Who should be next England manager?

[sgncfc 1,227]

On 01/10/2022 at 20:27, chicken said:

There is a reason that Italy usually does well at tournaments because of that.

I get that you've entrenched your argument because you can't substantiate it, but let's get some reality into at least one part of it. Italy have failed (again) to even qualify for this years WC. That's how good they are at tournaments.

 

[chicken 2,624]

5 hours ago, sgncfc said:

I get that you've entrenched your argument because you can't substantiate it, but let's get some reality into at least one part of it. Italy have failed (again) to even qualify for this years WC. That's how good they are at tournaments.

That's a particularly strong hypocritical stance to take, considering your main arguments so far have been Southgate is useless and England under him have been lucky. 

Again, known for doing well in tournaments with their approach. They are struggling now, as, like England, they are lacking in stand out players really and could be said to be in a bit of a period of transition. The two CB's from the last tournament are 38 - Chiellini who is effectively semi retired playing in the US, and Bonucci at 35. Hence the plural for tournaments... they have a relatively solid history of them and for playing a certain way - which is why I referenced Parma who mentioned that, clearly neither of us meant ALL tournaments but generally, they are one of the most successful international sides and have a reputation of building successful teams on a strong defensive team display. 

Entrenched would be to say that we have only done well by luck, that there was nothing in the way we went about how we played in games. The draw can be lucky, but then, you could possibly argue that for a lot of teams drawn in what is seen to be an easy group stage. Which ever team it is you back, they still have to beat what's in front of them. The same as teams in other groups no matter how much harder or easier they are.

Worth remembering England lost to Iceland 6 years ago. From what I can see, of the 24 players in the matchday squad, Kane, Walker, Stones, Sterling and Henderson remain with Rashford sometimes making the squad.

Rather than being entrenched in my ways, I can see that there are varying ways to deploy a team and measure the ability of said team against others. When you inherit a team that loses to Iceland, you have to start with the mentality. The side out there that night may well be seen to be meh, but they still should have performed far, far better than that. You have to earn the right to walk out onto a pitch and know you can genuinely dominate others to the point of hammering them in every game and do so with open expansive football... in the past we have done that and got beat, but much lower teams in the rankings, because we believed in all of the hype. There is a balance. 

Rather than being lucky, we are fare more measured than we have been in the past. Not as negative as Roy Hodgson, not as gung-ho as some managers in the recent past either. Not sure why anyone thinks we should go all out when we genuinely lack the quality in consistency of players for it.





 

Edited October 3, 2022 by chicken

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Southgate was doing fine in getting passable results out of a rather imbalanced bunch of players until the latest Nations League matches. He has had some luck in tournaments though - in the Euros the obvious stroke of luck was practically every game being at Wembley, and the one that wasn't, against a fatigued Ukraine, featured a tired opposition team who'd needed extra time to beat Sweden the day after England beat Germany (the best win) in normal time.

In the World Cup he had two knockout matches against teams without their best individual players - Sweden didn't have Ibrahimovic (think he'd retired from international footy), and Colombia were missing James Rodriguez (injury) and frankly, the qualifying group was facile. Panama are crap to the extent I'd back teams like the Faroe Islands to beat them. Tunisia are bang average, and the limits of that England team were shown by Belgium and Croatia.

Going back to the imbalance, there's a fair bit of attacking talent, but not much in defence. Pickford is a reasonable goalie who's not let Southgate down at international level, but he's not really out of the top drawer. Centre-half is a real problem - a real mish-mash of very little depth (which IMO is why Southgate is cautious as he knows that line can't be exposed too much). Throw in some inconsistency at full-back and vulnerability in defensive midfield (has Rice ever really pulled the strings back there in an England shirt), and he's got a problem getting a base for an attack to thrive.

Maddison, Foden, Bellingham and Kane should provide plenty of firepower if something can be gelled out of that line-up. Sterling and maybe Sancho too. However, if that side played more attacking it would be like Farke's first season in the Premier League before Project Restart. They'd probably look really tidy to watch and entertain fans, but that defence would be taken apart repeatedly.

Southgate's circumspect approach is precisely why England got to where they did in the Euros and the WC.

Edited October 3, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[chicken 2,624]

On 02/10/2022 at 14:27, Ken Hairy said:

Watching Foden ripping Man Utd apart right now is why Southgate should go, he's wasting top attacking players like Foden. 

Yeah, may have to eat my words on Foden a bit. The caveat I would throw in there at the moment though is that there is an argument to be had in suggesting Man City are the best team in the world at the moment.

Halaand has transformed them. He is the quintessential all round striker. He has skill, pace, height, strength and power. Perhaps not quite as twinkle-toed as Messi, but I think it's going to be tough for another striker to genuinely challenge for top spot for the next 5-6yrs if he can keep this up.

