Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Next England Manager - Thomas Tuchel
Comments
-
Really, why?cafc_se7 said:
Would you honestly want a German leading the country to a World Cup win? I would rather us not win anything the rest of my life if it means a German Coach/Manager leads us to a World Cup win.Redmidland said:GS did a sterling job and got back pride of the Nation. He's made his decision and quickly. Neither Potter or Howe inspire me, nor Carsley come to that. I've said it before and will say it again, the FA need to break the bank and go for Klopp or Pep. I'm not stuck up on 'he must be British" Why? No British manager has been successful in the PL for years.
However I fear it'll be one of Potter or Howe.
The premier league is made up of foreign managers, I don't recall fans complaining when they win something, that the manager isn't English?6 -
Perhaps JohnBoy hasn't recovered from the fact that Newcastle, under Howe, have beaten Spurs in three of the last four encounters: 4-0, 6-1 and before that 2-1 at White Hart Lane. But then everyone beats Spurs these days!soapboxsam said:JohnBoyUK said:Don't care what the nationality of the manager is as long as we play attacking, attractive football.
Klopp, just to boil the piss of the 'we're Scouse not English'.
Followed by Poch.
Wouldn't touch Potter or Howe with a bargepole.
How bizarre !
Eddie Howe achieved in every division getting promoted from League 2 until he reached the Premier.
Managed to get the great underachievers Newcastle into the Champions league and this season overcome having eleven 1st teamers injured yet they still played attractive football.
After 17 years he has the experience but the FA probably won't want to pay out the contract to get him.
Chelsea made Graham Potter rich assuming he has received the millions in compensation as he was in no rush to take the Leicester Job and other jobs he has been offered.
Potter is as bright as a button and will continue to be a possession based manager, great against the top teams but hopefully a tad more direct against the lesser teams as you score one goal if there are 3 passes to score or 23 touches on the way to the net.
I predict it will be an Ex Chelsea Manager, so at least 3 contenders ?2 -
Which is probably why Howe won't take the job, right now, if offered it. He has said that he wants to manage England one day though. This might not be that day.Callumcafc said:Why would Klopp, Pep, Howe see the abuse Gareth Southgate has had to endure despite his team getting to two major tournament finals and think “yep, that’s the job for me… lower salary too, bonus!”.
You’re basically deemed a failure and holding the team back if you don’t win the World Cup in 2026 - the expectations of the public are wildly out of touch with reality.0 -
I think it was a mistake leaving Grealish out. I could see where his game could be of use whereas Wharton did not have the expereince and was never going to be involved.0
-
Playing Wharton would have been a risk but on the other hand, he was exactly the type of midfielder England needed in theory. It might've been just one tournament too soon for him, unfortunately. Excited to see him in an England shirt sooner rather than later, and hopefully he doesn't spend much longer at Palace...MuttleyCAFC said:I think it was a mistake leaving Grealish out. I could see where his game could be of use whereas Wharton did not have the expereince and was never going to be involved.5 -
I agree, but my point is that it was a risk Southgate was never likely to take, whereas Grealish is an established international and does have a game where something diffrent can be introduced if required/desperate. If I am right, why use up a space in the squad?Callumcafc said:
Playing Wharton would have been a risk but on the other hand, he was exactly the type of midfielder England needed in theory. It might've been just one tournament too soon for him, unfortunately. Excited to see him in an England shirt sooner rather than later, and hopefully he doesn't spend much longer at Palace...MuttleyCAFC said:I think it was a mistake leaving Grealish out. I could see where his game could be of use whereas Wharton did not have the expereince and was never going to be involved.3 -
Good riddance.1
-
Addick Addict said:
Perhaps JohnBoy hasn't recovered from the fact that Newcastle, under Howe, have beaten Spurs in three of the last four encounters: 4-0, 6-1 and before that 2-1 at White Hart Lane. But then everyone beats Spurs these days!soapboxsam said:JohnBoyUK said:Don't care what the nationality of the manager is as long as we play attacking, attractive football.
Klopp, just to boil the piss of the 'we're Scouse not English'.
