Our lack of positive results on foreign soil in competitive games against supposed superior opposition speaks for itself. With all the talent Southgate had to tap into going forward I suspect we all knew he’d be risk averse which predictability was his failing. Very few threats in open play against the French who were more clinical in open play & therefore deserved to win!
I cannot help seeing parallels with the Mellon debate and the usual let's change mentality. Mellon has a sub-standard squad nearer the play offs than drop zone and his fall guy among the fans is the skipper who he daren't replace for one minute while he gets next to no decent supply, no prizes for guessing why the most visible performer is the fall guy. As mid-table beckons, the only variable available is to destabilise the squad by ditching a competent manager and mounting a relegation challenge. Klopp wouldn't improve this lot much, the potential is on the downside.
I have no attachment to England whatsoever, but see the criticism of Southgate as completely unrealistic. He has outperformed all his living predecessors and some. He only beats lesser teams? Well most cannot do that. If he lost to Morocco, Japan or Saudi, the English sense of superiority would implode. That accounts for four giants doing what England hasn't. Italy and Holland have failed to even get to tournaments, something England no longer do.
Fact is in an unconvincing knock out format, France won but hardly showed any superiority, so a performance similar to Brazil but better than the other two losers. That leaves England roughly fifth equal.
How high is your bar for acceptable success? Does anyone ever consider the potential downside in using a club manager who suddenly spends 99% of his time watching players before brief bouts of working with a group of strangers? Seems to me in both cases Mellon and Southgate, due to a complete lack of coherent argument people plunge at the debate like a man pumping money into a fruit machine.
