Gareth Southgate

[mykeyb]

15 minutes ago, Don_Simon said:

If France win the World Cup, does this become less of an issue as they have beaten everyone else too?

Not really, if you want to win tournaments you need to beat the best teams.

[foreveryoung]

20 minutes ago, mykeyb said:

Not really, if you want to win tournaments you need to beat the best teams.

Who wants to win tournaments, when we have a bonded culture and happy camp, all down to Southgate.

Listening to most of the media this afternoon, that's better than winning any f****g trophy??

[Demitri_C]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

 

He was absolutely shit. He played terrible football and the players hated him. He scraped through the groups in his only tournament and then got battered by Germany. I don't care if Lampard's goal should have counted, we'd have still lost that game.

What exactly did he do that you could remotely class as successful?

How do you know we would have lost the game? Goals change games we coild have gone on to perhaps won that. The only point i accept is that capellos football wasnt great but has southgates? Its been shit.

Only managers i only enjoyed watching in my lifetime was venables and hoddle

[Demitri_C]

4 hours ago, Xela said:

Wind your neck in a bit pal. There is nothing ridiculous about wanting the national manager of England, who is managing players who qualify as being English, to be English. That should be the main criteria for the FA, and I believe it is, currently. This should aways be the preference and part of what forms the 'best person for the job' criteria. 

As for racist/discrimination/victimising (who specifically is being victimised?) then nonsense. The FA is free to appoint who they want, but they have stated previously that they prefer English managers. If that is against the law then i'm sure it would have been challenged. 

 

 

Wind my neck in what do you mean? Lost

So if the choices are lampard and Pochettino for manager would you opt for lampard then because he is British?

So if tesco only employs english people is that not victimising and discrimination against people. Why is it different for the england job?

Edited December 13, 2022 by Demitri_C

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Humanoid said:

There never is a large selection of excellent English managers, but to be fair there isn't a large selection of excellent foreign ones who are open minded enough to want to take the job either.  And it will remain that way for as long as Premier League clubs employ more foreign managers than English, and that's just the way it is.   

As for managers qualifying for the national job in the same way players do, I would imagine it would be up to Fifa to bring in the rule after a vote by all the national FA's.  I don't think big footballing nations would be against it, but smaller ones could well be as they try to get the best they can from wherever.

As for Southgate, it's not as if he has proved himself in the Premier League.  No PL club would have taken him on before his appointment, imo.  He's basically an in-house English FA manager, a guaranteed yes-man.  And I think the FA will be very happy with the way it's turned out.  A top drawer manager would get more out of the squad available, imo.  I think in the past we've tended to over rate the England squad and make the manager the whipping boy to a certain degree (this isn't to excuse the managers).  I think this time there's no doubt as to how good the squad is, and some are wondering if Southgate holds the players back.

I think your point about foreign managers nit being interested jn the job could be valid but we are seeing it becoming very common these days.

Looks at otto a german whi won the euros with greece, sven with us, queiroz with iran. Its not really important where they from as long as they get england playing. Its nonsense carragher saying that the england manager should always be english.

Literally the only two english managers who you could give the england job to is howe or cooper. (No chance potter would take it right now but he will definitely end up being national manager at some point)

[Davkaus]

7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

 

So if tesco only employs english people is that not victimising and discrimination against people. Why is it different for the england job?

There are several exceptions to the Equality Act for sport, and this is one of them.

Personally, with rules as they are, we should give ourselves every advantage we can, but I'd be in favour of a rules change. I think in a competition of nations, the managers, coaches having to be eligible to represent that country makes a lot of sense

[Demitri_C]

Just now, Davkaus said:

There are several exceptions to the Equality Act for sport, and this is one of them.

Personally, with rules as they are, we should give ourselves every advantage we can, but I'd be in favour of a rules change. I think in a competition of nations, the managers, coaches having to be eligible to represent that country makes a lot of sense

Should that then be the case domestically as well then?

If we have to be rely on a english manager (well the current options anyway) we would be lucky to get past the group stages in world cups.

Imagine gerrard or lampard managing England? We would be a world embarrassment

[Xela]

15 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Wind my neck in what do you mean? Lost

So if the choices are lampard and Pochettino for manager would you opt for lampard then because he is British?

So if tesco only employs english people is that not victimising and discrimination against people. Why is it different for the england job?

You said my view was ridiculous. It's not. It's the view shared by the FA and most established football federations worldwide. It is not illegal to specifically want an English manager. The FA can appoint who they want on whatever basis they want. 

We want to encourage English managers, develop them and give them something to aim for. That isn't going to happen by appointing established overseas coaches IMO. 

I understand smaller nations doing it, helps them develop, but for us, we need to be developing our own managers.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Xela

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

Should that then be the case domestically as well then?

 

Well, no. Because domestic football isn't a competition between nations, whereas international football is.

 

[Demitri_C]

Just now, Xela said:

You said my view was ridiculous. It's not. It's the view shared by the FA and most established football federations worldwide. It is not illegal to want an English manager. The FA can appoint who they want on whatever basis they want. 

