World Cup Column: Now is not the time to knock down the England that Southgate has built
Glorious failure has been a core principle of the England men’s football team for every day that has passed since 30 July 1966. But in the ten years between a penalty shootout defeat to Portugal in Gelsenkirchen that ended their stay at the 2006 World Cup and that ignominious Euro 2016 loss to Iceland in Nice, the failure remained but the glory faded away.
Perhaps the ongoing attachment to the idea reflects the reality of the narratives that surround international football teams. Time between tournaments allows popular ideas to become entrenched regardless of evidence to the contrary, meaning the stories of players, teams and nations are a reflection of a version of reality rather than being based in actuality themselves.
England did not exit every tournament between winning the World Cup and the last stand of Sven-Goran Eriksson’s golden generation with a Maradona handball or Gazza’s tears or because of a doomed set of penalties. The motif encompassing the failure to get beyond the first knockout round of either a World Cup or a European Championship in the decade before Gareth Southgate should have been defined by embarrassment not heartache.
It has been easier to have well-informed, set ideas about England since the fall of 2017. This is one of Southgate’s most endearing characteristics. He is consistent, level-headed, straightforward and predictable. There has been little over the past five years to suggest he acts any differently when his team lose compared to when they win. This capacity to be dependable has been the bedrock of England reaching a semi-final, a final and now a quarter-final in his three tournaments in charge, but all too often it is suggested as the reason that his team have not been able to go any further.
This World Cup, that came to an end for Southgate and England with defeat to reigning World Champions France at the Al Bayt Stadium, represents a tension between the manager’s inherent conservatism, Gareth-ball in its purest form, and an exterior pressure to do something new, adventurous and more exciting.
A throwing off of the shackles brought about six goals against Iran and was then immediately followed by the dourest of goalless draws against the USA. Southgate seemed pleased with both, knowing they combined to all but achieve qualification for the next round. The victories against Wales and Senegal encompassed both sides of the dichotomy; a reliance on the defensive punctured by flashes of attacking play unlike anything that has been seen of England at major tournaments for generations.
Maybe this tension is why England did not look as sure of themselves as France in their Quarter-final meeting. England were plausibly the better team on the day, saw more of the ball and fashioned more efforts at goal, but their opponents seemed content with the way in which events played out, comfortable to rely on the decisive moments falling for them in a way that only teams who have already climbed the mountain can.
But a re-telling of the story as neat as this is only possible with knowledge of the ending. Had debatable refereeing decisions gone the other way, or Olivier Giroud’s header flown wide of goal via Harry Maguire, or the always dependable Harry Kane found the net with his second penalty, this understanding loses its poignancy.
Southgate’s inherent aversion to change, to break from his well-formulated plans and coherent tactical ideas, is possibly why an attacking substitution was not called for when England were in the ascendancy following Kane’s equaliser. Such a minor moment of inaction can be critical in an even game between two well-matched opponents, but Didier Deschamps did little to alter the flow of proceedings when his team was struggling and outcome bias dictates that he got it right to stick rather than twist.
This World Cup has made it more painfully obvious than ever before that football is not just a game in itself, and this is where the value of Southgate truly lies. His role as a statesman, a representative of an England that exists beyond intolerance and exceptionalism, was near enough unquestionable until the OneLove armband cowardice at the start of this tournament. He has played a foundational role in helping to mature the mileu surrounding a team that was previously on the verge of internal collapse and at the behest of an unforgiving media and often even less generous public.
In years gone by, the England captain’s miss from 12 yards on Saturday would have been the moment to scapegoat; Kane the overpaid, underperforming imposter, Kane the effigy to burn on a New Years’ Eve bonfire, Kane the root vegetable. Instead, the quiet dignity of England’s now joint top-scorer come the final whistle has been championed – he will be ready to go again at the next tournament, and so should his manager.
The emphasis on winning on the pitch will likely never lessen though. The misfortune of this most recent shortcoming has been highlighted more generously than possibly any previous tournament exit, yet there have still been desperate calls for some form of change. The incommunicable idea of ‘root and branch’ reform has even been hinted at if not demanded by some who ignore processes in favour of outcomes.
This way of thinking before the tournament decided England had no chance of winning. The narrative was pre-set; a group of players with limitless potential would be restrained by a dithering and indecisive manager. But believing this is what played out would be to ignore not just the details of the defeat to France but also everything Southgate has done to get England into a position whereby they are near enough equals with the world champions in a tournament knockout game.
If you have spent any great deal of time watching Southgate, his team and everything that surrounds them across his three major tournaments in charge with a basic level of attentiveness, it is hard to think that anyone could have done a better job.
