I reckon they need to be experienced, demand respect, focus on the core players (to keep happy) and be able to change on the fly. It is in the end a lower form of football where you have what you have and have to react to the situation. This is why imo conte could take Italy to glory but.mancini ended up fired and out in quali. Conte had a system going into the euros which was, like Southgate, set up to not concede but he had a lwb there ro provide width and a system and that went out the window with a acl. Conte adapted and found the way to get by. If knee dropped in a knockout game with an injury imo Southgate would have no answer
That's a given, all managers demand respect. If they don't have respect, they may as well put their feet up and await the 'sack payment'. It's a different type of respect at club football to international football though. In club football, the manager can rule with an iron first without fear of upsetting the player because he can just replace them (not ideal but for example sake...). Ie, no one is bigger than the club. In international football, the manager is scared of upsetting a star player like a Beckham, Rooney, Kane, etc because he can't just replace them. Ie, the players can be bigger than the team Then add fans into the equation too
I probably didn't make it clear from my question but I was taking it for granted that the team was already assembled and asking what then is the biggest difference in management between the two roles.
Thank you for being the first to answer the question with really good points. I have always said that the smart take from the strong and you get smart through good coaching. That's why I asked is tactics more important in national coaching because you already have the best players you are going to get.
Think for internationals you need to be able to look at a group of players and play a set of tactics that suit the players available. Rather than having a set principle and trying to mould your players to play that way. Need to be able to change things mid game and have an actual impact as don’t get numerous chances to recover like in league football. It’s why I think Potter wouldn't make great international manager. He needs time to coach and implement a specific style and just don’t get that chance for national teams. Same with klopp or pep. It’s why I don’t think you can look at who is doing well in the prem and assume will be a good international manager. Someone that can assess the strengths / weaknesses of the squad, work out how best to win matches with those available. It’s also why you don’t really see teams playing brilliant exciting football and why it’ll never compare to club games as there is just a mismatch of players/tactics that players can’t really become familiar
See, I think tactics are less important at international level because you don't have the time to effectively improvement them. As Biscan says, pick a system that best suits the players you have. If you pick what you consider to be your strongest eleven players and eight of them play 433 for their clubs, go with that. If the remaining three can't fit or aren't suitable in a 433, swap them for players that do to make a team rather than XI individuals (Sven & Capello both did the further but failed to do the latter part)
Which Tbf Sam could do this he suffered massively because many thought he was negative But his Bolton and Blackpool teams were good to watch Obviously his goto tactic was defensive but he had some cracking sides Gets a bit of negative press does Sam
That all makes sense. As I said, I don't pay too much attention to England but looking at team selections and seeing 5 players from city, for example, who know each other well sort of suggests that if 3 or 4 (or all) of them are playing at the same time, then that should maybe determine a set-up formation that works. Does this happen or does Southgate play people out of position and/or not use club partnerships?
When I say demand respect I mean their name demands it on its own merits. I'm sure a few England players saw Southgate as a soft touch and I'm sure it happens in a lot of countries that big players think they can push managers about. In the end if a big name wants to win and believes in the managers credentials then it's half the battle. I'm fairly sure ronaldo would never have stood for a no mark like Southgate coming in. Last world cup I vaguely remember a lot of talk about the Argentina boss being ingnored by the team etc. Anyway there's a massive difference between controlling a ****bag like grealish and getting kanes buy in. Grealish wants to drink and party and will if he thinks he can Kane wants to get golden boot and be the main man. One needs fear to control. The other needs the belief you can deliver for him while controlling the gobshites.
If you think about it, not every country has dominant clubs and they have to come together from a wide selection of clubs. I wouldn't say Southgate plays anyone out of position par se, it's just he wants players to defend first before any thought of anything else... if there even it thought. This is why I said saka is picked cos he will run back and defend well. He's locked in and so was sterling.
We were talking the other day about reading our own comments back and realising that what we write doesn't always correspond with what we actually meant to say. I'm doing that a lot lately
Which is part of why I think there shouldn't be so many little international breaks throughout the year. Just have two international breaks. One in summer, one in winter, make them longer so can really develop tactics, etc... Rather than lot of little breaks which are two small to do anything but mess up club football.
Maybe we should. Maybe along with HG players, we need a ratio of HG coaches. For every two coaches / staff that work with players, one should be developed domestically (not started career overseas). There's a dearth of good domestic managerial talent. Maybe forcing more coaches to be domestic will lead to more domestic managers.
Well, I'd personally pick as many from one club as I could because they already have that cohesion. Look at 1966, England and West Ham
It was one of those constant subs things so a lot of the youngsters (and Nat Phillips and Adrian) got to play. Weird thing was they did a penalty shootout at the end just like with the Lyon game - Tsimikas miss, Keita miss, Carvalho goal, Clark goal, Darwin goal ..... Milan won the shootout 3-4. Adrian in goal for the shootout.