Followed by Poch.
Wouldn't touch Potter or Howe with a bargepole.
How bizarre !
Eddie Howe achieved in every division getting promoted from League 2 until he reached the Premier.
Managed to get the great underachievers Newcastle into the Champions league and this season overcome having eleven 1st teamers injured yet they still played attractive football.
After 17 years he has the experience but the FA probably won't want to pay out the contract to get him.
Chelsea made Graham Potter rich assuming he has received the millions in compensation as he was in no rush to take the Leicester Job and other jobs he has been offered.
Potter is as bright as a button and will continue to be a possession based manager, great against the top teams but hopefully a tad more direct against the lesser teams as you score one goal if there are 3 passes to score or 23 touches on the way to the net.
I predict it will be an Ex Chelsea Manager, so at least 3 contenders ?
That's why I was surprised AA after the attractive way Newcastle give Spurs a spanking.1 -
While I'm not totally against a foreign coach, I've always found it odd that in international competition you don't have a coach from that country leading the team.0
-
Yes...he does!superclive98 said:I don't know, but he doesn't necessarily have to be English.0 - Sponsored links:
-
We definitely agree, I would've liked to see Grealish and maybe even Rashford in the squad as well - they both offer something different even while also having big tournament experience.MuttleyCAFC said:
I agree, but my point is that it was a risk Southgate was never likely to take, whereas Grealish is an established international and does have a game where something diffrent can be introduced if required/desperate. If I am right, why use up a space in the squad?Callumcafc said:
Playing Wharton would have been a risk but on the other hand, he was exactly the type of midfielder England needed in theory. It might've been just one tournament too soon for him, unfortunately. Excited to see him in an England shirt sooner rather than later, and hopefully he doesn't spend much longer at Palace...MuttleyCAFC said:I think it was a mistake leaving Grealish out. I could see where his game could be of use whereas Wharton did not have the expereince and was never going to be involved.In the case of Wharton, I think it was more about taking an extra centre midfielder in case of an injury crisis at that point. Same reason we took Dunk and Gomez but neither of them got minutes...More disappointing to me was the lack of utilization of Gordon and, to a lesser extent, Bowen - they deserved their call ups and both of them will be really disappointed but in hindsight England might've got more mileage out of taking Grealish and Rashford over those two if Southgate wasn't going to play them very much anyway.0 -
Howe - requires a resignation from a lucrative job (and payoff). Not this time - his chance will come.Carsley - too low profile, but does know a lot of the younger players in the squad. I can see him being given a role in first team so that he is next in line after this appointment.Leaving (short of foreign appointments which I think are unlikely given the Team England set up in place through age groups)….Potter - man manager and not egocentric similar to Southgate but more attacking, worked in the Brighton set up which was basically Dan Ashworth copying what he put in place for England, plus out of work so cheap.
I’m not a betting man (especially in manager markets which are prone to distortion by those in the know) but I know where my money would be if I was0 -
Very difficult situation,Eddie Howe Has have done great at clubs outside of the elite status,as has Graham Potter.It dosnt mean success with England, Graham Taylor,Roy Hodgson e.g.Capello was crap,Erikson average.I hears Tuchell being mentioned,please no.We need a man used to dealing with egos,someone who can get good players playing as a team and not as strangers,players who will play with same confidence they do at their clubs.
It wont happen,but Klopp is my choice,or get Guardiola somehow.0 -
It's the wrong comparison though. Ultimately the question is whether you'd bring on Grealish to replace Foden over Eze or Gordon, and Southgate decided he wouldn't. Gordon was there for the pace option that we never really used and in terms of a left winger who cuts in on his right Southgate went with Eze, who it turned out is tactically disciplined enough to make a fairly handy wingback when needed. Palmer even ended up over there atone point. Grealish had a poor season and I think if Southgate had brought him he wouldn't have played under any circumstances beyond injury crisis, whereas we were so confused about our central midfield options if Mainoo hadn't had a strong game against Slovakia Wharton realistically would have played the next game.MuttleyCAFC said:
I agree, but my point is that it was a risk Southgate was never likely to take, whereas Grealish is an established international and does have a game where something diffrent can be introduced if required/desperate. If I am right, why use up a space in the squad?Callumcafc said:
Playing Wharton would have been a risk but on the other hand, he was exactly the type of midfielder England needed in theory. It might've been just one tournament too soon for him, unfortunately. Excited to see him in an England shirt sooner rather than later, and hopefully he doesn't spend much longer at Palace...MuttleyCAFC said:I think it was a mistake leaving Grealish out. I could see where his game could be of use whereas Wharton did not have the expereince and was never going to be involved.
