Jump to content
IGNORED

Keep Southgate, or Get Rid?


OneCity

Recommended Posts

On 12/07/2021 at 14:34, Sir Geoff said:

Would this even be a question if we had scored 2 more penalties ?

It might not have even come to that if Muller had scored, as he would normally have done 9/10 times.   I am not casting aspersions towards dear old Gareth.   But International tournaments can be won or lost on the smallest of moments, and there were a couple of incidents in  Major matches which could have swung games the other way.....and we could have ended up with a Spain v Germany Final?   Quite obviously we didn't , and well done England, but i don't think you can base the decision on whether GS should stay or go on a couple of missed penalties?

It's his overall management of the side that counts?   Was he courageous enough with his substitutions?   Was he out coached by Mancini?  Did he make the best use of his available squad?  etc.    .  I am on the fence at present, and I would only ask if he goes, who do people want to replace him with and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Marco the red said:

Complete bollocks.

Yep, we weren’t getting battered from pillar to post.  We had lost control, admittedly, but defended without too many concerns.

I get the natural tenseness / nervousness that happens as a fan when your team are defending, but to say we were battered is inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bullbag said:

When your getting battered from pillar to post for over an hour surely anyone with common sense would at least try and change it up and at least get a foothold in the game. 

He just stood there and let it happen/ or he just hasn't got what it takes to utilise a squad of players, and a very good squad. After all that's what it's for.

Look at Mancini, made all five subs in normal time, freshening up in midfield in particular. What was the point in take Bellingham for example? Physically a power house and no slouch either.

Rice and Phillips were visibly struggling, they were blowing, would love to have seen Bellingham, Grealish and Saka either at half time or 50/55 mins, fresh legs to try and give us some sort of outlet rather than getting battered with our backs to the wall.

My opinion, but watching that was depressingly disappointing, can't fault the players effort and desire, but with a positive coach behind them I genuinely believe they could win a major tournament. They are good enough, they've proved that but haven't been helped by their manager when it came to the crunch when it really mattered.

Were you watching a re-run of the Italy v Turkey game? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Southgate's a deep thinker and I think he'll be ruminating about the conservatism criticism on his holidays. It'll be interesting to see if he tweaks his philosophy to be a bit more ambitious. I'd bring Bellingham through to play in a midfield with Foden and Rice. That way you've got a midfield with a bit of everything from height and physicality to skill and class. Philips has been brilliant but we're too defence minded with him alongside Rice.
I don't see any sense in changing gaffer now. There's only 16 months until the next tourno so let's see if he can bend to the fans will a bit in that time.
The positive is that the squad is really young but now very experienced. 
France lost a Euros final in 2016. Guess how they did in the next world cup...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bullbag said:

Really, explain? 

We got battered, what game were you watching?

70% possession for starters.

So, you start your basis for a battering on possession, and justify it by using 70%.  So, how did they beat Spain with 30.5% possession.

Ludicrous rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, we weren’t getting battered from pillar to post.  We had lost control, admittedly, but defended without too many concerns.

I get the natural tenseness / nervousness that happens as a fan when your team are defending, but to say we were battered is inaccurate.

There is a lot of truth in what you say of course, but they were creating chances, and it did feel like only a matter of time. It’s not about defense v attack for me, it’s about what seemed extreme passivity with subs and tactics when we were allowed five. Nothing as far as I can remember until after they scored and if nothing else some fresh legs may have helped.

When we made a couple the game became much more even. I even thought in extra time we shaded it. Suddenly Italy looked a little leggy and in the last 15 they looked happy to get to  penalties. I am not talking about ripping up the play book that got us to the final, just a little more proactivity when a games momentum has changed.

I had recorded Argentina v Brazil and watched it in the afternoon. Argentina were happy if it stayed 1-0 but played a slightly higher line, got in Brazil’s faces over the half way line, and  just kept finding ways to break up play.

Easy in hindsight and we have all moved from being a nation of virologists to football coaches of course.  Bleh. Just really really disappointed more than anything.
 

 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Was going to say for all that possession they got 1 goal in 118 mins ish of play. 

I'd say not battered then and yip possession is a ludicrous rational in modern football. We've all seen teams win with hardly any. 

