Qatar World Cup

[Leothebear]

How is Southgate going to improve us?

Serious question?

So that we do end up winning something?

One of the problems of comparing Southgate to previous England managers is that often such comparisons will miss the hugely important work he did at the England youth level before he stepped up into the senior England manager role. He spent three years setting the ground-work that's enabled England to now properly compete with a large senior squad that looks as happy and cohesive as any I've seen in my lifetime, even before we start to talk about the great skill-sets he's got available...

Anyone who remembers all the previous cliques regarding England camps at tournaments will appreciate how difficult that is to consistently achieve at the top level of the game...

Even beyond that though, and sticking to senior England results under Southgate, I think this statistic from the BBC yesterday might surprise some of his critics -

Southgate has won 49 of his 81 games in charge so far, losing 14.

But his record of winning six knockout games in major tournaments as Three Lions boss is the same number as England had won in the 48 years before he took the helm.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63943512

Given the recent discussions around Southgate continuing in the England manager role, I'd perhaps suggest that even beyond that brilliant final statistic above, his single biggest achievement has actually been in getting this England squad to the point where people are even really *asking* if we can take that extra important step towards silverware.

Before Southgate, we were generally so poor during any important knock-out stages that no-one even bothered to ask the question...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

A couple of points. How many of those 6 knockout games were against top 5 nations?

When you consider the records of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Croatia, The Netherlands, Belgium and perhaps Portugal, who I think have more than 6 wins in KO games What's their secret? I suspect 6 wins puts in a group with the likes of Sweden, Denmark, and perhaps Poland.

The sad fact is England do OK in tournaments until they come up against class sides.

I don't care if GS remains, I can't think of a suitable replacement.

[Itsallaguess]

Anyone who remembers all the previous cliques regarding England camps at tournaments will appreciate how difficult that is to consistently achieve at the top level of the game...

Even beyond that though, and sticking to senior England results under Southgate, I think this statistic from the BBC yesterday might surprise some of his critics -

Southgate has won 49 of his 81 games in charge so far, losing 14.

But his record of winning six knockout games in major tournaments as Three Lions boss is the same number as England had won in the 48 years before he took the helm.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63943512

Given the recent discussions around Southgate continuing in the England manager role, I'd perhaps suggest that even beyond that brilliant final statistic above, his single biggest achievement has actually been in getting this England squad to the point where people are even really *asking* if we can take that extra important step towards silverware.

Before Southgate, we were generally so poor during any important knock-out stages that no-one even bothered to ask the question...

A couple of points. How many of those 6 knockout games were against top 5 nations?

When you consider the records of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Croatia, The Netherlands, Belgium and perhaps Portugal, who I think have more than 6 wins in KO games

What's their secret?

Difficult to say, of course, but I do think that England could simply do with continuing to consolidate the good position they're currently in, and they've achieved the position they're currently in by having Southgate get them into that position...

I'm glad he's staying because I don't think any major change in direction is at all warranted - we simply need to stick with what we've got and where we're heading, and see if the England youngsters can take their recent hard-won tournament experience into the 2024 Euro's and perhaps take another important step in their development...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[dealtn]

A couple of points. How many of those 6 knockout games were against top 5 nations?

When you consider the records of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Croatia, The Netherlands, Belgium and perhaps Portugal, who I think have more than 6 wins in KO games What's their secret? I suspect 6 wins puts in a group with the likes of Sweden, Denmark, and perhaps Poland.

The sad fact is England do OK in tournaments until they come up against class sides.

So here is the perspective you are looking for.

Under Gareth Southgate England have reached 3 finals tournaments and reached the knock out stages of all 3. Thats the 2018 World Cup, the 2020 Euros and the 2022 World Cup. The record in those knockouts is 6 wins and 1 draw.

So of all the countries mentioned how does that compare?

France 8W + 1D
Spain 1W + 4D
Italy 2W + 2D
Germany (astonishingly?) 0W + 0D
Croatia 1W + 3D
Netherlands 1W + 1D
Belgium 3W + 0D
Portugal 1W + 0D

I'm not sure you want to be looking too hard amongst that peer group for "their secret"

We seem to be peculiaraly good in this country at denigrating (perceived lack of) success.

[pje16]

Some great images here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63802161
PS love the last one

[Leothebear]

A couple of points. How many of those 6 knockout games were against top 5 nations?

When you consider the records of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Croatia, The Netherlands, Belgium and perhaps Portugal, who I think have more than 6 wins in KO games What's their secret? I suspect 6 wins puts in a group with the likes of Sweden, Denmark, and perhaps Poland.

The sad fact is England do OK in tournaments until they come up against class sides.

So here is the perspective you are looking for.

