros...

[nottingram]

Could anyone tell me a time where someone has had to beat all of the top teams in order to win a tournament. Given there only tends to be a handful of “top” teams at any one time I would find it surprising if there have been many occasions.

In the end Italy didn’t have to beat many top teams either because lots of top teams got knocked out by lesser teams. Maybe the lesser teams are getting better. Just a thought.

[Van der MoodHoover]

11 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Could anyone tell me a time where someone has had to beat all of the top teams in order to win a tournament. Given there only tends to be a handful of “top” teams at any one time I would find it surprising if there have been many occasions.

In the end Italy didn’t have to beat many top teams either because lots of top teams got knocked out by lesser teams. Maybe the lesser teams are getting better. Just a thought.

Closest I can think of is Spain winning euro 2012 when their knockout rounds were France, Portugal and Italy (there was no round of 16 then). 

Don't think that they played Germany, nor of course Woys mighty England.... ?

[DCFC Kicks]

30 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

What a load of nonsense. Do you expect to play all the 'best teams' in a tournament. You know it never works like that.

You could just as well flip the narrative and say Italy had an easy run. They beat Turkey who were one of the worst teams in the tournament, Wales whose star players are past their best. They needed extra time against Austria who had a goal disallowed. They just about beat Belgium with an old back line, no Hazard and a half fit Kevin de bruyne. Got dominated by Spain and were lucky to win on penalties.

Why is it always England who are 'lucky.' People like you will never give Southgate credit no matter what happens. You will always find a way to pick it apart. 

I agree that Italy were lucky as well but not as much as England. You can't just dismiss Belgium like that and I'm honestly not sure England would have been able to take Spain to penalties. Most teams who win tournaments have luck, but it doesn't come around very often and you have to make the most of it. I just think the last two tournaments are big missed opportunities.

Are you really saying you were happy with Southgate's tactics last night? 

Why are we not allowed to question Southgate's tactics in the final? It doesn't mean I'm not supporting them or that I'm not happy they got to a final.

[DCFC Kicks]

31 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Could anyone tell me a time where someone has had to beat all of the top teams in order to win a tournament. Given there only tends to be a handful of “top” teams at any one time I would find it surprising if there have been many occasions.

In the end Italy didn’t have to beat many top teams either because lots of top teams got knocked out by lesser teams. Maybe the lesser teams are getting better. Just a thought.

France had to beat Spain, Portugal then Italy in 2000

Greece had to beat France and Portugal in 2004

Spain had to beat Italy and Germany in 2008 

Spain had to beat France, Portugal then Italy in 2012

Portugal were very lucky in 2016, but they made the most of there luck.

So you usually have to beat 2/3 big teams to win. 

[nottingram]

7 minutes ago, DCFClks said:

France had to beat Spain, Portugal then Italy in 2000

Greece had to beat France and Portugal in 2004

Spain had to beat Italy and Germany in 2008 

Spain had to beat France, Portugal then Italy in 2012

Portugal were very lucky in 2016, but they made the most of there luck.

So you usually have to beat 2/3 big teams to win. 

Yes and we had to beat Croatia and Germany to get to the final and would have also had to beat Italy to win it. What’s your point?

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

1 hour ago, DCFClks said:

The fact he didn't bring players on sooner possibly cost us the game. Italy changed formation and Southgate didn't have an answer. The worst thing is the match played out almost exactly the same as the Croatia semi-final. The game was there for England to win but he decided to try and hold on to a 1-0 for 45mins and it was the wrong decision, I wish it wasn't but it just was.

How do you know that for sure? Hindsight is great. If he had brought those players on earlier and Italy score then what? Also if they had scored the penalties he is a genius. 
Italy are a top attacking team and it’s not all down to Southgate yesterday. Italy only scored one goal yesterday, there was some heroic defending and in the first half England looked threatening. Italy were always going to come back. 
 

Southgate has got England as a major contender two tournaments in a row. He gets my vote. 

[Chris_Martin]

3 hours ago, DCFClks said:

Yes he's managed to get to a final and semi-final whilst only having to beat one (possibly two) top team(s) over two tournaments, how lucky can you get? I honestly think Sven could have done just as good, if not better than Southgate had he had the same opponents. 

Potters clearly a very good modern tactical coach who's already being linked to top teams. Why do England always seem to hire managers whose tactics are already 10 years out of date?

Why are they 10 years out of date???

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

59 minutes ago, DCFClks said:

France had to beat Spain, Portugal then Italy in 2000

Greece had to beat France and Portugal in 2004

Spain had to beat Italy and Germany in 2008 

Spain had to beat France, Portugal then Italy in 2012

Portugal were very lucky in 2016, but they made the most of there luck.

