England - the future....

[Sanguine]

It’s part of the entitled culture surrounding football, which extends all around.

Partly driven, IMO, by this constant drive of pointless statistics that is thrown in your face. People become so obsessed over tiny metrics without understanding the whole picture.

Indeed. I'm getting fed up with reading so-called opinions that we 'should' have won a major tournament by now, as if other teams don't even exist.

I think England fans have every right to be entitled. I fully expect them to be favourites next summer. Who can they fear?
Not France, they don't look good, Italy are in the international EFL, Spain have dropped off a cliff, and the Germans have been garbage since 2014. None of them have the talent England have. The only thing stopping England next summer is Southgate.

Well you're wrong. First - we didn't 'look good' when we lost 4-0 to Hungary last year, or whatever the score was. That's how it goes sometimes. France have the best squad on paper. Spain had a poor World Cup but will be thereabouts. Germany sacking Flick could reinvigorate them. Portugal are going about their business just fine and score a lot of goals. One team can win the tournament - but I feel sorry for anyone unintelligent enough to separate being one of the favourites from 'should win'. It's a tournament. Anything can happen, and it does.

I'm guessing you'd give zero credit to Southgate if we did win it, too.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Indeed. I'm getting fed up with reading so-called opinions that we 'should' have won a major tournament by now, as if other teams don't even exist.

I think England fans have every right to be entitled. I fully expect them to be favourites next summer. Who can they fear?
Not France, they don't look good, Italy are in the international EFL, Spain have dropped off a cliff, and the Germans have been garbage since 2014. None of them have the talent England have. The only thing stopping England next summer is Southgate.

Well you're wrong. First - we didn't 'look good' when we lost 4-0 to Hungary last year, or whatever the score was. That's how it goes sometimes. France have the best squad on paper. Spain had a poor World Cup but will be thereabouts. Germany sacking Flick could reinvigorate them. Portugal are going about their business just fine and score a lot of goals. One team can win the tournament - but I feel sorry for anyone unintelligent enough to separate being one of the favourites from 'should win'. It's a tournament. Anything can happen, and it does.

I'm guessing you'd give zero credit to Southgate if we did win it, too.

There's a sheet of rizla between Southgate being remembered in history as the man who ended the "years of hurt" and being lambasted by his critics as the man who wasted England's most talented generation. England will rightfully be one of the favourites, but the margins at these tournaments are ridiculously fine. It will hinge on a lucky deflection, a wonder goal, an uncharacteristic error or a penalty shootout, as have our last 2 tournaments.

Southgate has done a fine job making sure England's name is in the equation at every tournament, but he's probably reaching the end of hie tenure. Some of his critics seem to think his successor will simply pick more attacking teams and we'll dominate everyone. They're in for a shock.

[Royal Rother]

More likely it will hinge on unambitious team selection and an inability to react to tactical changes made by the opposition manager at half-time.

[bcubed]

More likely it will hinge on unambitious team selection and an inability to react to tactical changes made by the opposition manager at half-time.

This ^^^

Noone can question his ability to qualify and indeed to reach later stages of major competitions. And this despite a dearth of quality defenders. The need to play 2 defensive midfielders to compensate is understood.

But when it's basically a shit or bust situation, his failure to react, throw the dice and just be a little more attacking is at the very least frustrating.

[WestYorksRoyal]

More likely it will hinge on unambitious team selection and an inability to react to tactical changes made by the opposition manager at half-time.

This ^^^

Noone can question his ability to qualify and indeed to reach later stages of major competitions. And this despite a dearth of quality defenders. The need to play 2 defensive midfielders to compensate is understood.

But when it's basically a shit or bust situation, his failure to react, throw the dice and just be a little more attacking is at the very least frustrating.

And yet...Rashford scores his penalty against Italy or Kane his against France and it could be a completely different story.

I do get the criticism. The Italy game especially was a real opportunity missed and we didn't respond to them putting an extra man in midfield. But all managers have strengths and weaknesses, and what another manager could provide in tactical awareness and subs we could lose in team spirit and squad cohesion, at which Southgate is exceptional.