Teams are genuinely frightened of him. That's not taking anything away from Foden. I felt he had his chance in the last tournament and wasn't quite there consistently.

Compare to:


3-4-3 - pretty attacking line up in terms of formation. Especially with Bellingham in there instead of another DM, which he could have gone for with Henderson.

Highlights the England frailties though. Maguire, Dier, Pope wouldn't get in the Man City side, not even close. I doubt James or Rice would genuinely either, at the moment. Saka Vs Silva? Kane Vs Haaland? Grealish Vs Sterling... which is an interesting one because Pep offloaded one... 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Almost think England might be best going 4-2-3-1. Maddison, Foden and one of Sancho / Sterling / Saka behind Kane. Phillips hasn't got started at City yet but that's not really his fault. I'd think Stones should be in there somewhere and if he's in, so should Walker. Smalling isn't that bad a shout especially if your other options are Maguire, Coady, Keane or Dier.

Left-back could be a problem. Chilwell's not got much time to get match fit.

Shows what balance issues the England squad has.

[chicken 2,624]

9 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Southgate was doing fine in getting passable results out of a rather imbalanced bunch of players until the latest Nations League matches. He has had some luck in tournaments though - in the Euros the obvious stroke of luck was practically every game being at Wembley, and the one that wasn't, against a fatigued Ukraine, featured a tired opposition team who'd needed extra time to beat Sweden the day after England beat Germany (the best win) in normal time.

In the World Cup he had two knockout matches against teams without their best individual players - Sweden didn't have Ibrahimovic (think he'd retired from international footy), and Colombia were missing James Rodriguez (injury) and frankly, the qualifying group was facile. Panama are crap to the extent I'd back teams like the Faroe Islands to beat them. Tunisia are bang average, and the limits of that England team were shown by Belgium and Croatia.

Going back to the imbalance, there's a fair bit of attacking talent, but not much in defence. Pickford is a reasonable goalie who's not let Southgate down at international level, but he's not really out of the top drawer. Centre-half is a real problem - a real mish-mash of very little depth (which IMO is why Southgate is cautious as he knows that line can't be exposed too much). Throw in some inconsistency at full-back and vulnerability in defensive midfield (has Rice ever really pulled the strings back there in an England shirt), and he's got a problem getting a base for an attack to thrive.

Maddison, Foden, Bellingham and Kane should provide plenty of firepower if something can be gelled out of that line-up. Sterling and maybe Sancho too. However, if that side played more attacking it would be like Farke's first season in the Premier League before Project Restart. They'd probably look really tidy to watch and entertain fans, but that defence would be taken apart repeatedly.

Southgate's circumspect approach is precisely why England got to where they did in the Euros and the WC.

So less lucky and more considered and planned by Southgate?

I'm going to call out the Ibrahimović comment too, he was 34 in 2016, which was when he retired from international football. It wasn't like he suddenly pulled out. By the time 2020 was played, it was 2021 and Ibrahimović was 39. We'll get to see him a year on aged 41, that might give some indication of his level at international level now. Not sure whether him being their most talented player at that age is more of an indictment on their squad though.

Otherwise I agree. "Some luck" perhaps, but not enough to suggest ALL or even any success is largely down to it. You are spot on with the assessment of the current England squad. We still have a lot of youth in that equation too. Foden is 22, Bellingham is 19, Rice is 23, Saka turned 21 in September, Reece James is 22.

If you add into that Grealish is 27 has but a similar number of appearances as Saka, both making their first appearances for England in 2020.

Could really do with some more, younger, consistent and calm defenders to come through and Maguire to find the form of old. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, chicken said:

So less lucky and more considered and planned by Southgate?

I'm going to call out the Ibrahimović comment too, he was 34 in 2016, which was when he retired from international football. It wasn't like he suddenly pulled out. By the time 2020 was played, it was 2021 and Ibrahimović was 39. We'll get to see him a year on aged 41, that might give some indication of his level at international level now. Not sure whether him being their most talented player at that age is more of an indictment on their squad though.

Otherwise I agree. "Some luck" perhaps, but not enough to suggest ALL or even any success is largely down to it. You are spot on with the assessment of the current England squad. We still have a lot of youth in that equation too. Foden is 22, Bellingham is 19, Rice is 23, Saka turned 21 in September, Reece James is 22.

If you add into that Grealish is 27 has but a similar number of appearances as Saka, both making their first appearances for England in 2020.

Could really do with some more, younger, consistent and calm defenders to come through and Maguire to find the form of old. 

