Gareth Southgate is a personable guy. This isn't simply my opinion – a recent YouGov poll found that 52 per cent of people have a favourable view of the England manager, with just 15 per cent unfavourable. That makes him more popular than every politician in Britain, though I concede that is something of a backhanded compliment.
We like Southgate because he's so darn likeable. He's the camp counsellor we all wish we had on the endless summer holidays of our youth, even if we actually spent all of August in our pyjamas, eating Frosties while watching re-runs of Premier League Years.
Of course, Southgate is no one's idea of a tactical innovator. Every match seems to take the same predictable course – England begin brightly, perhaps even score a goal, before retreating into their own half for the final 70 minutes. This pattern recalls Shane Warne's famous quote about Monty Panesar and his failure to develop as a player: "He hasn’t played 33 Tests, he has played one Test, 33 times.”
Now, Southgate's affability is a valuable political asset that, as much as the results, have kept him in a job. It is an accepted fact that Jeremy Corbyn would not have made it onto the ballot for Labour leader in 2015 with 'lent' votes had his colleagues – even those who vehemently disagreed with his politics – not liked him. But popularity is a slender reed.
A few years ago, as some of the first accusations of sleaze permeated Boris Johnson's government (this was post-Owen Paterson but pre-Partygate), I compared the then-prime minister with Jose Mourinho. Both serial winners, yet their relationships were highly transactional. And once the results began to deteriorate, there was little goodwill to fall back on.
The position of England football manager and Leader of the Opposition have often been compared for their thankless nature. And there are specific similarities too between Southgate and Keir Starmer. Both took the helm of institutions that were in a pretty bad way and made them more palatable to the public. Yet their paths have diverged.
Southgate remains broadly popular despite evident stagnation, while Starmer's favourables are in negative territory. But only one of them has demonstrated an ability to learn from past mistakes and the confidence to change the strategy mid-game.
I'm conscious that England sit atop their group with four points from two games, needing only to avoid defeat against Slovenia on Tuesday to progress. In fact, if Denmark fail to beat Serbia, the team will qualify no matter how tedious the performance the result next week. I'm also aware that suggesting that the England football manager is not good at his job feels deeply 1990s. Like making a fat joke or wearing overalls.
Still, like many I was puzzled by Southgate's recent suggestion that he is hamstrung by the absence of Kalvin Phillips – a decent but limited player. This would be akin to Starmer attributing a bad MRP poll to the loss of Jim McMahon from the shadow cabinet.
I guess it kind of depends on what we want from our leaders. To make us feel good, or get results?