So you usually have to beat 2/3 big teams to win. 

A load of none sense. England beat some good teams this tournament. Czech Denmark Germany and Croatia are hardly minnows. Denmark really elevated their game, destroyed Wales. Croatia were finalists last World Cup and Germany are a top side. England got to the final because England played really well, they conceded hardly any goals. It’s tournament football, not like a league, always need luck etc 

[Chris_Martin]

1 hour ago, DCFClks said:

The fact he didn't bring players on sooner possibly cost us the game. Italy changed formation and Southgate didn't have an answer. The worst thing is the match played out almost exactly the same as the Croatia semi-final. The game was there for England to win but he decided to try and hold on to a 1-0 for 45mins and it was the wrong decision, I wish it wasn't but it just was.

Incredibly fine margins though. If tha ball had just hit the outside of the post and gone behind, rather than flush on and fall to Bonucci for their goal. Or if Rashford's pen had hit the inside of the post rather than the outside we probably would have won. 

Think your possibly being a bit harsh on Southgate in the heat of the moment. 

[Chris_Martin]

1 hour ago, DCFClks said:

France had to beat Spain, Portugal then Italy in 2000

Greece had to beat France and Portugal in 2004

Spain had to beat Italy and Germany in 2008 

Spain had to beat France, Portugal then Italy in 2012

Portugal were very lucky in 2016, but they made the most of there luck.

So you usually have to beat 2/3 big teams to win. 

Usually yes, but not always 

Not Southgate's fault the draw worked out like that.

[nottingram]

Another thing is that international sides generally do not play like club sides do. It’s easy to say we should give it to someone like Graham Potter but he will be working day in day out with his players and coaching them in his image. International managers do not get that luxury and so it is a completely different skill set. 

Southgate has assembled a largely very good unit from a bunch of squads who play different styles. Not many international teams are going to be playing really cohesive football unless they all come from the same club team, like the great Spain team largely did. 

As others have said I think we are a controlling midfielder away from being a really really good team. Who that is or where they are coming from I don’t know, until we have it we will struggle in games like yesterday against Italy who have a Jorginho, who is there purely to control. Rice and Phillips had good tournaments but are ball winners, not tempo setters. Even then we only conceded from a set piece where there were about 3 unlucky ricochets. Ideally we would manage the whole game better but people seem to forget there are two teams trying to win a game playing cat and mouse with each other.

Honestly utter stupidity that there are discussions about replacing a manager who has achieved more than ALL of his predecessors bar one, and was a couple of penalties away from leading us to a tournament win. 

[DCFC Kicks]

1 hour ago, nottingram said:

Yes and we had to beat Croatia and Germany to get to the final and would have also had to beat Italy to win it. What’s your point?

I can't accept Croatia are still a top team, if they are then Czech Republic are as well who they drew to. They're both just good teams.

[Chris_Martin]

5 minutes ago, DCFClks said:

I can't accept Croatia are still a top team, if they are then Czech Republic are as well who they drew to. They're both just good teams.

True, Croatia are not what they were at the world cup. But still a very good side that pushed Spain all the way, even without Perisic for that game

[Carl Sagan]

2 hours ago, DCFClks said:

The fact he didn't bring players on sooner possibly cost us the game. Italy changed formation and Southgate didn't have an answer. The worst thing is the match played out almost exactly the same as the Croatia semi-final. The game was there for England to win but he decided to try and hold on to a 1-0 for 45mins and it was the wrong decision, I wish it wasn't but it just was.

This is exactly right. At half-time I was pointing out the Croatia comparison. I also remembered the Euro 96 semifinal defeat where Ruud Gullit pointed out that England "scored too early" and it was the same all over again. Of course you want to score at any point, but if that goal come in the first couple of minutes you cannot defend for the rest of the game.

I criticized Rooney heavily last season for never using subs when there were five at his disposal, but the counter argument with some validity was that he had a very weak bench. That does not hold with Southgate. It's a failure of coaching not to use all the players at your disposal in an era when such high athleticism and fitness levels are required. And England had the acknowledged strongest bench in the tournament.

The penalties were also a failure on the coaching side. The sports science is that you gain the best chance of winning the shootout by putting your best penalty takers later in the shootout. We must think Kane is our best penalty taker as he's the designated person during the game, yet he went first. What was Southgate thinking? Also, the best penalty according to the science is blasted into the top corner, which is unsaveable (sp?), like Harry Maguire's. This is what we should have practised for hour after hour over the last month. How come we hit three soft penalties instead, none of them being scored?