I think Southgate has had more “success” than previous managers because he plays the safer percentage game of making us solid and safe and then hoping we can use our creativity up top on the few occasions the team does attack. He has though still suffered imo (as some of his predecessors have) of trying to squeeze all the best players into the same team at the cost of balance. Hence none of the performances have been particularly dominant so far or emphatic in terms of the scorelines. This is what causes great frustration amongst the fans and the media because continue to play like that against the better teams and you ain’t going to get anywhere. The draw has been kind to Southgate at several tournaments now and usually when they come up against a top side, this strategy isn’t bold enough to get over the line.
However, the team were clearly better against Holland with the players looking a lot more at home and comfortable in the system because there seemed to be more license to go forward. But then the question has to be asked, why didn’t Southgate do this before? Because let’s not forget it took a last minute goal by Bellingham vs Slovakia to stay in the tournament. Had that not happened, the team would obviously now be out and Southgate would probably be out of a job and the landscape would look very different.
So it’s a puzzling one as to why Southgate took such a big risk playing the safe way vs Slovakia but then were more attacking vs Holland. Should it really have taken him this long to have found a better system? Or has he been under pressure to change it and finally found one? Obviously great that he has but if it is the case that the pressure has forced him to change things, ie take him out his comfort zone, then the worry is he will revert to his default setting when a game gets tight again and is waiting to be won because being bolder I don’t think is generally in his make up.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