2 -
Eddie Howe has managed all through the leagues with success I'd imagine he'd love a chance to manage Bellingham, Foden and Co and potentially become a national hero1
-
I know odds don’t mean much in these markets but Pots is currently favourite. I can’t believe people can’t see how much of a disaster that would be.1
-
I don't think so. I picked a place in the squad where a player was not likely to play. I'm not saying Grealish should have been played but it seems a more logical option. Of course injuries can happen too.Garrymanilow said:
It's the wrong comparison though. Ultimately the question is whether you'd bring on Grealish to replace Foden over Eze or Gordon, and Southgate decided he wouldn't. Gordon was there for the pace option that we never really used and in terms of a left winger who cuts in on his right Southgate went with Eze, who it turned out is tactically disciplined enough to make a fairly handy wingback when needed. Palmer even ended up over there atone point. Grealish had a poor season and I think if Southgate had brought him he wouldn't have played under any circumstances beyond injury crisis, whereas we were so confused about our central midfield options if Mainoo hadn't had a strong game against Slovakia Wharton realistically would have played the next game.MuttleyCAFC said:
I agree, but my point is that it was a risk Southgate was never likely to take, whereas Grealish is an established international and does have a game where something diffrent can be introduced if required/desperate. If I am right, why use up a space in the squad?Callumcafc said:
Playing Wharton would have been a risk but on the other hand, he was exactly the type of midfielder England needed in theory. It might've been just one tournament too soon for him, unfortunately. Excited to see him in an England shirt sooner rather than later, and hopefully he doesn't spend much longer at Palace...MuttleyCAFC said:I think it was a mistake leaving Grealish out. I could see where his game could be of use whereas Wharton did not have the expereince and was never going to be involved.
0 -
Apparently Gareth has handed his notice to the FA.They passed it back, he passed it to Bellingham, he passed it sideways to Kane who passed it to Foden who passed it back to the keeper!12
-
Grealish wasn’t being played by Pep, and didn’t show any form in the second half of the seasonMuttleyCAFC said:
I don't think so. I picked a place in the squad where a player was not likely to play. I'm not saying Grealish should have been played but it seems a more logical option. Of course injuries can happen too.Garrymanilow said:
It's the wrong comparison though. Ultimately the question is whether you'd bring on Grealish to replace Foden over Eze or Gordon, and Southgate decided he wouldn't. Gordon was there for the pace option that we never really used and in terms of a left winger who cuts in on his right Southgate went with Eze, who it turned out is tactically disciplined enough to make a fairly handy wingback when needed. Palmer even ended up over there atone point. Grealish had a poor season and I think if Southgate had brought him he wouldn't have played under any circumstances beyond injury crisis, whereas we were so confused about our central midfield options if Mainoo hadn't had a strong game against Slovakia Wharton realistically would have played the next game.MuttleyCAFC said:
I agree, but my point is that it was a risk Southgate was never likely to take, whereas Grealish is an established international and does have a game where something diffrent can be introduced if required/desperate. If I am right, why use up a space in the squad?Callumcafc said:
Playing Wharton would have been a risk but on the other hand, he was exactly the type of midfielder England needed in theory. It might've been just one tournament too soon for him, unfortunately. Excited to see him in an England shirt sooner rather than later, and hopefully he doesn't spend much longer at Palace...MuttleyCAFC said:I think it was a mistake leaving Grealish out. I could see where his game could be of use whereas Wharton did not have the expereince and was never going to be involved.
