Cronky

I was about to call Mbappe for showing off. Then he does that.

Admittedly based more on a hunch than evidence, but I think Bruno is actually one of that big group of players which include Joelinton, Longstaff, Willock and Almiron, who Eddie has managed to improve. Bruno looked uncharacteristically nervous when he came on. Normally, he looks like he owns the place (in a positive way, of course)

He dominated his era and there was no debate that he was the finest player around at the time. Football was far more brutal at the time, of course. I can remember the 'referees clampdown', some time around the late 60's / early 70s, when there was a flurry of bookings and sending offs. It actually caused an outcry, as though all the courage was being taken out of the game. Even now, you still hear that complaint, ironically.

I think he was the first global star of the game, at the dawn of the TV era. Always hard to compare the greats with one another - Pele, Cruyff, Maradona and Messi - but he was the first.

He did look surprisingly strong, and did well to hold off that challenge and get his shot away. It was very tough for such a young lad, coming in on that occasion, and he struggled to get involved. But that was a glimpse of why we've bought him.

No Eddie, no mojo

I think Southgate will stick with the same side. Pushing Bellingham further forward into what looked like Mount's role seemed to work well. I think there's too much hype about Rashford. Both his goals involved goalkeeping errors. Gary Lineker pointed out correctly that he loses the ball a lot, and we really need to develop more fluency in our combination play. Rashford is a good athlete but with a poor first touch. I'd stick with Saka. Phillips is better at getting the ball forward than Rice, and I'd pick Henderson for his leadership. I don't think Kane is a great captain. So I'd pick - Pickford Trippier Stones Maguire Shaw Henderson Phillips Saka Bellingham Foden Kane

England were a lot better, and Wales were a lot worse, than I was expecting. Pleased that the Americans got through. They deserved it

A totally incoherent selection by Southgate, but I don't think Wales are good enough to take advantage. And yeah, I'd much rather watch Iran - USA.

I started off very impressed by Spain, but the longer the game went on, the more I started to doubt them. They seemed to run out of energy, and their press became very weak. The risks they took when playing the ball out from the back were huge. They actually seemed to want the Germans to close them down so that they could take advantage of gaps that might appear as a result. In the end, the Germans looked the more likely to get a winner. The World Cup is mostly knockout football, and I think somewhere along the line they're going to come unstuck.

I'm really enjoying the game. Spain are prepared to take lots of risks. I wonder whether, at some stage in the tournament, that's going to trip them up, even though they are a great side.

The point I was wanting to make is that even if Southgate gets some decisions wrong, if he were to try to please public or media opinion by going with the flow, he'd end up in an even bigger mess. I'm intrigued by the fact that the mess we saw on Friday was one I've seen before with England teams, and many on here have had the same thought. We saw one group of players acting as a team, and another acting as individuals, seemingly without any collective confidence in what they were supposed to be doing. I watched with my spouse, and even though she only watches one football game every two years, she was able to identify that crucial difference. The remedy isn't for Southgate to start picking the fans' favourites.

One thing I will say for Southgate is he does stick to his own ideas, and doesn't seem to be swayed by popular / media driven opinions about who to select. A lot of previous England managers have fallen into that trap. But then, there's still the issue of whether you as an individual think his judgement is right.

I've often felt that a residing weakness of the British approach to the game is that we rely too much on individuals creating something, rather than something happening from good combination play. That was the striking difference between the two teams on Friday. We seemed to be waiting for someone to produce a spark, which didn't happen. Sterling seems to be there for those hopeful moments when he uses his change of pace and direction to get past his marker. The Americans stopped him from getting the opportunity. It was interesting to hear Southgate talk about the reasoning behind his substitutions. Grealish was on because he could hang on to the ball, perhaps draw fouls, and get us up the pitch where we could get some useful set pieces. Rashford was on for his pace. Foden's great strength is his ability to combine well with his team mates, with speed and accuracy, and despite being under pressure. That wasn't what Southgate seemed to value at that moment, and yet I did feel that he was missing the big picture. I guess if you play Foden, you really need players around him that can play in a similar way, which is the case at Man City. And I think that means a no to Sterling.

Ermm.... what are they saying?

Southgate should use the Wales game to rest a few players and try some different combinations. Even our second string is surely not going to lose 4-0 to Wales.

I'm not sure that Kane is a great captain, but for that role you need someone who is near certain to play when fit. No other candidate fits that particular criterion. Well, apart from Pickford, but for obvious reasons that's a no.

Karen Carney made a good point afterwards that there was no link between Rice, Bellingham and Mount down the middle. It was difficult to tell from the TV, but she said that Rice was very deep and the physical distance between them was a problem. Rice and the CBs ended up playing predictable balls out to the full backs, who usually had no option but to turn inwards and return the ball backwards. Foden is good at retaining and using the ball in tight spaces under pressure. We often seemed to lose the ball due to a heavy first touch, so if Maddison isn't fit, maybe the best idea is to replace Mount with Foden. Grealish is also better at retaining the ball than Sterling so that would be the other change. Southgate seems to see Foden as a wide player, but I'm sure he has the ability to have a freer role.

I've seen so many England performances like that, where our weakness at playing the ball out from the back and through the midfield gets exposed and we end up with a very slow, predictable build up that gets no-where fast. We need to have a bit more faith in our more technically gifted players, so I'd have Foden in for Sterling, who just doesn't use his brain. Rice doesn't show enough confidence or initiative, but with Phillips still apparently unfit, I'm not sure of the alternative. Sad to say, Trippier struggled defensively against the Americans' pace, and neither full back contributed well to the attack in open play. The injuries to James and Chilwell have hurt us a bit. Bellingham had a poor game but all the midfield seemed to be very isolated from one another

We've been outpaced all over the field. I couldn't believe the pundits at the Iran game who said we moved the ball quickly. We have the slowest build up of any side I've seen this tournament. I have to say Tripps in particular has been struggling. We're still in there. Hopefully the Yanks will slow down and we'll get into it more.

Well he wasn't a footballer.

Unfortunately CR7 already thinks he's something special and is only seeking further re-inforcement of that opinion. I saw Keane defending Ronaldo's conduct at Man U, and it all sounded weird. But there again, he had major public fall outs with McCarthy at Ireland and Fergie at Man U. He preaches team spirit but then lashes out when he himself feels hard done by.

Well that all comes down to perception. I don't think holding the ball up is one of Wilson's strengths, and if we're going to win anything with our system, we need a striker that's actually good at that. Is the bold alternative, but I don't think we're prepared for that.

I think he's a good finisher, and is at his best playing on the shoulder of the last defender. I don't think he's great at dropping deeper and linking up the attack. It's not so much that I don't rate Wilson as that I do rate Kane. With modern lone striker systems, ideally you need someone who can finish, hold the ball up, and create chances for his team-mates. There aren't many strikers who can do all 3, but Kane is one of them. He'd be a big loss. The wisdom was that Wilson was being brought along to provide something different. I think Southgate would have in mind bringing him on if we were in trouble in the later stages of a match, or if we were cruising and he wanted to give Kane a rest. If Southgate thinks that Rashford can do Kane's job, then I reckon he'll be disappointed. Rashford needs space and time to operate. I think the team can still do okay, but our chances of winning the thing have gone without Kane IMO.

Realistically, if Kane is out for the tournament, we're fucked. Neither Rashford nor Wilson are great at holding the ball up. I would have taken another out and out striker to the World Cup, rather than Rashford. Of those who are fit, Abraham would probably have been the best choice. We could try something fancy like a false 9, but we don't have any experience in playing that way.