It's not how much you keep it, it's what is done with it that matters and England were quite happy to let Italy keep ball and shoot from distance.. 

but we didn’t do much with the ball because we couldn’t keep hold of it and we went on to lose the final!! 
We had 2 shots on target the whole game, Kane didn’t touch the ball once in the Italian box. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rob k said:

but we didn’t do much with the ball because we couldn’t keep hold of it and we went on to lose the final!! 
We had 2 shots on target the whole game, Kane didn’t touch the ball once in the Italian box. 

 

When you have a 36 year old defender making overlapping runs it just highlighted how they felt totally secure at that phase of the match we had no outlet.
We know how these games usually play out, one defends, one attacks, but the one defending carries a threat on the break. We just entirely lost for whatever reason the ability to break. They adjusted to take out our width, we could have tried adjusting ourselves and match them number wise in midfield, make it more difficult to play through our lines.

Its been a great tournament, Italy are a fine side and are worthy winners. Maybe there is nothing we could have done that would have ended up making a difference. It felt however Southgate did not really trust his bench, which is just a bit odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

on penalties after regulation time ended, so Italian possession counted for crap. 

2 shots on goal and one all. Will take that. 

Kane had a shit game it happens. 

Your point is what there?? 

Of course it counted - we didn’t have the ball, if you don’t have the ball it’s quite difficult to score!! 

The point about Kane is that we clearly couldn’t make one of the best strikers in the world effective, when your striker doesn’t touch the ball in the opposing box for 120 mins it suggests there was a slight issue that wasn’t addressed, and, in my opinion, we have the players to have addressed that issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, cityexile said:

When you have a 36 year old defender making overlapping runs it just highlighted how they felt totally secure at that phase of the match we had no outlet.
We know how these games usually play out, one defends, one attacks, but the one defending carries a threat on the break. We just entirely lost for whatever reason the ability to break. They adjusted to take out our width, we could have tried adjusting ourselves and match them number wise in midfield, make it more difficult to play through our lines.

Its been a great tournament, Italy are a fine side and are worthy winners. Maybe there is nothing we could have done that would have ended up making a difference. It felt however Southgate did not really trust his bench, which is just a bit odd.

Agree - we could have gone on to lose by making changes who knows, but for me i just feel slightly frustrated due to the fact i truly believe there was enough on that bench to have made a difference in a positive way. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Italy are on a run of 34 unbeaten games, only one short of the all-time record.  It astonishes me that some fans can have the arrogance to suggest that if the England Manager had done what they would have liked him to do we would have won, and that the England manager should lose his job for not doing what they would have done.  Has it not struck these people that if Southgate had tried to open up the game in the second half we might well have lost in 90 minutes?  We’ve just had our second best tournament ever, in the course of which we beat Germany and remained unbeaten, all achieved with the youngest squad in the tournament.  I’ll take the manager who achieved that any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

So, you start your basis for a battering on possession, and justify it by using 70%.  So, how did they beat Spain with 30.5% possession.

Ludicrous rationale.

Because they created seven chances the majority of which were inside the eighteen yard box. 

Against England it was nineteen chances created. Possession is a means to an end. Italy enjoyed more quality possession v England. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, cityexile said:

There is a lot of truth in what you say of course, but they were creating chances, and it did feel like only a matter of time. It’s not about defense v attack for me, it’s about what seemed extreme passivity with subs and tactics when we were allowed five. Nothing as far as I can remember until after they scored and if nothing else some fresh legs may have helped.

yep, thrust of one of my opening posts was that I don’t think he’s top class tactically.  Doesn’t need to be subs necessarily, a system tweak, someone going man 4 man, whatever.  Someone else mentioned bravery, which I sort of agree with….but I thought he was brave with his Germany formation switch, so can’t go OTT on that without giving him credit either.

When we made a couple the game became much more even. I even thought in extra time we shaded it. Suddenly Italy looked a little leggy and in the last 15 they looked happy to get to  penalties. I am not talking about ripping up the play book that got us to the final, just a little more proactivity when a games momentum has changed.

Agree totally.  We ended the 90 strong(ish) and I thought we were better side in ET.  Was that middle hour.

I had recorded Argentina v Brazil and watched it in the afternoon. Argentina were happy if it stayed 1-0 but played a slightly higher line, got in Brazil’s faces over the half way line, and  just kept finding ways to break up play.

Easy in hindsight and we have all moved from being a nation of virologists to football coaches of course.  Bleh. Just really really disappointed more than anything.

With Walker’s pace, you’d have thought a high line might’ve helped, but it’s easier to go deep and deny space in behind, than push up.  Just one of those things.