[Sutekh]

England's problem is Southgate, he just isn't brave enough to take the risks needed in management that make the difference. It should be said, however, that he is also one of the good things about the way England work currently.

[Royal Rother]

England's problem is Southgate, he just isn't brave enough to take the risks needed in management that make the difference. It should be said, however, that he is also one of the good things about the way England work currently.

Fully agree with that.

A huge amount of good work done.

[Sanguine]

I'd like to know of Southgate what return on his time would be 'acceptable'. Is it only a tournament win? Is anything less a failure? The only manager in England's history with a better win record than Southgate (62.1%) is Fabio Capello (66.7%), who was a (relative) disaster at his one tournament, the 2010 World Cup where we scored three goals in four games, and only beat Slovenia.

What would a 'better' approach than Southgate's bring us? Would we beat France and Italy with a different strategy? 'Should' we be winning 70% of our games, just because we have Bellingham, Saka and Kane?

For a supposedly unadventurous side, Southgate's England is also one of the highest scoring teams in our history, at 2.21 goals per game, more than any team since Winterbottom's post-war side. And in recent times we've only conceded fewer during the Venables/Hoddle era.

I guess I'm just curious what it is, after our best Euro Finals run ever, and our best World Cup since the 90s, that people want to see from England's results. We are demonstrably better than we were before Southgate took charge. The players look up to him, respect him, want to play for him. We are a penalty shootout lottery from having been European Champions. We might have been a Kane missed penalty from World Cup glory, who knows?

The margins in this game are tiny, and yet Southgate only seems to get measured against an enormous threshold no England manager has ever reached bar Sir Alf Ramsay.

[Royal Rother]

What would a 'better' approach than Southgate's bring us? Would we beat France and Italy with a different strategy? 'Should' we be winning 70% of our games, just because we have Bellingham, Saka and Kane?

FWIW I have said many times that Southgate has been excellent in culture building and man management and for that he deserves huge credit.

I have many issues with selections (but then don't we all, with whoever is in the hot seat) but the major one for me is in-game management in the crucial games. In those big games he has failed to react to what the opposing manager has done in-game, and consequently ended up losing games which, with different / more pro-active decisions, I believe we could have won.

I appreciate that there are many different facets to management, and it's entirely possible that anyone else would have made poor decisions elsewhere, or maybe had a different / less positive culture, and thus not got to the latter stages in the way that Southgate has, but I do believe that there is a missing element of tactical nous that will likely always show itself when up against the best managers in the biggest games.

[Sanguine]

What would a 'better' approach than Southgate's bring us? Would we beat France and Italy with a different strategy? 'Should' we be winning 70% of our games, just because we have Bellingham, Saka and Kane?

FWIW I have said many times that Southgate has been excellent in culture building and man management and for that he deserves huge credit.

I have many issues with selections (but then don't we all, with whoever is in the hot seat) but the major one for me is in-game management in the crucial games. In those big games he has failed to react to what the opposing manager has done in-game, and consequently ended up losing games which, with different / more pro-active decisions, I believe we could have won.

I appreciate that there are many different facets to management, and it's entirely possible that anyone else would have made poor decisions elsewhere, or maybe had a different / less positive culture, and thus not got to the latter stages in the way that Southgate has, but I do believe that there is a missing element of tactical nous that will likely always show itself when up against the best managers in the biggest games.

Sure. I guess the point I'm trying to make then is a) does that mean that every manager has something missing, given Southgate's win record, or b) would a different manager beat France and Italy, but throw in a defeat to Armenia along the way, or c) as above, is the only acceptable achievement for a manager of our current squad to win 75% of our games, which would be unprecedented, and to win a major title.

[WestYorksRoyal]

More chances for Maguire, Henderson and Phillips.