Under Gareth Southgate England have reached 3 finals tournaments and reached the knock out stages of all 3. Thats the 2018 World Cup, the 2020 Euros and the 2022 World Cup. The record in those knockouts is 6 wins and 1 draw.

So of all the countries mentioned how does that compare?

France 8W + 1D
Spain 1W + 4D
Italy 2W + 2D
Germany (astonishingly?) 0W + 0D
Croatia 1W + 3D
Netherlands 1W + 1D
Belgium 3W + 0D
Portugal 1W + 0D

I'm not sure you want to be looking too hard amongst that peer group for "their secret"

We seem to be peculiaraly good in this country at denigrating (perceived lack of) success.

OK I wasn't necessarily making the comparison over the last 3 tournaments more like the last 10 years. But fair enough the last 3 tournaments GS's record appears good.
Look a little closer:
3 of those wins came in 2020 Euros - held in England with England getting a rather easy group. England beat Ukraine, Denmark and a very out of sorts Germany.

2 wins in WC2018 - Columbia, Sweden.

1 win in WC2022 - Senegal.

Out of that lot only Germany would be considered top drawyer but have since been shown to be in the doldrums.

The tournaments ended for England with defeats to Croatia, Italy and France.

At the highest level England still fail.

I'm not advocating GS goes because I cannot see anyone else doing any better.

[dealtn]

A couple of points. How many of those 6 knockout games were against top 5 nations?

When you consider the records of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Croatia, The Netherlands, Belgium and perhaps Portugal, who I think have more than 6 wins in KO games What's their secret? I suspect 6 wins puts in a group with the likes of Sweden, Denmark, and perhaps Poland.

The sad fact is England do OK in tournaments until they come up against class sides.

So here is the perspective you are looking for.

Under Gareth Southgate England have reached 3 finals tournaments and reached the knock out stages of all 3. Thats the 2018 World Cup, the 2020 Euros and the 2022 World Cup. The record in those knockouts is 6 wins and 1 draw.

So of all the countries mentioned how does that compare?

France 8W + 1D
Spain 1W + 4D
Italy 2W + 2D
Germany (astonishingly?) 0W + 0D
Croatia 1W + 3D
Netherlands 1W + 1D
Belgium 3W + 0D
Portugal 1W + 0D

I'm not sure you want to be looking too hard amongst that peer group for "their secret"

We seem to be peculiaraly good in this country at denigrating (perceived lack of) success.

OK I wasn't necessarily making the comparison over the last 3 tournaments more like the last 10 years. But fair enough the last 3 tournaments GS's record appears good.
Look a little closer:
3 of those wins came in 2020 Euros - held in England with England getting a rather easy group. England beat Ukraine, Denmark and a very out of sorts Germany.

2 wins in WC2018 - Columbia, Sweden.

1 win in WC2022 - Senegal.

Out of that lot only Germany would be considered top drawyer but have since been shown to be in the doldrums.

The tournaments ended for England with defeats to Croatia, Italy and France.

At the highest level England still fail.

I'm not advocating GS goes because I cannot see anyone else doing any better.

Well the usual standard is to apply results after 90 (or 120) minutes. In which case England only lost to France (hence the draws in my analysis - also applicable to all countries).

Feel free to point out all the "top drawer" opponents beaten by the others in the peer group by all means.

[Leothebear]

Let's make this simple. England have won zilch in 56 years.

Is England as a nation with the Premier League, considered the best on the planet, punching above or below their weight?

[servodude]

Let's make this simple. England have won zilch in 56 years.

Is England as a nation with the Premier League, considered the best on the planet, punching above or below their weight?

Your lassies aren't doing badly

[BobbyD]

Let's make this simple. England have won zilch in 56 years.

Is England as a nation with the Premier League, considered the best on the planet, punching above or below their weight?

The pre-eminence of the Premier League in England has more to do with the value of the football market in England than the inherent natural ability of it's players, coaches, managers or football association.

Figures from: List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... by_country

Premier League England £1,600,000,000

Bundesliga 1 + 2 Germany 1-2 €1,100,000,000 (£945,000,000)

La Liga Spain/Andorra €990,000,000 (£851,000,000)

Serie A Italy €927,500,000 (£797,000,000)

Ligue 1 + Ligue 2 France/Monaco €582,000,000 (£500,000,000)

The domestic TV revenue is the same as the top divisions in Spain and Italy added together! Then that is further exacerbated by having a far better product to market to international broadcasters...

The PL has nothing to do with international football.

[Leothebear]

The PL has nothing to do with international football.

Other this is where most English players ply their trade, competing against or playing with some of the world's best.

[Bubblesofearth]

Let's make this simple. England have won zilch in 56 years.

Is England as a nation with the Premier League, considered the best on the planet, punching above or below their weight?

