Am I wrong to have the impression that a lot of people have progressed from the "Gareth Southgate wouldn't get a job as a PE teacher because his clown costume would frighten the children" phase directly to the "ROARRRR WE'RE GONNA WIN THIS" phase without first passing through an intermediate "maybe my initial view of the England manager was injudiciously harsh" phase?
I'm not saying Southgate is a managerial genius but it's worth taking a moment to address the level of disrespect he's had over the last two or three weeks. For years and years England teams have been kneecapped by the burdens of expectation and history, internal cliques, and lurching between the distractions of celebrity culture and Capello's prison camp vibe. Southgate has created an environment where the players are united and comfortable in their own skins: motivated without getting so hyped up that they make rash decisions. This is the most contented and quietly confident England squad in my memory.
In terms of tactics, naturally most of us want to see more flair and more of the creative talents on the pitch. It's fine to quibble with formations and individual selections. It's perfectly valid to observe that Southgate is approaching the tournament in a pretty conservative fashion. It's quite likely that the weaknesses in his plans will be punished at some point. It's obviously not true though that the strategies he is employing are stupid and incoherent. He and his team have studied how tournament winning national sides have approached campaigns (more often than not, without playing as expansive football as they are capable of, e.g. Spain's and France's WC triumphs). He has picked players to fulfil specific roles required in the tactical plans for individual games, rather than based on their generic talent. He might be proved wrong in decisions, but you can bet there's a huge amount of homework and coherent reasoning behind each of them.
(Next article: Raheem Sterling - familiarity breeds contempt)
Revising opinions
posted on 30/6/21
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 15 minutes ago
That Muller chance though, as much as it was an individual mistake, we were vulnerable through the middle most of the game.
............................
United are often like this. I am positive it is because of having to sitting midfielders that just sit as opposed to anticipating where the ball will go and intercepting it.
When two players sit in front of the CB's it leaves to much open space in front of them for the opposition to exploit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was clear early on, when they had possession, the Soave between midfield and attack was ridiculous. Just inviting the Germans to attack.
posted on 30/6/21
That’s why we’d be better off with the 433.
-----------------------------------------------
Yeah both England and United.
posted on 30/6/21
I don’t think so much with United given Bruno’s importance to our attack. Signing Sancho might change that, though.
posted on 30/6/21
I think we'd be a better overall team for it, especially when we add more quality which we've finally done.
posted on 30/6/21
With the current personnel I’m not so sure. But that’s the bigger problem that we’ve not addressed those deeper areas in midfield. We aren’t going to either so it is what it is.
posted on 30/6/21
comment by Scott The King McTominay (U10026)
posted 20 minutes ago
I don’t think so much with United given Bruno’s importance to our attack. Signing Sancho might change that, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually think Bruno could play in a 3 with Pogba and the right DM.
He covers ground well, bundles of energy and tenacity. As you say though, we need him in the final third at the moment. I’d also worry about him and Pogba never being able to keep hold of the ball.
posted on 30/6/21
Possibly but for now he’s just too important to the attack to change the shape of the midfield. He’s basically playing like a striker for us at times.
posted on 30/6/21
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 28 seconds ago
Regarding Southgate, I know somebody who is involved in the FA at county level but has also gone on to do his coaching badges and they went to Harrogate to watch a training session when Southgate was the manager of the Under 21 side and this particular person said that they were shocked by what they were seeing.
Common phrases Southgate used were "yes", "well done" and "very nice" which they said did not entice or motivate players because, even poor bits of a training session, was always met with a positive mantra. Now of course this is good for building morale but the case in point was that, because the training session was so poor, you would have expected different phrases to be used or potential interventions to be addressed because the players ultimately were not doing what the purpose of the training session was, but were consistently met with positive phrases and were not told that certain aspects were being performed wrong.
Now I'm convinced that Southgate wasn't immune to this and probably did have a word with the group after the session ended and potentially behind closed doors, but I think it was the quality of the session that shocked the particular person that viewed the session and this person I know spoke to others at the time that were similarly underwhelmed with many people saying that England's issues come through too many people being "yes men" as well as being concerned about the youth of England coming through if that training session was the standard they were performing to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry?
posted on 30/6/21
Clearly Southgate has committed to a tactical approach to the job.
No shexy football required.
posted on 2/7/21
comment by Sky-blue (U22529)
posted 1 day, 17 hours ago
This
I’m shocked at how people expect international teams to play expansive swashbuckling football just because you have talented players.
Football doesn’t work like that. I’m certain most of the fan base here are teenagers based on the comments in the live thread.
Name a single team that’s not Brazil or the Dutch that has played peak barca football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup.
International football, by it's very infrequency, just does not, cannot or will not reach the same levels of team-cohesion, technical effectiveness, strategic nuance or even intensity of competitiveness as club football.
Identifying those that expect 11 randomly selected players from any 'nation' to perform against ANY club team, from ANY of the major league systems, is one of the most useful indicators to use in identifying those that are the most clueless about the sport.
And that isn't limited to just "teenagers" posting on forums such as this. It's been a common mis-comprehension for decades and across generations. It's one of the primary reasons why international football is disjointed, ugly, aimless and terrible to watch compared to high level club football.
Coaching, team work, knowingness, practice, repetition of experience, drills on tactics and strategy etc., cannot be replicated, represented or replaced by simply taking 11 people out of the team they contribute well to week-in-week-out and then expecting them to do things that will often be completely different, and even 'undo' what they have learnt and/or experienced.