England played Sweden in World Cup 2018, so only a couple of years after Ibra first retired. However, Sweden's strikers in the England match were Marcus Berg and Ola Toivonen. John Guidetti came on as a sub. Think it's more than reasonable to say even a two-year internationally retired Ibrahimovic was a far stronger player than any of those three, and indeed he came back in 2020.

 

[chicken 2,624]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Almost think England might be best going 4-2-3-1. Maddison, Foden and one of Sancho / Sterling / Saka behind Kane. Phillips hasn't got started at City yet but that's not really his fault. I'd think Stones should be in there somewhere and if he's in, so should Walker. Smalling isn't that bad a shout especially if your other options are Maguire, Coady, Keane or Dier.

Left-back could be a problem. Chilwell's not got much time to get match fit.

Shows what balance issues the England squad has.

Spot on. Keane and Coady are not close to international quality for me... more of a lack of other options. A real shame Godfrey hasn't gripped that challenge by the horns.

Smalling is a good shout as he has experience too, so not just chucking someone raw into it, and he certainly has played well before too. White at Arsenal isn't bad either, better than Keane or Coady for me. He'll be 25 in five days so it's time he is considered to be brought in for at least the medium term.

Dier is the epitome of inconsistent. He also suffers from that weird curse that some players seem to get when they look a little bit good. I remember people saying Rio Ferdinand could have played DM... and Fergie never doing it because he's not a plum. Well, delusions of grandeur and Dier was played there for Spurs... not the only reason, but certainly didn't help him to stay grounded and consistent at CB... much like Liverpool tried Gerard up front for several games despite his best position being attacking from deeper positions.

Anyway, I digress. You are spot on. Form is a huge issue. Even with the likes of Stones, he has dodgy games just like Maguire, hence he isn't always top pick for Man City in that position. I really don't think we have standouts in that position other than Walker... and it says a lot that the first CB on the team sheet used to be the regular right back. Reece James obviously takes that slot comfortably enough... then like you say, you could throw anyone of 1-5 names into the other position and left back is looking bare.

God forbid an injury to Kane and we start to look properly stuffed. Do we possess another modern No.9 or whatever you'd want to call him? Tony can do it perhaps? 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Assuming everyone's fit, I think I'd take this line-up:

GK: Jordan PICKFORD
LB: Ben CHILWELL
LCB: Chris SMALLING
RCB: Kyle WALKER
RB: Reece JAMES
CDM: Declan RICE
CDM: Jordan HENDERSON
CAM: James MADDISON
LAM: Raheem STERLING
RAM: Phil FODEN
CF: Harry KANE

Subs: Pope (GK), Stones, Shaw, Alexander-Arnold, Dier, Phillips, Mount, Saka, Bellingham, Sancho, Rashford.

Probably missing a couple of obvious names as I'm bushed and still working on some urgent pieces. Deliberately left out Grealish and Maguire, I don't think either have done enough. Could argue Toney over Rashford, I think.

Edited October 3, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[chicken 2,624]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

England played Sweden in World Cup 2018, so only a couple of years after Ibra first retired. However, Sweden's strikers in the England match were Marcus Berg and Ola Toivonen. John Guidetti came on as a sub. Think it's more than reasonable to say even a two-year internationally retired Ibrahimovic was a far stronger player than any of those three, and indeed he came back in 2020.

Yeah, not arguing whether he was/is better or not... it's just a non argument really. You can't really argue England were let off because he chose to retire... otherwise what about Shearer retiring at 30 despite remaining to be our best striking option at the time? It's just a bit clutching at strawsy to say that "if Sweden had..." they didn't, everyone knew they wouldn't for two years in the build up. Like I say, it wasn't like Rodriguez who missed the game Vs England but had played in the group games. 

I also think you'll find Ibrahimovic wanted to return in 2020 but injury prevented him from doing so and in fact didn't return until 2021 whereupon he was injured again so couldn't play in the delayed Euro's...
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/zlatan-ibrahimović/nationalmannschaft/spieler/3455

He's currently recovering from another injury and plays without an ACL in one knee... I think that's legendary in it's own right.
 

[sgncfc 1,227]

23 hours ago, chicken said:

That's a particularly strong hypocritical stance to take, considering your main arguments so far have been Southgate is useless and England under him have been lucky. 

Again, known for doing well in tournaments with their approach. They are struggling now, as, like England, they are lacking in stand out players really and could be said to be in a bit of a period of transition. The two CB's from the last tournament are 38 - Chiellini who is effectively semi retired playing in the US, and Bonucci at 35. Hence the plural for tournaments... they have a relatively solid history of them and for playing a certain way - which is why I referenced Parma who mentioned that, clearly neither of us meant ALL tournaments but generally, they are one of the most successful international sides and have a reputation of building successful teams on a strong defensive team display. 