0 -
I appreciate that but he looked decent in one of the final warm up games. It wouldn't have been a risk to take him as back up. Less so than a player who wasn't going to get picked.Rothko said:
Grealish wasn’t being played by Pep, and didn’t show any form in the second half of the seasonMuttleyCAFC said:
I don't think so. I picked a place in the squad where a player was not likely to play. I'm not saying Grealish should have been played but it seems a more logical option. Of course injuries can happen too.Garrymanilow said:
It's the wrong comparison though. Ultimately the question is whether you'd bring on Grealish to replace Foden over Eze or Gordon, and Southgate decided he wouldn't. Gordon was there for the pace option that we never really used and in terms of a left winger who cuts in on his right Southgate went with Eze, who it turned out is tactically disciplined enough to make a fairly handy wingback when needed. Palmer even ended up over there atone point. Grealish had a poor season and I think if Southgate had brought him he wouldn't have played under any circumstances beyond injury crisis, whereas we were so confused about our central midfield options if Mainoo hadn't had a strong game against Slovakia Wharton realistically would have played the next game.MuttleyCAFC said:
I agree, but my point is that it was a risk Southgate was never likely to take, whereas Grealish is an established international and does have a game where something diffrent can be introduced if required/desperate. If I am right, why use up a space in the squad?Callumcafc said:
Playing Wharton would have been a risk but on the other hand, he was exactly the type of midfielder England needed in theory. It might've been just one tournament too soon for him, unfortunately. Excited to see him in an England shirt sooner rather than later, and hopefully he doesn't spend much longer at Palace...MuttleyCAFC said:I think it was a mistake leaving Grealish out. I could see where his game could be of use whereas Wharton did not have the expereince and was never going to be involved.0 - Sponsored links:
-
I wasn't a fan of southgate's style of play, but not sure any of the realistic options available are any better, or even on par.
My fear is that we get knocked out in the last 16 of the 2026 world cup & scrapping and clawing our way to major tournament finals under Southgate suddenly doesn't seem so bad.
Time will tell2 -
the luck of the draw has played a massive part in the recent successGravesend_Addick said:I wasn't a fan of southgate's style of play, but not sure any of the realistic options available are any better, or even on par.
My fear is that we get knocked out in the last 16 of the 2026 world cup & scrapping and clawing our way to major tournament finals under Southgate suddenly doesn't seem so bad.
Time will tell2 -
It absolutely has however you still have to ride those hurdles and we were beginning to go backwards in tournament football as evidenced by the shitshow in South Africa Brazil (granted, I think us and Italy were tucked right up by the first game) and then the stinking display at the euros in 2016. All avoidable exits. He has also exorcised some pretty large ghosts English football had and he deserves credit for that.oohaahmortimer said:
the luck of the draw has played a massive part in the recent successGravesend_Addick said:I wasn't a fan of southgate's style of play, but not sure any of the realistic options available are any better, or even on par.
My fear is that we get knocked out in the last 16 of the 2026 world cup & scrapping and clawing our way to major tournament finals under Southgate suddenly doesn't seem so bad.
Time will tell2 -
And we beat them 5-1 and 4-1 in the time he has been in charge too but you all seem to have forgotten that.soapboxsam said:Addick Addict said:
Perhaps JohnBoy hasn't recovered from the fact that Newcastle, under Howe, have beaten Spurs in three of the last four encounters: 4-0, 6-1 and before that 2-1 at White Hart Lane. But then everyone beats Spurs these days!soapboxsam said:JohnBoyUK said:Don't care what the nationality of the manager is as long as we play attacking, attractive football.
Klopp, just to boil the piss of the 'we're Scouse not English'.
Followed by Poch.
Wouldn't touch Potter or Howe with a bargepole.
How bizarre !
Eddie Howe achieved in every division getting promoted from League 2 until he reached the Premier.
Managed to get the great underachievers Newcastle into the Champions league and this season overcome having eleven 1st teamers injured yet they still played attractive football.