I normally wake up after a tourny defeat hoping it was a bad dream, and that the game is still to come.  I didn’t feel that this time.  I was content with our overall tourny.
 

 

 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Because they created seven chances the majority of which were inside the eighteen yard box. 

Against England it was nineteen chances created. Possession is a means to an end. Italy enjoyed more quality possession v England. 

Ah, but you’ve added more context….rather than blandly stating one stat in isolation.  Bullbag has decided to quit OTIB rather than qualify his stat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Italy are on a run of 34 unbeaten games, only one short of the all-time record.  It astonishes me that some fans can have the arrogance to suggest that if the England Manager had done what they would have liked him to do we would have won, and that the England manager should lose his job for not doing what they would have done.  Has it not struck these people that if Southgate had tried to open up the game in the second half we might well have lost in 90 minutes?  We’ve just had our second best tournament ever, in the course of which we beat Germany and remained unbeaten, all achieved with the youngest squad in the tournament.  I’ll take the manager who achieved that any day.

Of course, would be nuts to change. Not arguing that point.

Surely however we can discuss the match, tactics etc. Otherwise we slip in to the ‘look at the result, so the performance must have been good’ defence of us in the early part of last season?

Its possession, that did create chances. In defence we had no outlet. Those are things we need to improve in my humble opinion. ‘Southgate out’ would however be ludicrous.

edit: Just to add, a riposte to the ‘be braver’ view is when push came to shove, his call on penalties took a lot of bravery. Just did not work out. He does if nothing else back his own judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Davefevs said:

Ah, but you’ve added more context….rather than blandly stating one stat in isolation.  Bullbag has decided to quit OTIB rather than qualify his stat.

But you understand the point made. V Spain Italy managed nearly as many shots as Spain in good areas .. That got them to penalties. 

Italy's performance indicators v England normally mean penalties would not have been needed. It wasn't exactly a battering via chance creation but it was one sided. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

But you understand the point made. V Spain Italy managed nearly as many shots as Spain in good areas .. That got them to penalties. 

Italy's performance indicators v England normally mean penalties would not have been needed. It wasn't exactly a battering via chance creation but it was one sided. 

I do indeed.  Data is ace, used in isolation it’s usually less useful.  Possession data becomes useful when you give it context, like where is happens, at what success rate, what happens next etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Italy had more shots and possession, don't remember them having any really good chances and Pickford making any saves of note. It wasn't exactly that kind of game - just tense and never felt we were hanging on. Just not really causing them enough problems though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Alex_BCFC said:

Although Italy had more shots and possession, don't remember them having any really good chances and Pickford making any saves of note. It wasn't exactly that kind of game - just tense and never felt we were hanging on. Just not really causing them enough problems though.

Their xG over 120 mins was 1.88.  The goal itself was 0.87, but actually the Veratti header was 0.11, so 0.98 of 1.88 was part of the goal….0.90 across the other chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

There's no nuance in that to be fair. 

1. Is a matter of opinion and negates the opposition actually doing the same thing, so comes down to personal bias. 

2. Penalties are effectively a game of chance, you can play percentages till the cows come home, but your banker can still miss. There's not much in the way of tactics there tbh. 

More likely that those who practice will score but so many variables that aside from educated guessing you cant and wont guarantee a win, its the whole point. 

3. Personal opinion. 

Go out as plucky underdog, get hammered against someone vs actually winning, grinding works. 

The evidence is overwhelming that it does. Cant always have both and what we're currently doing actually is massively successful. 

So why change a successful formula, what we're doing is yielding relative and actual success for us, however that's not enough because they seem to hate the method and very little else??

There is, because you've completely oversimplified it. 

It's one of the biggest jobs in world football - people are allowed to negatively critique, it comes with the territory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Funnily enough I think Allardyce might've done a pretty good job with us. He's a far more astute manager than most people think.

Then again, I'd never have expected England to reach a semi final and then a final after 2016 which is obviously a huge achievement from Southgate.

I think the two stand out English candidates over the next 5 years or so will probably be Potter or Gerrard. 

If Allardyce was in charge we'd still be debating whether Rooney should be in the squad.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, billywedlock said:

He just needs to evolve and learn

This final pretty was pretty much the same as the Croatia semi final. We went ahead with an early goal, and Croatia (Italy) grew into the game, kept possession and the inevitable happened. In both games you just knew the opposition were going to score.

