Whoa, what are you talking about. He made two Euro Finals, a World Cup semifinal and quarterfinal. They always qualified with absolute ease. Do you remember what England looked like before that? And you’re saying the US was better in Qatar? England beat Iran 6-2, Wales 3-0 and Senegal 3-0. They lost to France because their all-time leading scorer skied a penalty.
You can advance in tournaments while playing like trash and then get exposed. Just like England did at this Euros. Should have been eliminated by Slovakia. There's a difference between excellence and luck. I'm saying when Berhalter and the USMNT played Southgate and England..............................we were slightly better on the day. Ever so slightly. Just my opinion. Ya'll can disagree. Southgate is exactly the type of manager that would drive this board crazy.
I don’t want Southgate but I wouldn’t be worried about his motivation or that he wouldn’t give the job his all.
Southgate is interesting. On the one hand, he took England to better results in the Euros and World Cup than they'd had in decades. Yet, at the same time, it's also not hard to say they "should have" won at least one of those finals they appeared in. He's very interesting honestly. I give him credit for managing the expectations, the pressure and the egos of the roster. That's also part of a coaching job when you're at the level that England is with expectations and roster talent. But, he also was very Gregg like as playing for a mistake for the other team in most cases rather than working to impose the will of the England roster on the teams they faced. I always felt Gregg was that way, maybe it's because they were both center backs, LOL.
There's always going to be an argument with this that makes you look crazy if you disagree, but, its sitting right there. England since 2018, have been top 2-4 in the world in every single tournament. There path's to the Final/Semi-Final were cake in '18, '21, and '24, and difficult in '22. They made deep runs w/the cake path, and were eliminated each time they had to play a nation of legit quality: Croatia in '18, a decent Italy on a header in '21, France in '22, and Spain in '24. The reality is, they were a top 4-5 side in the world and they consistently were beaten exactly when they had to play a team for the first time at their level or better, and never beat anyone superior to it during this entire run. Not once. The only place for a quibble is maybe Croatia in '18 and '20 who they lost to and then beat at the Euro's, but Croatia wasn't more talented at either moment, and Germany in '21 is hard to figure, having flailed badly at WC '18, and failed to advance (while playing great soccer) at WC '22.....but, yeah, the one tournament you can point to and say: well, here, they played reasonably close to their ability was Euro '21, which is not coincidentally, where I point to, as a reference to where, like Belgium in '16, they fumbled away a title that was theirs for the asking. But again, one is gonna sound crazy saying that this run wasn't good enough when you look at the 30 years preceding it, and see numerous ---- in pants under performances (Euro '88, Euro '92, WC '94 Qualifying, Euro '00, Euro '08 qualifying, WC '10, WC '14, Euro '16), and a giant pile of just good enough's and no better's where they simply were ousted by better teams (WC '90, Euro '96, WC '98, WC '02, Euro '04, WC '06, Euro '12)...But its hard to find an England in those thirty years that was genuinely top 2-4 in the world ever. None of them: probably the closest might have been WC '90, and maybe WC '02...but that was more down cycles that opened up opportunities than genuine England strength (France w/o Zidane, Portugal stepping on a rake, Argentina landing in a group of death with England, Sweden and Nigeria)....But the last four tournaments have been different. The talent level of England has just been far higher from WC '18 to the present than at any point in my lifetime (been around since late '74), and with Brazil, Germany. and Italy dipping, and Spain running into bad luck penalties, there was a huge opening for them the past six years to grab a title and run (none bigger to me than Euro '21, when they beat back Croatia, and Germany along the way, and played an inferior Italy in the Final), but they fumbled it away, like Belgium before them (and Portugal until Euro '16). So on the one hand, you can say, its been a great run, because the results look real prrretty, otoh, the reality is, they were a semifinalist/champion caliber team the past two WC's and past two Euro's, and didn't face a SF/Champion caliber team at ANY of these tournaments until the SF's or Final, save WC '22, and as previously mentioned, in each tournament, when they met someone who was a genuine contender, they lost, every single time. So what do you call that? I don't know: Honestly, I expected them to beat Colombia and Sweden in '18, who wouldn't?, I expected them to beat a Germany that couldn't get out of their group in '21, a Ukraine, and a Denmark they needed a soft penalty at home to beat to get to the final, I expected them to beat Senegal in '22 and although Senegal put up a good fight, they did (honestly, that Senegal match was the best knockout match they played during the Southgate era against a genuinely good team, though even in that game, they were lucky it was still 0-0 when they found their opener, Senegal blowing a few genuine opportunities to score. In this tournament, their impediments to the final were freaking Slovakia, and Switzerland and the winner of Netherlands-Turkey, neither of which were close to the talent at their disposal. Honestly, wouldn't any of these tournament performances have been total disasters if they hadn't made it that far? Losing to a crappy Sweden in '18? Losing to Ukraine in '21? Losing to Senegal in '22 (who I liked)? Losing to Slovakia (which they absolutely should have) or Switzerland or the Dutch? Every single team in their way in 3 of the past 4 