londonblue
Topgun Pilot
Interesting article:
Three reasons I have changed my mind on Gareth Southgate and England
Opinion by Ian King
Mea culpa. On the eve of the start of the World Cup finals I wrote this: ‘There comes a point at which it’s time to step back and consider whether this might have just run its course.’ It’s not a hill that I would have wanted to die on, but it was based on a genuine feeling that performances over this calendar year suggested that England and Gareth Southgate had gone as far as they reasonably could.
None of this was criticism of Southgate. He is by a long way England’s most successful manager since Alf Ramsey and has transformed an England men’s team that had been consistently underwhelming over the previous ten years. The England team of 2022 would have been close to unimaginable after the absolute sh*tshows of the 2014 World Cup and Euro 2016. Tenure lengths in international management are shorter than in the club game, but six years is still a reasonable crack.
The downturn in results in 2022 had looked more substantial than a mere ‘blip’, and perhaps this air of fatalism is what defines my experience as a ‘supporter’ – albeit in a very loose sense – of the England team. Well, England were pretty good for a while and got the rub of the green with a couple of tournament draws. It was fun while it lasted. That sort of thing. The keener-eyed amongst you may have picked up on hints of Tottenham Hotspur in there, too. You develop a resistance to optimism.
But what changed my mind was essentially threefold. Firstly, since the start of the World Cup I’ve been thinking a lot about the differences in the roles that are required for club and international management. The pool of available players are an obvious jumping-off point. The club manager is, whether involved in the process of transfers or not, at the behest of a financial system. The international manager has a smaller pool of players, but once capped at senior level, transfers aren’t an option.
Neither does the international manager have to deal with the fierce schedule of the club game. The international manager’s job is more nurturing. They will have maybe only a dozen games per season, and everything will be focussed upon those. It’s a systems job, fine-tuning every element of the set-up to ensure that the players peak at the right time. It’s also an ambassadorial position. They are a representative, whether they like it or not.
Secondly, there was the reaction in some quarters to England’s performance against the USA and their quarter-final defeat to France. Very briefly, while there was a lot to be critical about in the former (as well as some in the latter), calling for him to be sacked in the middle of the group stage was beyond absurd.
The France match was a good performance, featuring one bad miss, eventually just falling short of one of the two best international teams on the planet. But the catastrophising of this defeat in some quarters again crossed a line into the ridiculous, a wailing sound of ‘SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE’, while the rest of us rolled our eyes and thought, ‘do we have to do this again?’
When it comes to the England manager, an orderly transition simply cannot happen. If it isn’t accompanied by the sound of people running around in circles as though their hair’s on fire, it isn’t really an England managerial change. And if the only change that can come about is – or comes about as a result of – that cacophony, then perhaps I’d prefer him to stay where he was.
And thirdly, there was the team’s performances during the tournament. There was an alternate reading to the ‘collective choke’ narrative that was doing the rounds following the goalless draw with the USA; that 6-2 win against Iran had left them within a point of effectively being through to the next round, especially if they really fancied their chances against Wales in their final match. It made sense to hold off a little to conserve something for those knockout stages.
The wins against Iran, Wales and Senegal were all extremely comfortable. Iran and Wales were both limited teams, but few others on the planet would have wanted quite as much to give England a bloody nose. Senegal may have been missing Sadio Mane, but they are the champions of Africa. There were points which could be picked at – the two goals conceded against Iran, the first half against Wales, the first 25 minutes against Senegal – but to win three games by three goals or more in any one tournament is noteworthy in its own right.
Had Harry Kane not skied his second penalty against France, would England have gone on to win that match? Would they have beaten Morocco in the semi-final? Would they have found a way to keep Lionel Messi, Julian Alvarez and Angel Di Maria in their boxes had they done so? We’ll never know, but they’re not quite implausible – okay, maybe the third one is – and that speaks volumes for the condition in which England find themselves. There were bad results throughout 2022, but they came very, very close to peaking at the perfect time.
Gareth Southgate knows The System, and it’s far from guaranteed that his replacement would. He is described as tactically ‘naive’ at times, but international football doesn’t really allow the time for sophisticated tactical systems. Far better to spend that time building an atmosphere in which the players enjoy the experience, since what a team may lack in tactical sophistication, it can more than gain by being relaxed, in a good mood and ready to play. We all saw the extent to which playing for England became a weight around a player’s neck between 2006 and 2016. That hangdog expression was never supposed to be an aspirational look.
It’s difficult to say who could be better suited to the job. There are some people for whom only winning World Cup and European Championship after European Championship will suffice, or as though being unhappy about it is an end in itself. Gareth Southgate emerged from the 2022 World Cup with considerable credit, and there are few complaints from here that he will continue in the job. Mea culpa.