After 17 years he has the experience but the FA probably won't want to pay out the contract to get him.
Chelsea made Graham Potter rich assuming he has received the millions in compensation as he was in no rush to take the Leicester Job and other jobs he has been offered.
Potter is as bright as a button and will continue to be a possession based manager, great against the top teams but hopefully a tad more direct against the lesser teams as you score one goal if there are 3 passes to score or 23 touches on the way to the net.
I predict it will be an Ex Chelsea Manager, so at least 3 contenders ?
That's why I was surprised AA after the attractive way Newcastle give Spurs a spanking.
He's done an ok job at Newcastle with massive backing. He done well to get them to the CL in his first full season but they had no European football. Then they got found out. Yeah they've had some injuries but what club hasn't? He done a good job at Bournemouth by getting them up but ultimately, it was on his watch they got relegated.
So yeah, in my opinion, he shouldn't even be in contention for the England job. I get the link because he is English but if he was foreign, he wouldn't even be discussed, would he?!1 -
No way would he be in the conversation if he was German or Italian, we are going from Klopp and Pep to Graham Potter and Eddie Howe!JohnBoyUK said:
And we beat them 5-1 and 4-1 in the time he has been in charge too but you all seem to have forgotten that.soapboxsam said:Addick Addict said:
Perhaps JohnBoy hasn't recovered from the fact that Newcastle, under Howe, have beaten Spurs in three of the last four encounters: 4-0, 6-1 and before that 2-1 at White Hart Lane. But then everyone beats Spurs these days!soapboxsam said:JohnBoyUK said:Don't care what the nationality of the manager is as long as we play attacking, attractive football.
Klopp, just to boil the piss of the 'we're Scouse not English'.
Followed by Poch.
Wouldn't touch Potter or Howe with a bargepole.
How bizarre !
Eddie Howe achieved in every division getting promoted from League 2 until he reached the Premier.
Managed to get the great underachievers Newcastle into the Champions league and this season overcome having eleven 1st teamers injured yet they still played attractive football.
After 17 years he has the experience but the FA probably won't want to pay out the contract to get him.
Chelsea made Graham Potter rich assuming he has received the millions in compensation as he was in no rush to take the Leicester Job and other jobs he has been offered.
Potter is as bright as a button and will continue to be a possession based manager, great against the top teams but hopefully a tad more direct against the lesser teams as you score one goal if there are 3 passes to score or 23 touches on the way to the net.
I predict it will be an Ex Chelsea Manager, so at least 3 contenders ?
That's why I was surprised AA after the attractive way Newcastle give Spurs a spanking.
He's done an ok job at Newcastle with massive backing. Yeah they've had some injuries but what club hasnt? He done a good job at Bournemouth by getting them up but ultimately, it was on his watch they got relegated.
So yeah, in my opinion, he shouldn't even be in contention for the England job. I get the link because he is English but if he was foreign, he wouldn't even be discussed, would he?!
If I wasn't so anti-German I'd say the only choice is Ralf Ragnik, done wonders at International level, is a clever tactician and I think probably has a few aces up his sleeves.
As it is sadly the only realistic options are
Graham Potter
Lee Carsley
Eddie Howe
Arsene Wenger just to antagonise every front wheel skid and West Ham fan and Chelsea fan I know0 -
Just for the record, I'd take Wenger over Potter and Howe every day of the bloody week and twice on Sundays.Carter said:
No way would he be in the conversation if he was German or Italian, we are going from Klopp and Pep to Graham Potter and Eddie Howe!JohnBoyUK said:
And we beat them 5-1 and 4-1 in the time he has been in charge too but you all seem to have forgotten that.soapboxsam said:Addick Addict said:
Perhaps JohnBoy hasn't recovered from the fact that Newcastle, under Howe, have beaten Spurs in three of the last four encounters: 4-0, 6-1 and before that 2-1 at White Hart Lane. But then everyone beats Spurs these days!soapboxsam said:JohnBoyUK said:Don't care what the nationality of the manager is as long as we play attacking, attractive football.