Entrenched would be to say that we have only done well by luck, that there was nothing in the way we went about how we played in games. The draw can be lucky, but then, you could possibly argue that for a lot of teams drawn in what is seen to be an easy group stage. Which ever team it is you back, they still have to beat what's in front of them. The same as teams in other groups no matter how much harder or easier they are.

Worth remembering England lost to Iceland 6 years ago. From what I can see, of the 24 players in the matchday squad, Kane, Walker, Stones, Sterling and Henderson remain with Rashford sometimes making the squad.

Rather than being entrenched in my ways, I can see that there are varying ways to deploy a team and measure the ability of said team against others. When you inherit a team that loses to Iceland, you have to start with the mentality. The side out there that night may well be seen to be meh, but they still should have performed far, far better than that. You have to earn the right to walk out onto a pitch and know you can genuinely dominate others to the point of hammering them in every game and do so with open expansive football... in the past we have done that and got beat, but much lower teams in the rankings, because we believed in all of the hype. There is a balance. 

Rather than being lucky, we are fare more measured than we have been in the past. Not as negative as Roy Hodgson, not as gung-ho as some managers in the recent past either. Not sure why anyone thinks we should go all out when we genuinely lack the quality in consistency of players for it.





 

So if we haven't been lucky in the last two tournaments then presumably we have really good players who deserved to get as far as we did. Yet you argue that our players are not very good in European standards. (I'm still waiting for the 5 strikers who are better than Kane). And you call me hypocritical. So your real point is that Southgate is actually a magnificent manager to have reached those stages with such a bunch of dross to pick from.

I disagree with both your sentiment and that I am hypocritical - you gave Italy as an example of a great tournament team witrhout actually realising that they haven't played in a WC since 2014 and won't play in one until at least 2026.

I haven't strayed from my point, unlike you. Southgate has been extremely fortunate in his last two tournaments (see, I didn't use the word luck). He is a poor manager. We have good players who should be playing better for England and beating the vast majority of European teams. So, not losing 4-0 at home to Hungary - probably as bad a result as losing to Iceland.

The last decent international manager we had was Hoddle.

Oh, and just because Parma agrees with you, it doesn't make you right. It makes you both wrong.

[KeiranShikari 1,410]

Dean Smith.

[chicken 2,624]

1 hour ago, sgncfc said:

So if we haven't been lucky in the last two tournaments then presumably we have really good players who deserved to get as far as we did. Yet you argue that our players are not very good in European standards. (I'm still waiting for the 5 strikers who are better than Kane). And you call me hypocritical. So your real point is that Southgate is actually a magnificent manager to have reached those stages with such a bunch of dross to pick from.

I disagree with both your sentiment and that I am hypocritical - you gave Italy as an example of a great tournament team witrhout actually realising that they haven't played in a WC since 2014 and won't play in one until at least 2026.

I haven't strayed from my point, unlike you. Southgate has been extremely fortunate in his last two tournaments (see, I didn't use the word luck). He is a poor manager. We have good players who should be playing better for England and beating the vast majority of European teams. So, not losing 4-0 at home to Hungary - probably as bad a result as losing to Iceland.

The last decent international manager we had was Hoddle.

Oh, and just because Parma agrees with you, it doesn't make you right. It makes you both wrong.

Another mess.

No. I have said that Southgate has done well with players who are not individually better than counterparts in other international teams.

@TheGunnShow mentioned Ibrahimovic, for example. He is probably past it now, but he has shown over the last few years that he has the quality. Haaland would have to be ahead of Kane right now. Some could make a decent case for Ronaldo, Benzema, Lewandowski, Mbappe... If going to world international football some would put cases forward for Salah, Messi, Son... Other folks will probably throw other names into the hat too. That's not to say he's rubbish, but just not outright the best - and that's not a particularly unfair assessment either.

For Southgate to be poor and worthy of being dismissed from his post as England manager, he would have to be underperforming with the players he has at his disposal. The evidence is he very much isn't.

As I said waaaaay back when, people take these nations league games way too seriously. They are literally sexed up friendlies. As friendlies are pretty much gone thanks to FIFA. That means this is where any experiments are done, players given debuts to test them out and some favour is bought with clubs by not selecting players with niggly injuries. Even more so right now, a month off a tournament where injuries to players could cost sides title pushes or relegation survival battles.

At the end of the day, one of the most important aspects for any international side is to play as a team, Southgate undeniably has them playing as a team. Watching any training vids or off pitch vids of them shows this.

There just really isn't a lot of evidence, as in out right evidence, to suggest Southgate is doing a bad job. Even if you try to pin any success to be purely built on luck - which is, as I have said, ridiculous.