We want to encourage English managers, develop them and give them something to aim for. That isn't going to happen by appointing established overseas coaches IMO. 

I understand smaller nations doing it, helps them develop, but for us, we need to be developing our own managers.

You need to re-read the post against i said he (carraghers) point was ridiculous not yours. Come on i wouldnt be rude to you 

To your points its not illegal but i have said the reasons that i believe it shouldnt be based on just being english. If we have mediocre english managers why should they get the job because they english? If you have a high level of english managers then of course you would opt for a englisman iver a foreigner but thats nit how it is at the moment

As i said in my previous post who do you have in the current pool?

Howe ( he wont take it) potter (neither will he) so your left with lampard gerrard and cooper. Not exactly inspiring choices are they? If its one of them or poch/mancini/rodgers for example id be opting for the non english any day!

 

[Demitri_C]

6 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Well, no. Because domestic football isn't a competition between nations, whereas international football is.

 

Technically european football competitions are though

[Davkaus]

Just now, Demitri_C said:

Technically european football competitions are though

They're not, technically, or untechnically.

All some people are saying is that the manager's selection criteria should follow similar rules to those by which we have to select players. Feel free to disagree, and as things stand, the rules are on your side. There's nothing weird or inconsistent about the position though, and the comparison with club football (either domestic or european) doesn't stack up, because we don't limit players by nationality in those competitions. 

FWIW, I agree with you, the current crop of English managers are crap. It makes sense to give ourselves the best advantage we can, and the rules currently permit that. 

[Demitri_C]

Just now, Davkaus said:

They're not, technically, or untechnically.

All some people are saying is that the manager's selection criteria should follow similar rules to those by which we have to select players. Feel free to disagree, and as things stand, the rules are on your side. There's nothing weird or inconsistent about the position though, and the comparison with club football (either domestic or european) doesn't stack up, because we don't limit players by nationality in those competitions. 

FWIW, I agree with you, the current crop of English managers are crap. It makes sense to give ourselves the best advantage we can, and the rules currently permit that. 

Just looking at the current lot jesus if we sticking english i wouldnt be suprised if old candleface was considered as most of them these days are crap as you say.

Im sure that would change everyone's mind !

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, mykeyb said:

Not really, if you want to win tournaments you need to beat the best teams.

So for you, nothing less than winning the tournament is an acceptable result then?

[StanBalaban]

 

 

 

[Stevo985]

41 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

How do you know we would have lost the game? Goals change games we coild have gone on to perhaps won that. The only point i accept is that capellos football wasnt great but has southgates? Its been shit.

Because Germany absolutely battered us for 90 minutes. We lost 4-1, it’s not like they scraped through by a goal. 
 

I don’t even like Southgate’s football but it is light years better than Capello’s with England. 

[Keyblade]

Took note of how Griezmann was killing England between the lines. 

Won't call Deschamps a genius or anything, but he could have used the excuse that Southgate used for not playing Foden or Grealish in that position, as Griezmann plays as a second striker/wide forward for his club and throughout his career. 

[gwi1890]

57 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I think your point about foreign managers nit being interested jn the job could be valid but we are seeing it becoming very common these days.

Looks at otto a german whi won the euros with greece, sven with us, queiroz with iran. Its not really important where they from as long as they get england playing. Its nonsense carragher saying that the england manager should always be english.

Literally the only two english managers who you could give the england job to is howe or cooper. (No chance potter would take it right now but he will definitely end up being national manager at some point)

Cooper’s welsh

[mikeyp102]

7 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

 

Also that german loss was highly controversial as we know that wasnt capello. 

What?

[Mark Albrighton]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

So for you, nothing less than winning the tournament is an acceptable result then?

For what it’s worth, and admittedly a bit of a tangent here, I’ve had arguments with my mates on the term “successful”. 

“Southgate is the most successful England manager since Ramsey” they tell me.

I’m told that because of the rarity of reaching a final (or a semi final even) you can lose it and still be considered a success story. I asked my one Wolves supporting mate who feels this way whether he considered his team’s cup run in 18/19 where they surrendered a two goal lead at a Wembley semi final a successful cup run. He does, apparently.

I’m personally of the opinion that you’re only successful if you’ve won the damn thing. Or, to finesse it somewhat, if a team’s objective is to finish in a champions league spot, and they finish 4th, then that can be considered successful. Likewise if it a team’s sole objective is to not be relegated.

That does not mean to say that whatever happens tomorrow night, the Moroccan national team can’t return home with their heads held high, for instance. Of course they can. 

But I think England’s aim in every tournament is to win it. I think it always has been, always will be. The likelihood of achieving that has varied massively, but I feel it’s always been the aim.

If the statement is “Southgate has the best record in major tournaments for England since Ramsey” then I’m more accommodating of that.

I appreciate that doesn’t really answer your question, but the above is part of the reason why I might do a not so subtle eye roll when his success is brought up in conversation.