tournaments was vastly inferior to the sides that knocked them out in the pre Southgate era other than maybe Iceland in '16. We're talking Euro Finalist Italy of '12, Germany in WC '10, Portugal in back to back tournaments in '04 and '06, when Portugal was on a run of form where they advanced to the semifinals of 3 of 4 tournaments themselves only botching it because of us and South Korea in '02....Argentina in '98? Germany again in '96 and '90. I'm sorry but 2018 Sweden, Ukraine and a Germany sandwiched between group exits in '21, Senegal in '22, Slovakia, the Swiss and a shadow of its former self Netherlands are simply not at the same level of Germany's, Portugal's, and Argentina's that were regular favorites to win tournaments, they just aren't...I think when you look at it, what we have in the Southgate Era is a combo of the best talent England has ever had, along with the easiest Path's to Final's England has ever had, melding into deep runs that fell short, the second they played a team of similar talent to the teams that historically advanced over them in the past, and then they fell, every time: to France, to Spain, to weaker versions of Italy and Croatia etc. Its impressive for the results on paper, but that's all it is. They can point to scoreboard, but if they are honest with themselves (and they often are after the defeats), you can see why they are so angry. They know they had a real genuine chance to lift a trophy these past 6 years, and they totally blew it. Easy path's, and Germany, Italy, Brazil, and to a lesser extent Spain, all having large dips in form and or not in their way, and they failed anyway. The reality is, this was an underachievement, just like with Belgium in 2016 and WC '18. They were good enough, and the path was their, and they fumbled it all away and now its probably too late as Germany and Spain begin to wake up, and Portugal and Argentina can shed their legends and become leaner, more challenging teams going forward w/o them. England can still do the job, the only teams in the world with similar talent are probably Brazil (who are an even bigger mess), Spain, and France, and to a lesser extent Argentina, but man, would anyone expect England to advance over this Spain, this Argentina, a version of this France with a better coach (and maybe Pogba back)...and Germany appears to be waking up too, and maybe Portugal's better w/no Ronaldo, and a new coach....They had their best chance this weekend, and at Euro '21 and they blew both of them.
I just don't see it. People were making this argument that it worked for France and England, but I simply point to this: France and England have been 2 of the best 3 sides in the world for 4 consecutive tournaments and have underachieved in all of them save France at WC '18....I would like to think that the failures will end their cynical approach being copied because it doesn't work. France barely made the Final in '18, and only challenged Argentina because of Mbappe's genius, otherwise they crashed out against Switzerland, and barely even made it to these semi's, meanwhile, as previously mentioned, England were outplayed by Slovakia, Switzerland, and the Dutch and should have lost all 3 matches this cycle.... They could get away with this stupid approach because they had miles better talent, relatively easy paths, and had some luck too, until they ran into teams that simply wouldn't wilt under their tactics (the Swiss in '21 and nearly again in '24, Spain in '24, Argentina in '22)....I don't think this is a viable approach and I think it was a monumentally wasteful use of their talent. Those two teams have been the best or top 3-4 sides in every single tournament going back to '18 and neither have won anything since '18. It's a losers approach that only worked because of the inferiority of their opponents in their path, and eventually it was ALWAYS found out, except in '18. I just am not buying that, at all.
Spain didn't play like that, Germany didn't play like that, the Netherlands didn't play like that, Austria didn't play like that, Turkey didn't play like that, Switzerland didn't play like that, I could go on and on....I just don't buy this. France and England play like this ----, none of the other superlative talents are this insanely cynical, defensive, conservative, and terrified of risk. England played not to lose against freaking Slovakia, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Dutch. It was beyond ridiculous. So ridiculous. Btw, I know if we get a new coach, they will probably play too defensively, they're going to see no sure thing at striker, no legit RWF, an CM without a creator getting minutes other than Tillman and weak CB's, yeah they'll be conservative, but if we can't find a coach who will play to win in a do or die match like the Uruguay game? Where we needed 3 points? Then we should just fold our tents and quit. I want a coach whose flexible, and pragmatic, willing to pull out the stops, but also play smart. I don't think it's too much to ask. Southgate and Deschamps are not that. Neither was Berhalter. There are guys that can do that. We need to hire one of them.
You're not wrong about the luck invoved. I elided those parts because you accurately make the case about their favorable draws etc. etc. that we know is true. However, doesn't the coach get some credit for them being a top 4-5 side? I get that player development is mostly on the clubs and NTs can't control their talent pipeline very much. And yeah their transfer value is #1 in the world, which is only a loose proxy for current playing strength but is still salient. Even so, a coach has to fit the pieces together. I'm not sure how to feel about the Elo being being 7th. I don't think a truly bad coach would get close to that, but it's fair to say their talent should have them top 5 and probably top 3. At any rate Elo seems like a better guide than relying on a tiny sample of big tournaments, then complaining about sample size when they get lucky and do well.
