When Gareth Southgate was quietly announced as England manager in November 2016, few people noticed and even fewer cared enough to comment.

Euro 2016 had brought a fresh wave of disappointment after a decade of underperformance and the debacle of Sam Allardyce’s departure had turned the national feeling from dejection to apathy.

However, what followed was an unexpected run to the 2018 World Cup semi-finals and a best-ever showing at a European Championship, where only a narrow penalty shoot-out defeat came between Southgate and England’s first international trophy since 1966.

TVs were plastered with something even more unexpected; the sight of grown men singing the manager’s name to the tune of Atomic Kitten in the nation’s pubs, while sporting his trademark waistcoat.

Yet despite this, and with the team’s place in the 2022 World Cup knockout stages having been virtually guaranteed after only two matches, Southgate’s position is being questioned by some fans.

England fans are an emotional bunch and understandably this frustration went into overdrive while witnessing the team struggle to yet another 0-0 draw in their second group game, this time against the USA, after a positive opening result and a full working week in between.

Just like in the aftermath of the Nations League disappointment, social media was filled with claims that Southgate is stifling the talent of the most gifted England squad since 2006. However, it is unclear that the alternatives would represent clear improvement and even if they did, history shows that everything is still to play for.

England’s cautiousness is the most common argument employed by those who advocate change; it is also widely accepted the squad is not blessed with the same talent at centre-back as it is in other areas. Suggestions that Harry Maguire is a poor defender and that Southgate should ‘take the handbrake off’ by selecting a more attacking line-up, leaving the Manchester United defender more exposed to quick opposition forwards, often come together.

This presents a contradiction between the beliefs held by many of Southgate’s critics. Incidentally, Maguire, who has struggled for club form since the Euros, has been England’s standout performer so far in Qatar.

Crucially, this careful approach follows the blueprint for success in international football management. Deprived of sufficient time to develop a bold attacking gameplan, most national coaches who have won silverware have done so by prioritising a strong defensive structure and relying upon talented individuals to produce moments of quality at the other end of the pitch.

Portugal won Euro 2016 with six draws from seven in 90 minutes, needing big moments from Cristiano Ronaldo and Renato Sanches to rescue them from elimination, and while France’s 2018 World Cup triumph is best remembered for the brilliance of Kylian Mbappe, the victory was achieved with Blaise Matuidi, a defensive midfielder by trade, playing on the left-wing.

That France, a country with an embarrassment of defensive riches, felt it necessary to guard their backline to such an extent is a strong indicator that protecting England’s limited centre-backs while giving talents like Harry Kane and Bukayo Saka the freedom to create opportunities, is a clever way to navigate knockout football.

Nevertheless, defensive tactics make results even more crucial to a manager’s survival and sub-standard group stage performances such as on Friday suddenly evoke memories of equally drab draws with Algeria, Slovakia and Scotland in recent tournaments.

Again, despite touching on an understandable nerve within the English footballing psyche, the data does not suggest this is a cause for concern. The four most recent World Cup winners all dropped points in the group stages.

The great Spain side of 2010, arguably the greatest of all time, slumped to defeat against Switzerland and Italy’s class of 2006 failed to beat the team which eventually finished bottom of their group, even after playing the entire second half with an extra man. Their opponents? The USA.

Southgate’s mediocre and distant career in club management is another stick with which he is regularly beaten by his critics. However, this misunderstands the diminished status of international management within the game.

Many tournament winners, such as Joachim Löw and Fernando Santos, enjoyed little success at club level and those with more impressive domestic CVs, like Vicente Del Bosque or Roberto Mancini, only took international roles at the twilight of their careers. The days of Don Revie forgoing a European Cup tilt with the reigning league champions for a spell in the Wembley dugout are long gone.

If FA are to make a change at the end of the tournament, they could undoubtedly attract a higher calibre boss than Southgate, but the pool of alternative candidates is limited. The three current bookmakers’ favourites to succeed him are all capable managers, but they are also managers to whom the biggest criticisms of Southgate can also be applied.

Mauricio Pochettino built Tottenham’s best team in decades but ultimately won nothing after string of semi-final and final defeats and Brendan Rodgers’s Leicester blowing two double-digit points margins to surrender a Champions League spot despite such a great start mirrors how England lost control of both the 2018 World Cup semi and Euro 2020 final mid-game.

Furthermore, for all Thomas Tuchel’s pedigree, he would not be the antidote to the perceived over-caution of England’s current boss, and his history of high-profile fallings out in previous jobs would suggest that he lacks the man-management skills to create the cohesion that even the most vocal Southgate-outer would not deny he has created.

It is clear that Friday’s performance will need to be improved upon if England are to go deep into the tournament and if this latest group-stage stalemate is followed by a thrashing at the hands of one of the big boys or a meek defeat to a minnow in the knockout stages as it has done under the guidance of so many of Southgate’s predecessors, then calls for a change will carry more weight.

But for now, there is little evidence that such drastic action will be required. And if he matches, or even improves upon, the last two tournaments, then who knows? Atomic Kitten for Christmas number one?

cbower added 12:49 - Nov 28 Well written young man. In 1966 Ramsey's team drew their opener against Uruguay and in 1990 Sir Bobby's team drew against Ireland and Holland and narrowly defeated Egypt in the group stages. Tournament football is all about getting through the group and building momentum. A team can often stumble across a successful system or line up. All is not lost as you say.
0

SouperJim added 08:08 - Dec 2 England fans as a collective are, by and large, morons. Trust in the manager, support the team and let him do his job. He's more than earned it. In regards to the USA game, the media once again must take a big slice of the blame. I felt we controlled the game against a tricky opponent, had the best chances and never really felt like the USA were in serious danger of scoring. If you win your first group game, it is usually enough to draw the second one and above all else just don't lose it. The way the pundits framed the result and performance was far more critical than it needed to be and most of the social media noise is just repeating what has been said on the telly by the likes of Graham "perpetually miserable" Souness. What a colossal berk.

1

ElephantintheRoom added 10:47 - Dec 17 At one point there was an FA Clock ticking down to England’s triumph at this World Cup. IF you subscribe to the view that England have a deep well of superstars then crashing out with a hard luck story in the first competitive game (again) is pretty much par for the course as well as disappointing - and the suspicion remains that Southgate benefitted from kind seeding in his first two tournaments. Personally I think 60 years of repetitive failure IF coming in the top 8 or thereabouts is indeed failure is indicative of something wrong. Those of us old enough to remember Ramsey know he was constantly criticised too. And England were much better in 70 than 66 and contrived to go out early. Looking at the strange and eclectic mix tried in recent years suggests the manager hardly matters - maybe it’s simply a part-time job aimed at winning a tournament that often entails just one or two tricky games to win it. Whatever the secret is, Didier Deschamps seems to have it.

0

Blogs 298 bloggers