D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Beleive it’s 35 or 40% of capacityI don't know tbh, missed the 1st half as at golf. Is it limited to 30K though?
Beleive it’s 35 or 40% of capacityI don't know tbh, missed the 1st half as at golf. Is it limited to 30K though?
You saw Gareth at the Euros didn’t you.
Must agree with you though some baffling decisions.
I think this hits the nail firmly on the head. Both Ole and Southgate do no wrong re PR etc. You find it very hard to dislike them. You will them to succeed ( with the exception of Ole coz am a City fan). But for me, they are poor championship managers that are not get the full potential out of there squads.I think England achieved what they did despite Southgate being manager rather than because he was manager. With Man Utd it's the same. Anything they achieve will be in spite of having Ole as manager rather than because of having him as manager.
Not enough breaks for adverts I guess, it can be hard to keep up.Reasonable point.
I just can't sit through it.
I can sit through rugby, especially union rules,
but the game that we savages call "soccer" leaves me blurry eyed.
So, Southgate has underachieved?
He's been in charge for 49 proper competitive matches and only lost 8 of them, he's managed 64 matches overall and lost only 10 of them and is heading to be the most successful England manager of all time stats wise.
He's changed the team to one of younger players and given them a longer run than many of his predecessors have done and now looks like he could properly challenge for silverware. Yes, we question decisions he makes as we are entitled to, but the team have definitely not "won in spite of him and not because of him" as has been said here . Had Big Sam still been in charge, or his predecessor Roy Hodgson, would the stats have been as impressive, would we have the young vibrant team we do now ?
I personally don't think there is another English manager better than the one we have who has also bought together the players, where in the past players from Utd, Liverpool, Spurs etc were anything but "team mates".
I'm no great fan of Southgate, too conservative for me, but in what way was he 'out managed' by Mancini. Mancini's Italy could not beat England after 120 + minutes of play. They are not a minnow nation, they are a very good, top level team on a heck of an unbeaten run. They needed penalties to win. You don't out manage someone to a penalty win.Having no better English manager isn’t that great an endorsement - the last high level English manager is prob Bobby Robson - there hasnt been one who has achieved what he did as a manager.
If England want to continue with an English only manager then it will be falling short each time
Southgate was out managed by someone who has managed at the highest level and been successful at it - if Mancini was in charge of England in that game then England would have won the Euros
I'm no great fan of Southgate, too conservative for me, but in what way was he 'out managed' by Mancini. Mancini's Italy could not beat England after 120 + minutes of play. They are not a minnow nation, they are a very good, top level team on a heck of an unbeaten run. They needed penalties to win. You don't out manage someone to a penalty win.
I agree with most of your post but equally Italy could not beat us in open play. If you can't do that then Mancini can not claim managerial superioirty imo, I'm not saying he is incidentally. A bolder England manager would have won that game but I think we have done that to death at the time.After England went ahead , Mancini was making small subtle changes that turned the game away from England - even small things swapping the wide players around which proved to be successful for them - England as a team were more talented than Italy , the attacking line up that England could field was frightening and Southgate didn’t change a thing because he was scared to lose - Mancini managing that squad would have won the game for England - he wouldnt have been afraid to make both tactical and personnel changes.
After about 15 mins Italy dominated that game and Southgate did nothing to try and change that and that imo comes down to him not having the high level tactical awareness
Mancini didn't sub on two fellers to take a penalty with their first kick of the night to be fair.I'm no great fan of Southgate, too conservative for me, but in what way was he 'out managed' by Mancini. Mancini's Italy could not beat England after 120 + minutes of play. They are not a minnow nation, they are a very good, top level team on a heck of an unbeaten run. They needed penalties to win. You don't out manage someone to a penalty win.
I'm happy for his decisions to be pulled apart, not tricky, but 'out managed' to a 1-1 draw is not the right phrase.Mancini didn't sub on two fellers to take a penalty with their first kick of the night to be fair.
Having no better English manager isn’t that great an endorsement - the last high level English manager is prob Bobby Robson - there hasnt been one who has achieved what he did as a manager.
If England want to continue with an English only manager then it will be falling short each time
It's all very well to say " if this, if that" but Mancini was not the England manager and it's sheer speculation what anyone in charge of the England team would, or wouldn't do with a completely different set of players. We got a team to the final and that's been done very few times so I reckon Southgate must be better than most, but there are people on here who clearly know more about running a national team and I suspect some of those were saying that we'd do well to get through the group stage!
It’s called debate and opinion on a forum ?
Surely people can debate even if they aren’t a football manager ?
Don't let me stop you, nobody else has managed to ?