I had this topic in my drafts before the 4-0 defeat to Hungary, so this is not a knee-jerk reaction. I don’t hate the national side, nor am I an avid supporter. I don’t think Gareth Southgate should be sacked. There’s only so much a new manger could do between now and the World Cup in Qatar. But if England’s negative football costs them the tournament again, I would be looking at replacing the 51-year-old.
On the 4-0 defeat, arguments that these are glorified friendlies and that the players are exhausted and just want to go on holiday, are valid. But, with all due respect to Hungary, there is no excuse for a 4-0 thrashing to anyone, let alone underdogs. Nevertheless, there is a bigger, much darker picture.
On paper, Southgate has done well. A World Cup semi-final and a European Championship final in his two first campaigns looks fantastic, and yes, is far better than previous managers have achieved with what some argue were better teams. I’m not going down that road, because it’s very difficult to compare players today to players back then. What I would say, is that this is a very young and exciting squad, filled with flair and great attacking potency. Yet the way they play is drab, harmless, and extremely unappealing to watch. That extends to both major tournaments under Southgate’s tenure, as well as these glorified friendlies.
As I said, Southgate has done well on paper, but neither of these campaigns have been successful. He has been extremely lucky. England got far, but with all due respect again, they were clear favourites in every single game that they won. Every time they played a Belgium, or an Italy, or even a Croatia (who England are and were a better team than) they lost. When it mattered, they fell short.
They would have won at least one of or even both the final and semi-final with a better tactical set up at 1-0. Southgate opts to invite pressure instead of capitalising on the momentum from the lead. France, who beat Croatia in the final, put four past them with ease. In that World Cup campaign, bar the game against Panama, England only scored one goal from open play in the entire tournament, which was a cross against Sweden to make it 2-0. This highlights the way in which Southgate is wasting a great swath of attacking talent by employing incredibly defensive and uninspiring football.
The only exception is the Germany game at Euro 2020. England were not clear favourites, and their performance was impressive against a big side. However, context must be considered. Germany were dreadful at the 2018 World Cup, and weren’t much better at the euros, scraping past Hungary with a draw to escape their group. Southgate was also lucky with Thomas Muller missing a gilt-edged opportunity at 1-0.
Had that gone in, I feel England would have faced a similar fate to what they did in the final against Italy, as well as Croatia in the World Cup. Southgate deserves credit for the Germany result, but that is only the game in his entire regime in which England have been somewhat impressive against a side of arguably a similar quality. At every other challenge, and crucially in the latter stages of the tournaments, they have failed.
A closer examination of the Euros reveals that football was never really that close to coming home. England put in an abject performance against a poor Scotland side and were not convincing in either of their other group games for that matter. But, fair enough, they got the job done. They did very well against Germany as mentioned and were excellent against Ukraine.
What is underestimated is just how lucky England were against Denmark. After going 1-0 down, they got back into the game with an own goal, before winning in extra time with a penalty that was frankly an absurd decision, and not only that, they scored from the rebound. A fantastic start against Italy was soon flattened yet again by poor tactics. Look at Luke Shaw’s opener. It’s insane how simply, and how easily England take the lead.
The Italy midfield is wide open, no one closes down the cross, no one is even looking at Shaw at the far post. It highlighted just how easy it was to get Italy’s defence. England were in their home stadium. They had the crowd behind them, they had the lead and the upper hand. That final was theirs, but it was left to the lottery of a penalty shootout. Instead of recognising the Italian weakness and pushing forward, Southgate chose to have England sit back and invite pressure.
On the one hand, Southgate was unlucky, as penalties are somewhat a lottery. On the other hand, it was his fault that it even got to penalties. With braver, more astute tactics, it wouldn’t have come to that. And then in the lottery, Southgate ripped his ticket up by making a 19-year-old kid who had never taken a penalty take possibly the most important kick in English football history.
It doesn’t matter what happened in practice shootouts. You do not give such an inexperienced player that responsibility. It was, unsurprisingly, a frail, nervous penalty. And it was exactly what I said would happen when he stepped up to take it. The decision was mind boggling. Maybe there wasn’t a great alternative, but Southgate certainly chose the worst option. This isn’t the only questionable selection the England manager has made.
Trent Alexander-Arnold got 19 assists from right back (albeit it is an orthodox right back in Klopp’s system) in the 21/22 season. Nine in the 20/21 season, and 31 in the previous two seasons before that combined. People say he doesn’t play well for England, but I think a good manager should be able to get something out of a player who has played an integral role in a team that has won all the best trophies that an English team could wish for.
Harry Kane is someone who leads by example, but he does not motivate, and he has never captained a team to a trophy; he should not be the captain. The man who has captained Liverpool to the trophies referenced above, should be the captain. Choosing Kalvin Philips (who did have a good tournament at the Euros, but was dreadful against Hungary, and he’s barely played all season) over Jordan Henderson is confusing. And that’s being kind.
Southgate has got an extremely exciting prospect in Jude Bellingham but prefers Mason Mount, who has rarely impressed in an England shirt. Fikayo Tomori should also be given a chance in the team. Maguire does play well for England- because they play a low block, and his job is mainly heading balls away. Which, yes, he is good at. But I think a change of system is needed- four at the back, playing higher, more attacking and expressive football.
People will argue that the football isn’t pretty but it’s “about getting the job done” and that it has got England far in their tournaments. But that’s not what I see. I see a team that didn’t get the job done when it mattered, because of the negative approach in the tactical set up, and the way in which Southgate failed to utilise his plethora of attacking, youthful talent. I see a team that benefitted from very fortunate draws in both tournaments.
Bar Iceland, England have not been eliminated from a tournament by a team that they were outright favourites against in recent history. Apart from potentially, and ironically, Croatia. Southgate’s unprecedented fortune in the draws has been mislabeled as “progress” and even “success”. I am not Southgate out. But I am a doubter. His unconvincing track record before he attained the England role does not help that.
I still see a side that crumbles when the pressure is really on. This has been England’s biggest problem for almost 60 years, and I’m not convinced that it’s changing. Southgate’s tactics allow his team to function as flat track bullies, but when they come up against the best teams in the big games, I feel they have and will come short. I hope to be proved wrong this winter.
Dan's Mersey Blog 