I can't think of any of his predecessors who enjoyed the same advantages as Southgate does. Brazil, Germany, France, Spain, Argentina, Holland were better for most of the time. Even in 1966 they had to beat Argentina, Germany, and Portugal. Then there is Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Southgate has had none of that serious competition to deal with. The quality of International Football is nowhere hear what it was and here we are with some of the worlds best players and we meekly go out to the French and and quite poor Italy. For me it's easy to argue with his results because they are basically woeful given the level of competition and his resources. Ramsey, Venables, Greenwood, Mercer, and Robson all did better in far harder circumstances. We've had our share of poor England managers Maclaren, Keegan, Hoddle, Taylor, Revie, Winterbottom. Southgate is well and truly in that group for me, he's just managed to make a sours ear out of a silk purse.
I think it’s a bit reductive to imply that England are only having success right now because other teams are bad. You could quite easily say the reverse which would rightly be decried as anglocentric and a bit ridiculous. Football is cyclical after all, teams and generations come and go. England had a golden generation in the 2000s but players and managers never managed to unite the group so they were always less than the sum of their parts. The job Southgate has done is as much mental as tactical which is make the players enjoy playing for England again, which it really seemed like they didn’t for a good while before he got the job. Creating a good environment is half the battle, whether at club or international level. As for the level of opposition relative to England, again I think you’re downplaying it a bit. France, Portugal, Argentina have all been very strong with pretty deep pools of talent, and Italy were too until injuries and retirements hit them after the Euros win. And the level of other sides, some of the ‘lesser’ European sides, as well as those from Africa and Asia, has definitely risen. Traditional heavyweights like Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands and Spain haven’t been as strong at tournaments recently but Belgium, and Croatia have gone through successful periods in the interim. And for what it’s worth Brazil are the no.3 ranked team in the world, though that’s FIFA rankings. But they’re far from a bad team. Ultimately I think the level of football everywhere has gone up the last 10/15 years as professional practices have spread beyond the major traditional football nations and throughout the world. That said the gap from international football to club football has increased even as quality on both sides has risen. I think that accounts for some of the perception that international football has gotten worse. It’s very difficult to play open, expansive football at international level now unless you luck out with a core of players used to playing that style with one or two clubs. Otherwise a well drilled side with a bit of quality will just do you on the counter because the attacking side wasn’t cohesive enough.
Too reductive? England have not had success have they? I would suggest that the level of success for this England has to be pitched higher. To describe getting knocked out by an Italy and France that we were clearly better than IMO, is a failure not a success. Belgium were a better team but we never got past Croatia who have far less resources than us. The so called golden generation were again mismanaged but even their opposition were of a higher calibre than we have now. France and Portugal have an outstanding player each but that's not enough. Yes Argentina are strong but they are not in the Euro's. Having watched International football since 1966 there is nothing to compare with Brazil and Holland of the 70's. Germany and Italy are well below the standard they maintained through the 70's, 80's.90's.. It's a subjective view, of course, but the standard is lower, especially in the Euros. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were European football giants that through political changes have been reduced. No one was surprised when Germany and Holland or Italy and Brazil reached finals they were way above the rest. Argentina produced good teams but their success was largely down to Maradona. Even Spain and France were not in this league it was only the reduction in contact that allowed them to come to the fore. So all in all there has NEVER been a time when England had a better chance of winning something and as luck would have it we are stifled Conti style, instead, instead, yes, just imagine what Ange would produce with this England team or even Harry Redknapp. Such a shame. or Venables or Robson or Mercer. As Ange has shown, football is a simple game, play to your strengths this England's makeup is clear, our strength is in attack. Maguire's day should be done he is just too slow. We know this at Spurs this is what we have suffered for the past 4 seasons. If we win the Euros it will be in spite of Southgate not because of him.
I think the expansion of the Euros and WC has obviously lowered the average level teams at those tournaments, for sure. I think reducing France and Portugal to having one outstanding player each is a massive oversight though. They’re both squads that are full of quality and deep, too. I have no idea if the level now is higher than it was in the 80s or earlier. I’m not old enough to have watched games from that time and I think comparing across the decades is a fruitless task anyway. I do think that Southgate’s England have been the best side I’ve seen in my lifetime, in terms of on the pitch and the feeling off it, and if he doesn’t win something he’ll ultimately go down like Poch did - relatively successful but ultimately disappointing. This period has been our best chance for a good while. International management is really about creating solidity and having players who through individual skill, experience of game management, and relationships on the pitch, can turn the game in moments. Rarely do you get a Spain team who win on a systems-based game. There are definitely candidates from the past and the present of the game, some of whom you name, who could perhaps do a better job than Southgate in terms of creating a more thrilling team to watch. Maybe they’d have even won a trophy or two. But I think Southgate’s record for now stands up. He’s got some excellent players but also some clear deficiencies in the squad. Time will tell if he gets one over the line.
