Cronky

Lousy piece of defending for Trippier for their goal. Over the last few months, a not untypical error, I have to say.

Kane just looked off the pace. I don't mean to be unkind, but I hope he's out for the semi-final. I'd prefer Watkins to Toney, mind.

I see. Thank you.

Good post, but help a non-Geordie out, please? What is 'skuttling'?

Way off thread topic, but I can't resist. As I recall, Batty replaced Lee Clark in the anchor role, which at first I think was an upgrade, but maybe not a significant one. In later seasons, I think the conservatism of his play held us back a bit. I think that the signing we shouldn't have made was Asprilla. Good player, but the partnership between Ferdinand and Beardsley, which was so fruitful, was disrupted, with Beardsley moving out wider to replace Gillespie, who was struggling. No-one would argue that Gillespie was a better player than Asprilla, but the shape and balance of the side was badly affected. At the time of Asprilla's signing, Brian Clough wrote an article in a paper. He said that when Forest were closing in on the title, he was tempted to make a signing 'just to make sure', as it were. He resisted the temptation, thinking that the signing might be a vote of no confidence in the existing players, and was based on anxiety rather than positive thinking. Clough thought that the Asprilla signing would prove to be an error, for those reasons. Right or wrong, you can't get any better than correctly predicting the outcome.

Yep, we blew it.

I've just checked out a video on Youtube. I see what you mean. Unusually for a British player, he much prefers to use the outside of his right foot rather than use his left. However, he is pretty good with that, so I'm not sure it's a problem. It was quite an impressive highlights reel. He is very quick, and that would be an asset for us. In fact, it made me wonder why he hasn't made the England squad. I guess there's a fair bit of competition of that role.

I'd put Mainoo in Rice's place, which I know is a risk. In time I think he'll play that anchor role very well, and perhaps he's not ready. But I just can't see any alternative that will improve things. I've not seen enough of Wharton. Rice and Bellingham are both best suited to be box-to-box, and only one should play, as would be the usual practice. That's Bellingham. Foden, Saka and Eze, with Watkins up front.

This England team is looking disturbingly like the previous 'golden generation'. A recurring problem is that the players who look technically good enough seem to lack pace. As a result, we're unable to press or hit teams on the break. Our attacks seem very one-paced. Contrast that with Spain, all of whose players seem to be very nimble whilst also possessing the skill to work the ball in tight spaces under pressure. The two apparently undroppable players who define the structure of the team - Rice and Kane - are holding the team back. I'd put in Mainoo and Watkins in their places.

It’s a risk but I think DCL is worth the risk. Practically unbeatable in the air and links well with his team mates.

Ivesaiditbeforeandillsayitagain. Declan Rice is not as good as he’s cracked up to be. And his best role is box to box rather than DM. The team as a whole looks a bit ponderous. We don’t seem to be able to counter attack. We’re missing a few players so it’s not all Southgate’s fault. But Trent in midfield just looks like a failed experiment.

I'm inclined to think that if Foden is poor, the problem will be with the set up rather than his ability. I'd move Bellingham back to partner Rice, and have Foden as the number 10. To be honest, I wasn't completely happy with Bellingham's performance tonight. He's a great player, but he sometimes slowed the game down with his tendency to look around for something spectacular to do.

A lot of the time we looked like we needed to move the ball around quicker. We didn't do well when the opportunity to counter attack came. Did the Serbs make a single clean tackle all game? I think in the Premiership there would have been more yellow cards given. They were constantly leaving something on their opponents. Bellingham, brilliant all-round player though he is, seems to be getting a bit flash.

We've lost control of the game. Ring some changes before they equalise.

He looks clumsy when he's under pressure in the restricted spaces in midfield. At full back he gets more time on the ball when his team are in possession. Southgate seems to pick him there on the reasoning that an attacking full back can be easily adapted into a defensive midfield player, but the reasoning looks crude and isn't working. Foden isn't getting any help on the left with Trippier, so it's not fair to have a go at him.

Despite his relative inexperience, I'd have picked Cole Palmer. He looks such a great all-round footballer, and can make things happen. I wouldn't have picked Trent. That trio with him, Bellingham and Rice doesn't look right.

Trippier looked more and more error-prone last season. It'd be a good time to sell.

Well I never. Either that was some time ago or I've just had a senior moment.

Erm... don't understand. Yellow ticker? Can someone help me?

Eddie himself has said he likes the challenge of improving players on the training pitch, and obviously an international manager only has a limited scope to do that. I think he'll feel that there's still much he can do here. He will only leave when that changes.

Eddie has made it clear that he only wants players who are prepared to give 100%. He would rather play an inferior player who gives his all, than pick a star who thinks he only has to give 80% to stay in the team. There's no way back for Sancho, but they still have a similar issue with Rashford IMO.

It was reported that the plan was for Ratcliffe, Brailsford and Joel Glazer to form a three-man football committee to have the ultimate responsibility for football matters. I'd be very surprised if that's changed. The Glazers own 75% of the club. To allow a 25% shareholder to have completely free rein over a major part of the business seems absurd and unworkable. The whole thing looks like an uneasy compromise. The Glazers wanted to maintain control of the club but also to attract investment from outside. Ratcliffe wanted to buy the club but settled for a minority stake with the carrot of being able to play at real-life Football Manager. That looks inherently unstable.

I always felt that this complicated set up at Man U where the Glazers and Ratcliffe divide responsibilities was going to be problematic. The drawn out decision making over Ten Haag is symptomatic of this. He still looks vulnerable. It’s hard to tell whether they really have confidence in him, or they just couldn’t find a better alternative.

Not an outlandish suggestion, because I think he’s a strong character, which of course is essential in a keeper. And to be honest, even without regard to his shoulder, I think Pope has his weaknesses. Good shot stopper but doesn’t command his area well and poor with the ball at his feet.

I think the Trafford transfer will go ahead, seeing the two club's valuations are not far apart. I know what you mean about Barnes. He operates in the same position as Gordon, so really we were paying a large sum for a squad player - albeit a good one. Last season was very stop-start for Barnes. Maybe he'll be more consistently effective next season.