JWP, Dan Burn and Konsa can all feel hard done by. JWP seems to be stuck in catch-22 of not being experienced enough at international level to be given more experience. Which is just poor management really.

[Sutekh]

More chances for Maguire, Henderson and Phillips.

JWP, Dan Burn and Konsa can all feel hard done by. JWP seems to be stuck in catch-22 of not being experienced enough at international level to be given more experience. Which is just poor management really.

Given one of the games is a pointless friendly with Australia you'd think Southgate would be a bit more "creative" with the squad.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Yeah surprised there hasn't been more opportunities for players that have been knocking on the door of the International stage recently with the friendly against Australia providing a good opportunity for some of the players to actually feature for England and see if they are potentially capable of playing at this level.

[Sanguine]

More chances for Maguire, Henderson and Phillips.

JWP, Dan Burn and Konsa can all feel hard done by. JWP seems to be stuck in catch-22 of not being experienced enough at international level to be given more experience. Which is just poor management really.

It's Maguire, isn't it. He is taking a space that otherwise could, or should, be filled by Burn or Konsa. As before, I find it hard to criticise Southgate given what he has achieved, but he has a real blindspot, and an unnecessary one, on Maguire, as if not playing him is somehow going to disturb our defence. Stones, Guehi, Colwill should really be our long-term central defensive picks, with others, like Konsa, Tomori, Dunk and Burn, in reserve. Ben White too, I guess. We really don't need to keep going back to Maguire. At least Eric Dier seems to be a thing of the international past.

Kalvin Phillips I can sort of see why Southgate keeps picking him. He almost hasn't played enough for City to not be the guy who was brilliant at Leeds.

Henderson though, see Maguire. We just don't need to pick him any more.

[WestYorksRoyal]

It's not just looking at who is picked - it's about who isn't. At CB it suddenly looks like we have a pipeline of potential starters in Colwill, Geuhi and Tomori, plus good squad options in Konsa and Dunk. So picking Maguire is indefensible.

Whereas in midfield JWP is the only one I would say is knocking on the door. So perhaps Phillips gets to keep his spot by default.

[URZZZZ]

It's not just looking at who is picked - it's about who isn't. At CB it suddenly looks like we have a pipeline of potential starters in Colwill, Geuhi and Tomori, plus good squad options in Konsa and Dunk. So picking Maguire is indefensible.

Whereas in midfield JWP is the only one I would say is knocking on the door. So perhaps Phillips gets to keep his spot by default.

Surely JWP > Phillips though (especially given our strengths from set plays)

Football is a game of fine margins and sometimes all it can take is one set piece to make the difference. Henderson and Phillips IMO are too similar (with neither setting the world alight regardless) whereas with JWP, he at least offers something a little unique

[WestYorksRoyal]

It's not just looking at who is picked - it's about who isn't. At CB it suddenly looks like we have a pipeline of potential starters in Colwill, Geuhi and Tomori, plus good squad options in Konsa and Dunk. So picking Maguire is indefensible.

Whereas in midfield JWP is the only one I would say is knocking on the door. So perhaps Phillips gets to keep his spot by default.

Surely JWP > Phillips though (especially given our strengths from set plays)

Football is a game of fine margins and sometimes all it can take is one set piece to make the difference. Henderson and Phillips IMO are too similar (with neither setting the world alight regardless) whereas with JWP, he at least offers something a little unique

JWP>Phillips>Henderson.

If there's 2 spots up for grabs, it should be Henderson making way for JWP.

Agree about something different. A JWP set piece could make the difference in a knock out game, not to mention coming in handy in a shoot out.

[6ft Kerplunk]

Phillips is there as cover for Rice in the defensive midfield role, can JWP do that cos not getting a start in front of Bellingham and Maddison is ahead of him as backup there and can also take a decent set piece. I like JWP and think he's just unlucky that he's a midfielder when the strongest part of our team and also has the most strength in depth.

[BRO_BOT]

England U21 batter Serbia 9-1

[NathStPaul]

There is nothing more boring than an England home friendly.