He didn't learn from the semi and made the same mistakes. Even worse than that we had better attacking weapons in this Final than in the semi.

That's really my issue, and i bet deep down GS knows he should have grasped the moment more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt we were very good for the opening 20.

About even 20-60.

Under pressure 60-80.

About even 80-90.

And probably edged a very close ET.

This is not surprising really. We had a narrow lead and Italy were always going to throw everything at us second half in search of an equaliser. 

On another day Pickford tips the header wide rather than onto the post and we are sat here talking about a defensive/tactical master class. I really didn't feel for all their possession, italy were actually creating clear cut opportunities. Even the goal... I expect the first effort to be saved. Just a bit of bad luck where it fell after.

My only disappointment was that for the first time in the tournament we lost our composure on the ball for 20-30 mins (simply booting it out of play) and it cost us. I wouldn't say that the changes Southgate made were negative though.

Italy, to me, where just a bit more street wise. Again not surprising considering the age difference between most the players.

People talk about not being exciting enough. But I enjoy watching this young England team and how confident they are on the ball. We have never had that.

I feel that we scored more "team" goals than anyone else, our furthest out was from about 12 yards and if Spain had scored the two goals we scored against Germany we would be singing their praises. 

We also had the best defense. Thats a pretty good balance to me.

Southgate had a plan - It very nearly worked. For me he has earned the right to stay.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how the team shapes up over the next 15 months or so in the lead up to the World Cup.

Assuming we stick to the 4-2-3-1 system I'd like to see something like this

Pickford

James/TAA - Stones - Maguire - Shaw

Rice - Phillips

Sterling - Foden - Grealish

Kane 

I don't think too much needs tweaking, but I think that's a really interesting like up. Sancho may well come into starting contention assuming he starts well at United. Kyle Walker hasn't done anything wrong, but I think it's time to blood the likes of James or TAA as a longer term solution.

That attacking midfield 3 can be fairly fluid and swap around during the game - but in theory could be a very positive and dangerous side with a good blend of youth and experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

It will be interesting to see how the team shapes up over the next 15 months or so in the lead up to the World Cup.

Assuming we stick to the 4-2-3-1 system I'd like to see something like this

Pickford

James/TAA - Stones - Maguire - Shaw

Rice - Phillips

Sterling - Foden - Grealish

Kane 

I don't think too much needs tweaking, but I think that's a really interesting like up. Sancho may well come into starting contention assuming he starts well at United. Kyle Walker hasn't done anything wrong, but I think it's time to blood the likes of James or TAA as a longer term solution.

That attacking midfield 3 can be fairly fluid and swap around during the game - but in theory could be a very positive and dangerous side with a good blend of youth and experience. 

Bellingham for Philips please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all credit to the guy he has indeed taken us to a world cup semi and a euro final but who did we beat really to get to these? True you can only beat what's put in front of you, but if we we're on the other side of the draw would've of we gotten to the final?

He plays way to defensive which makes for a boring watch also Sunday we we're the home team with so much attacking talent that we should of taken it to them. But if you look at the stats we got completely out played. I feel if we had players running at the Italians entre backs for 90 minutes then at least one would been sent off.

Personally  think we need to move on from him now before another generation is wasted 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I respect people's points of view I wonder how on earth anyone wants the manager replaced.

 

You do realise that when you change anyone in any role you lose the good characteristics as well as the less good ones and that the replacement might not be able to do the things you were taking for granted as well.  If that person is still learning in the role then it is probably a good idea to let them continue until they show signs of running out of steam.  I don't see those signs with Southgate and England.

There has never been in my 50 years a side that have won a tournament who've played great football all the way through to do so.  Every single one has been pragmatic and defensively minded when needed.  The Spain side were mostly dull to watch, just keeping possession.  They played superbly vs Italy in 2012 but were also dull at other times in that tournament.  The most entertaining sides have gone out as soon as they've played a side better organised who worked them out.  Brazil in 1982 being a primary example. They played glorious football but Italy sussed them out.

We've been tactically astute but in the end weren't as good as Italy not helped by making a dogs dinner of the penalty shoot out.  He got that wrong and needs to correct that.  He did own the mistake though.  Imagine if it had been LJ?  He'd have been chucking people under the bus left right and centre.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Forgot about Bellingham. Yes I’d bring him in for one of Phillips/Rice. Phillips really impressed me this tournament. Think Rice does a lot of unsung work too.

They were both very impressive, but as I said earlier I think both together is too defensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...