Swango1980
Well-known member
Yet that is a point that is important not to overlook. Tuchel, is indeed, probably considered to be a better manager.Just on Southgate in general...people often just look at his "failures" on the pitch (which are still more successful than just about every other England manager in all of our lifetimes). Yes, he didn't get the job done, but what a lot of people don't realise is that he took a complete basket case of a national setup and helped re-build from the ground up. Changed the culture, the structure and made players WANT to play for England again and make it a priority in their careers.
When we had the "golden generation" - they failed because club football was EVERYTHING and club rivalries were EVERYTHING. England came 2nd to club football in terms of player priority.
Southgate had a massive hand in completely changing that and the squad now want to play for the badge and those that aren't getting call ups are doing everything they can do get one. This simply CANNOT be overlooked as it has not only reflected how the Senior team have performed over the last 8 years, but also the U17's, 19s and 21's. The WHOLE setup at St Georges Park is completely different and that's due, in large part, to Southgate. So I find it ridiculous when people simply state "a better manager would have won us those finals"....when in actual fact, the team and setup would probably still be in such a state that we wouldn't have ever got into a position to be in those finals as it's not just what happens in the 3 weeks during a World Cup or Euros - its everything that happens outside of that as well.
That said, I'm not saying he could come in and manager a Premier League team and be successful - but it's embarrassing how much disrespect he gets for what he's achieved at International Level. Tuchel, you'd argue, is a better manager (won CL with Chelsea and has other numerous silverware to his name) - but he's arguably taken the team backwards from what we've seen so far.
Managing a club on a day to day basis is drastically different to managing an international side. At international level, players do not get paid big juicy contracts. They can't have people around them, like agents, telling them how good they are and how any other side would take them. If things don't go well, Bellingham can't have his eyes turned and try and make a move to play for Brazil or France. So, playing for your country for free is considered to be an honour, and if any players are not on board, they don't come into the squad. Easy.
At club level, the manager has to work with players daily, and he is stuck with them. At least for 6 months, but perhaps a lot longer. If Man Utd win cups, and even finish top 3 in the league, their next defeat will still be pounced upon as a disaster. Whereas England mainly play hugely inferior teams, breeze through qualification (I'm sure any one of us in here could manage England to qualification, especially with some competent coaches around us), and are really only judged at big comps every 2 years. Yes, England ended up scraping through towards the final each time, fair play to them. But, they often made things much more difficult than it needed to be. And Southgate probably had a good few results that were in the balance, and if any had gone the other way (which easily could have happened), he'd have been sacked quickly.
It seems people like to rewrite history, and make it sound like England galloped to finals, scared all other teams, and where a powerhouse nation. They were not. Outside England, I bet the French, Italians, Brazilians, Spanish, etc did not fear England like they'd fear each other. As soon as England came up against a nation that was decent, they'd generally fall at that hurdle. England seemed to play scared, while the other nations played with a confidence.
I agree, Southgate is a really really good diplomat. He has his strengths in management. But, I also believe he has gaping flaws that will hurt him badly when managing at club level.