Would Southgate leave out his best player for a big World Cup match?

Gareth Southgate and England have just dealt with a modern problem in a pleasingly modern way. Over the course of 999 previous internationals it stretches credulity to imagine nothing like the contretemps between Raheem Sterling and Joe Gomez has been seen before, but the vast majority of England get-togethers took place in eras when it was perfectly possible and reasonable to hush things up and keep any small-scale disturbances in house.

These days that is not so easy, and before social media could have a field day with speculation and jigsaw identification England fronted up and laid the matter to rest. Southgate’s statement that emotions from the Liverpool v Manchester City game on Sunday were still too raw was rational and understandable, and subsequently Sterling issued an apology and accepted his share of the blame.

Related: England drop Raheem Sterling for Euro qualifier over clash with Joe Gomez

To an extent England were unlucky with the timing of events this week. The game at Anfield was not only the biggest of the domestic season so far but a huge disappointment for City and their manager, and in the circumstances it was probably asking a lot to expect everyone involved to have processed the result and moved on by the time players started arriving at St George’s Park less than a day later.

When Sterling and Gomez were in each others faces during the match on Sunday it was already being welcomed by social media posters as a sign of authentic needle in the contest – today’s highly paid professionals are too often accused of caring more about themselves and the trappings of success than the actual outcome of games – so one should not necessarily be surprised if feelings were still running high the following day. As Sterling said in his cheeky but forgivable attempt to clear the air and make peace: “Everyone knows what that game means to me. We are in a sport where emotions run high and I am man enough to admit my emotions got the better of me.”

Despite a few dissenting voices arguing that the matter would have been better sorted out behind closed doors without releasing a statement to the world, everyone is a winner here. Southgate looks authoritative and in control, and perhaps more importantly his message that squad harmony cannot be jeopardised is underlined to every member of the England squad, not just the two bickering players. Sterling gets to realise he is not indispensable, is probably in the wrong, and will hopefully learn a lesson for the future.

Many an England manager over the years has been accused of overindulging one player or another, of regarding someone as undroppable, but in going public over his reasons for leaving his most high-profile attacking performer on the sidelines Southgate has indicated he intends to be scrupulous but fair and that the team will always come first.

As PR exercises go, that is an object lesson in how to generate positive headlines from an unpromising scenario, though of course it helps that England are top of their group with 15 points and about to face fourth-placed Montenegro (three points) at home. Cynics might argue that Southgate could afford to make an example of Sterling for this fixture; he remains with the squad and has every chance of playing in next week’s more difficult game in Kosovo.

Naturally it remains to be seen whether Southgate would dare leave out his best player for a World Cup knockout game against Germany or Argentina, though in that situation his preparations would not have been hampered by a crucial club encounter 24 hours earlier. All a manager can really do is deal with each emergency as it arises, trying his best to take the sting out of everyday squabbles so that they do not go on to become serious divisions.

This is a story that blew up quickly out of almost nothing, and now seems on course to die down again just as swiftly. In other words, though the neutralisation took place in public, it has been handled well.