Not surprised to see fan base gravitating to south gate. nor am I surprised to see England fans openly begging for Klopp. It’s getting silly. Looks like he already said no. Looking like Howe or Potter
Live Photo of Matt Crocker, the man charged with finding the next USMNT manager, doing his interviews 🍻 pic.twitter.com/nG6x6PpiNq— Men in Blazers (@MenInBlazers) July 16, 2024
I agree that England were further on the spectrum, but a lot of teams play like that ... AND even more fanbases complain about that. A lot of these are common complaints. That's all. Indeed. On the flip, you can get someone more aspirational but they often fail because they are too loose at the back, or give up leads -- see Brazil. And yet ... there aren't that many of those. I think not because coaches are idiots, but because many of these two-sided decisions are tougher than we allow. And because many of them are simply judged by results. A coach who pushes their team is going to make a mistake and play too aggressively, even if they want to be pragmatic. Because the answer isn't always clear and because elements that make you good at one often create issues with the other. In the end, we often judge pragmatism by results, anyway. I would absolutely lean towards a Nancy-type even if it doesn't quite fit the international play, because I like the aspirational elements he brings to the table. But I also get why so many international coaches coach cynically. I am hoping Spain and to a lesser extent, the Argentina wins push back on that.
It's not a question of effort. It's what he sees as his qualities appropriate to the job and how he understands what he would do specific to this group of players that will help them win. Media and players have said that part of his ability with England is his ability to help the team deal with the particular difficulties of playing for England. Players went from sometimes dreading the experience to wanting to be a part of it. He was a kind of England Whisperer. But that's not exactly the situation here. (And there has to be a difference in belief in his connection to the job. Trying your all is one thing. Believing in the job as a part of your life is another. Just look at his comments on stepping down.) So in the short term, (beyond the developmental ideas he and Crocker would share) what are the skills that he can apply to the team he would lead? Again, he may have great answers. I'd want him to articulate those.
To be fair, our "once in a lifetime," host nation, "Golden Generation [sic]," "best talent of any American squad ever," hype has given 2026 at least a vague scent of England gearing up for a tournament. We really are their cultural cousins. Soccer's lower profile as a spectator sport is all that keeps our NT from being the complete media circus that England's is, and that's somewhat offset by MLS clubs being a much smaller deal here than the Premier League is to England, which directs extra focus to our NT. Seems fair, although I imagine Crocker already has a pretty good guess at his answers.
This publication puts Mauricio Pochettino's name firmly in the hat for the USMNT job. https://t.co/pzp02lGcwE— Daniel (@DanielSmith1022) July 16, 2024 This would be amazing.
Pochettino would be fine. As usual I'm less excited about pure club success than I suppose everyone else on here. To be fair, maybe his situation at Chelsea was the closest thing club soccer has to a national team -- throw a bunch of high-priced talent together with no further recruitment strategy then complain when it doesn't coalesce instantly -- so maybe getting them on track after a few months counts as a harbinger of NT wins.
Why would Southgate go from coaching England in another WC with the talent they have to downgrading to USMNT with the talent we have? He has a better chance at going deeper with England than he does with US in the World Cup. Maybe even reaching the final with England and who knows, might be lucky enough to win it with them. All he can do with USMNT is reach QF, if we have a good draw, and that's pretty much it. Other than USSF offering him double or triple what he made in England, I just don't see a reason for him to accept the USMNT job.
I see the arguments against Southgate and some I tend to agree with, but others are a bit odd. I see people say that England underachieved but look at the history of English teams with highly regarded talent that fell flat. I think it is really hard to argue he's not gotten the most out of an England squad in 50 years. That's not underachievement. Just because the Premier League is the most watched and richest league in the world does not mean that England has the best squad in the world and should win everything. They absolutely have a very good squad, so does Spain, so does Germany, so does France, Brazil, Argentina, so do many countries. He has taken a very good squad that has historically failed to do anything at all and turned them into a fixture in the later rounds of big tournaments and made 2 finals. Sure, would have been nice to win one, but he has far exceeded what anyone else has done with the England team and many of those teams had a ton of quality players as well. Another argument I have a bit more sympathy for. Yup, it's boring to watch. He's not a guy who is going to make this team exciting again. I don't personally like the way his team plays. But, I'm willing to get over it if he can get results. I think the biggest real question comes down to whether he can build an effective team with lesser players. If you have the big talents, you can play conservatively, keep things close and that special play you need to break through can come from any of several players and you're more likely to come up with that big, special play than the less talented team you're generally facing. But what happens when you keep things close and keep chances low, but your lesser squad fails to covert those chances or make those special plays? That's the question I'm less sure about. But maybe the real answer is that's why lesser teams generally lose in the end and thinking there is a magic way to make them greater is fool's gold.