Portugal are very strong, but France's depth is insane. Kounde, Saliba, Wesley Fofana and Kimpembe weren't in the latest squad. Not team, squad. Giroud, Griezmann, Mbappe, Coman, Dembele, Thuram and Kolo Muani is a lot of firepower. They're leaving the likes of Mathys Tel and Rayan Cherki in the U21s, too. I'm not a big fan of Didier Deschamps and it's probably a good thing that he's still there. The talent that they have available makes Italy look very pedestrian.
Harry Macguire says “proper England fans don’t boo their players.” Proper England players don’t start drunken brawls, then create international incidents with hophead claims that they were the victims of a conspiracy.
Considering what proper England fans do with lit flares, maybe Maguire should have sat this one out...
You are right about trying to compare football from different era's. It's very difficult if not meaningless in the sense that the game has changed almost beyond recognition. We can say that players now are fitter and stronger and more highly trained AND more highly regulated in their play by managers. The England team we have now is quite possibly the best of all time with the possible exception of 'The Golden Generation'. I am trying to compare each period with itself to compare the difficulty or other wise of England trying to win. I am arguing that we have never had a better chance than right now to win a tournament. Particularly the Euros. I can however make a claim that the standard of competition is lower than it was. I have never seen another two teams like Holland and Brazil of the 70s that left me open mouthed at the level of skill and domination they had. The Dutch should have won the world cup in West Germany but they they were so far ahead and got bored just playing so they showboated and lost to W.Germany. You can say that's bad form but the whole world knew who was the best team in the world, that's how strong they were. Brazil were already a force in the 50's but they literally got kicked out of the 66 World Cup in England. In the 70's they came back having added steel to their massive flair and ruled the world. These teams changed International football forever. When Platini's France were kicked out of the tournament by W.Germany, the rules of contact were changed and teams like France and Spain who had previously suffered because of their football style came to the fore, but no one IMO has produced anything like Holland and Brazil did because the rules protecting goalkeepers and forwards has changed football forever. The cult of the manager has also grown throughout football turning it into much more of a technical exercise and we at Spurs have seen the worst of that. When Conti, a manager with a huge reputation came and stifled our team to such an extent our players only managed one half each game. To Conti his style and system came first and the players had to conform. Then along comes Ange and applies the same rules that Shankly and Clough did and voila we have a football team again. I want to see football with heart and fight not ****ing 'chess on grass' hence why I hate to see people like Southgate put in charge of talent and keep it tied down into some misplaced caution.
I bow to your greater knowledge of current footballers and I am happy to accept that you are right about the quality France has. I have to say I did not see much evidence of that in their play which once again points to a manager stifling the talent available to him. In line with the simplicity of football managers come in two forms, those that enable and those that disable. France perhaps, also need to change their manager.
I think your last paragraph is what really ties it together. I think Ange is more structured and drills the players tactically than perhaps you give him credit for here but it’s what that tactic is intended to do - Conte is all about risk aversion and relentless repetition of the same thing. Ange has patterns of play he tries to get the team to do but he also allows an element of improvisation in the final 3rd. It’s why he loves Maddison - he’ll do what the coach instructs him to do tactically but is also a bit of a maverick. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the amount of money in the modern club game means the levels of analysis, sports science, and coaching and player talent has gone up across the board. Being a solid with a flair player at 10 is going to get you bossed by most PL teams because nearly every coach will drill a system into players to exploit other teams. Even Real Madrid, perhaps the last of the elite teams who collect talented players and then work out how to play rather than the other way round, only get away with it because they have coaches (Ancelotti, Zidane) who are very good at man management and working out how to fit the pieces together into something coherent, and of course they shop at the top of the pile. Every other team at the sharp end, and mostly throughout the top leagues, has an identifiable way of playing that extends beyond “give it to our best player and hope he does something special off the cuff.” That’s part of why I’m enjoying Ange so much. He clearly coaches modern football with some interesting ideas that we consistently see in the team. That helps put us on par with other very good PL teams. But he also gets the joy of the old school and appreciates a player like Maddison who can work in a system but also improvise himself. They’re both a really nice blend of old and new school.
Good post. I still suspect and hope Ange is closer to Clough. You have 10 friends give them the best pass you can. Preferably along the ground. Like Clough Ange wants fans to enjoy what they see.
After saturday Spurs will really need it to get some of the squad into PL starting XI shape under the system, before the Villa game.
Evan Ferguson was asked by a journalist why he was so committed to playing for Ireland over England. "Because I'm Irish."