Klopp, just to boil the piss of the 'we're Scouse not English'.
Followed by Poch.
Wouldn't touch Potter or Howe with a bargepole.
How bizarre !
Eddie Howe achieved in every division getting promoted from League 2 until he reached the Premier.
Managed to get the great underachievers Newcastle into the Champions league and this season overcome having eleven 1st teamers injured yet they still played attractive football.
After 17 years he has the experience but the FA probably won't want to pay out the contract to get him.
Chelsea made Graham Potter rich assuming he has received the millions in compensation as he was in no rush to take the Leicester Job and other jobs he has been offered.
Potter is as bright as a button and will continue to be a possession based manager, great against the top teams but hopefully a tad more direct against the lesser teams as you score one goal if there are 3 passes to score or 23 touches on the way to the net.
I predict it will be an Ex Chelsea Manager, so at least 3 contenders ?
That's why I was surprised AA after the attractive way Newcastle give Spurs a spanking.
He's done an ok job at Newcastle with massive backing. Yeah they've had some injuries but what club hasnt? He done a good job at Bournemouth by getting them up but ultimately, it was on his watch they got relegated.
So yeah, in my opinion, he shouldn't even be in contention for the England job. I get the link because he is English but if he was foreign, he wouldn't even be discussed, would he?!
If I wasn't so anti-German I'd say the only choice is Ralf Ragnik, done wonders at International level, is a clever tactician and I think probably has a few aces up his sleeves.
As it is sadly the only realistic options are
Graham Potter
Lee Carsley
Eddie Howe
Arsene Wenger just to antagonise every front wheel skid and West Ham fan and Chelsea fan I know
Howe and Potter shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Wenger...and thats said by someone who despises him but its the truth!!!2 -
I'd take an English manager who has won a major trophy,0
-
But as I say, we went into that tournament with an experimental central midfield, and it didn't work. We ended up on our third choice partner for Rice four games in and if he hadn't worked out we would have used our fourth, which was Wharton. We took 5 central midfielders for two spaces to cater to the fact we were flying blind on that. It would have been completely illogical and frankly negligent to take 4 left wingers instead of giving ourselves an additional option in our weakest area.MuttleyCAFC said:
I don't think so. I picked a place in the squad where a player was not likely to play. I'm not saying Grealish should have been played but it seems a more logical option. Of course injuries can happen too.Garrymanilow said:
It's the wrong comparison though. Ultimately the question is whether you'd bring on Grealish to replace Foden over Eze or Gordon, and Southgate decided he wouldn't. Gordon was there for the pace option that we never really used and in terms of a left winger who cuts in on his right Southgate went with Eze, who it turned out is tactically disciplined enough to make a fairly handy wingback when needed. Palmer even ended up over there atone point. Grealish had a poor season and I think if Southgate had brought him he wouldn't have played under any circumstances beyond injury crisis, whereas we were so confused about our central midfield options if Mainoo hadn't had a strong game against Slovakia Wharton realistically would have played the next game.MuttleyCAFC said:
I agree, but my point is that it was a risk Southgate was never likely to take, whereas Grealish is an established international and does have a game where something diffrent can be introduced if required/desperate. If I am right, why use up a space in the squad?Callumcafc said:
Playing Wharton would have been a risk but on the other hand, he was exactly the type of midfielder England needed in theory. It might've been just one tournament too soon for him, unfortunately. Excited to see him in an England shirt sooner rather than later, and hopefully he doesn't spend much longer at Palace...MuttleyCAFC said:I think it was a mistake leaving Grealish out. I could see where his game could be of use whereas Wharton did not have the expereince and was never going to be involved.
0 -
MuttleyCAFC said:I'd take an English manager who has won a major trophy,
Harry Redknapp won the FA cup in 2008.
Struggling to think of any English Manager since 🤔0 -
That’s because there isn’t one according to a list I saw. Mad really.soapboxsam said:MuttleyCAFC said:I'd take an English manager who has won a major trophy,
Harry Redknapp won the FA cup in 2008.
Struggling to think of any English Manager since 🤔0