IMO below. We should be up there in terms of wins with other large population countries where football is the main sport/passsion. Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany and France. That's the yardstick by which we should measure ourselves.

Consolation is that it looks like we are getting closer under GS.

But I don't think anyone sane would deny that it's been a disappointing few decades!

BoE

[dealtn]

Let's make this simple. England have won zilch in 56 years.

Is England as a nation with the Premier League, considered the best on the planet, punching above or below their weight?

First sentence is in the past tense, the second sentence, and question is in the present tense.

In the last 10 years England have punched above their weight and tournament results are higher than most in what would be considered the peer group of similar nations.

[BigB]

Let's make this simple. England have won zilch in 56 years.

Is England as a nation with the Premier League, considered the best on the planet, punching above or below their weight?

First sentence is in the past tense, the second sentence, and question is in the present tense.

In the last 10 years England have punched above their weight and tournament results are higher than most in what would be considered the peer group of similar nations.

I'd say England are punching at their weight or above in the last 3 cycles with GS. I'd expect England to be a top 8 side. The last 3 tournaments they have achieved last 4, last 2, last 8 - statistically strong. The previous tournaments of 2012/14/16 in the last 10 years I don't think England have punched above their weight.

What I like about GS' achievements is that he has made qualification look routine, and getting through the group look routine - he looks like he'll get you to the business end of a tournament. Not sure it's looked like that since Bobby Robson's days when considering a single manager. Euro 96 and France 98 were with different managers.

I'd also concede however that I don't think England look like a top top side, and that there are extra levels of performance to achieve. Fine margins perhaps. France looked better over this tournament, and Italy looked like the best side in last year's Euros.

At this point, I have only observations, and no solutions/suggestions.

[BobbyD]

The PL has nothing to do with international football.

Other this is where most English players ply their trade, competing against or playing with some of the world's best.

...because that's where the money is. The world is small enough these days that if the money were still in the Italian or Spanish game even the better English players would travel, and the best foreign players would already not be here...

[Leothebear]

The PL has nothing to do with international football.

Other this is where most English players ply their trade, competing against or playing with some of the world's best.

...because that's where the money is. The world is small enough these days that if the money were still in the Italian or Spanish game even the better English players would travel, and the best foreign players would already not be here...

I simply mean that most of England's players are in the PL which, it is said, is the best in the world, so they should be used to playing at the apex of world football. To my eyes England's players cannot match the skills of the very best. I'd agree with an earlier post stating England are top 8. Perhaps that's the best we can hope for.

It's the hope that kills you - I'll remember that for the Euros

[BobbyD]

I simply mean that most of England's players are in the PL which, it is said, is the best in the world, so they should be used to playing at the apex of world football. To my eyes England's players cannot match the skills of the very best. I'd agree with an earlier post stating England are top 8. Perhaps that's the best we can hope for.

It's the hope that kills you - I'll remember that for the Euros

Garnishing plates in a three Michelin star kitchen doesn't make you a great chef.

England have got some good players, some mediocre players and some decent prospects. Their squad isn't well balanced, with depth in some positions and an absence of talent in others, and there's little danger of the management ringing every last drop of potential out of it.

Perennially between around 5th and 10th.

The way to avoid disappointment is to support someone else....

[Tedx]

....and onwards to North America

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64032538

Huge geography, excellent infrastructure, many more teams and large capacity stadiums that are already built.

I read elsewhere that the last US world cup was one of the cheapest (and best in my opinion) ever because of the stadiums already in place and getting around North America is pretty easy I think.

48 teams though. Seems like the Scotland lobbying group was successful.

[Leothebear]

Garnishing plates in a three Michelin star kitchen doesn't make you a great chef.

Haha! Good one.

Leo

[BobbyD]

....and onwards to North America

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64032538

Huge geography, excellent infrastructure, many more teams and large capacity stadiums that are already built.

I read elsewhere that the last US world cup was one of the cheapest (and best in my opinion) ever because of the stadiums already in place and getting around North America is pretty easy I think.

48 teams though. Seems like the Scotland lobbying group was successful.

...and it's a market which actually makes sense for Football.

[BigB]

....and onwards to North America

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64032538

Huge geography, excellent infrastructure, many more teams and large capacity stadiums that are already built.

I read elsewhere that the last US world cup was one of the cheapest (and best in my opinion) ever because of the stadiums already in place and getting around North America is pretty easy I think.

48 teams though. Seems like the Scotland lobbying group was successful.

Of course their immediate problem is that they had proposed a format of 16 groups of 3, with top 2 going straight to last 32 knockout (so same number of games to final). But this means they remove the drama and beauty of those final concurrent group games - and wasn't that absolutely brilliant in this tournament.

I'm guessing they will have to propose a new format to avoid the drudge of 16x 3, then last 32 knockout.