Three reasons I have changed my mind on Gareth Southgate and England
Opinion by Ian King
Mea culpa. On the eve of the start of the World Cup finals I wrote this: ‘There comes a point at which it’s time to step back and consider whether this might have just run its course.’ It’s not a hill that I would have wanted to die on, but it was based on a genuine feeling that performances over this calendar year suggested that England and Gareth Southgate had gone as far as they reasonably could.
None of this was criticism of Southgate. He is by a long way England’s most successful manager since Alf Ramsey and has transformed an England men’s team that had been consistently underwhelming over the previous ten years. The England team of 2022 would have been close to unimaginable after the absolute sh*tshows of the 2014 World Cup and Euro 2016. Tenure lengths in international management are shorter than in the club game, but six years is still a reasonable crack.
The downturn in results in 2022 had looked more substantial than a mere ‘blip’, and perhaps this air of fatalism is what defines my experience as a ‘supporter’ – albeit in a very loose sense – of the England team. Well, England were pretty good for a while and got the rub of the green with a couple of tournament draws. It was fun while it lasted. That sort of thing. The keener-eyed amongst you may have picked up on hints of Tottenham Hotspur in there, too. You develop a resistance to optimism.
But what changed my mind was essentially threefold. Firstly, since the start of the World Cup I’ve been thinking a lot about the differences in the roles that are required for club and international management. The pool of available players are an obvious jumping-off point. The club manager is, whether involved in the process of transfers or not, at the behest of a financial system. The international manager has a smaller pool of players, but once capped at senior level, transfers aren’t an option.
Neither does the international manager have to deal with the fierce schedule of the club game. The international manager’s job is more nurturing. They will have maybe only a dozen games per season, and everything will be focussed upon those. It’s a systems job, fine-tuning every element of the set-up to ensure that the players peak at the right time. It’s also an ambassadorial position. They are a representative, whether they like it or not.
Secondly, there was the reaction in some quarters to England’s performance against the USA and their quarter-final defeat to France. Very briefly, while there was a lot to be critical about in the former (as well as some in the latter), calling for him to be sacked in the middle of the group stage was beyond absurd.
The France match was a good performance, featuring one bad miss, eventually just falling short of one of the two best international teams on the planet. But the catastrophising of this defeat in some quarters again crossed a line into the ridiculous, a wailing sound of ‘SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE’, while the rest of us rolled our eyes and thought, ‘do we have to do this again?’
When it comes to the England manager, an orderly transition simply cannot happen. If it isn’t accompanied by the sound of people running around in circles as though their hair’s on fire, it isn’t really an England managerial change. And if the only change that can come about is – or comes about as a result of – that cacophony, then perhaps I’d prefer him to stay where he was.
And thirdly, there was the team’s performances during the tournament. There was an alternate reading to the ‘collective choke’ narrative that was doing the rounds following the goalless draw with the USA; that 6-2 win against Iran had left them within a point of effectively being through to the next round, especially if they really fancied their chances against Wales in their final match. It made sense to hold off a little to conserve something for those knockout stages.
The wins against Iran, Wales and Senegal were all extremely comfortable. Iran and Wales were both limited teams, but few others on the planet would have wanted quite as much to give England a bloody nose. Senegal may have been missing Sadio Mane, but they are the champions of Africa. There were points which could be picked at – the two goals conceded against Iran, the first half against Wales, the first 25 minutes against Senegal – but to win three games by three goals or more in any one tournament is noteworthy in its own right.
Had Harry Kane not skied his second penalty against France, would England have gone on to win that match? Would they have beaten Morocco in the semi-final? Would they have found a way to keep Lionel Messi, Julian Alvarez and Angel Di Maria in their boxes had they done so? We’ll never know, but they’re not quite implausible – okay, maybe the third one is – and that speaks volumes for the condition in which England find themselves. There were bad results throughout 2022, but they came very, very close to peaking at the perfect time.
Gareth Southgate knows The System, and it’s far from guaranteed that his replacement would. He is described as tactically ‘naive’ at times, but international football doesn’t really allow the time for sophisticated tactical systems. Far better to spend that time building an atmosphere in which the players enjoy the experience, since what a team may lack in tactical sophistication, it can more than gain by being relaxed, in a good mood and ready to play. We all saw the extent to which playing for England became a weight around a player’s neck between 2006 and 2016. That hangdog expression was never supposed to be an aspirational look.
It’s difficult to say who could be better suited to the job. There are some people for whom only winning World Cup and European Championship after European Championship will suffice, or as though being unhappy about it is an end in itself. Gareth Southgate emerged from the 2022 World Cup with considerable credit, and there are few complaints from here that he will continue in the job. Mea culpa.
