Carlito

I'm torn between Zaha and Arnautovic at the minute.

Fucks sake, not that hairy Thwomp-looking moron again. Clearly on the wind-up for some Twatter activity. Nobody in their right mind would present that list of shite as "facts".

The Great Outdoors is another classic.

I really like it. Good contrast to the away kit in my opinion and it looks much better in the full shot. Can't remember the last season I really liked all 3 kits.

Favourite Goal? Coutinho vs. Switzerland Favourite Match? Japan vs. Belgium. Both teams made it so entertaining to watch with the way they played Favourite Player? Kylian Mbappe. That kid is gonna be a real stand-out over the next 5 years. Favourite Moment? England beating Colombia on penalties, and then seeing the Dixon/Wright/Neville celebrations in the studio My nerves were absolutely shot after that but what a feeling man. I don't think I've experienced anything quite like that in football since I was a kid watching Euro '96. Maybe Bellamy against Feyenoord but it's totally different circumstances. I thought the Senegal fans were great to watch by the way. Even though you could only see a really small portion of them bunched in there, they made constant noise, never ran out of energy and brought a great carnival atmosphere to the world cup. For me I think I would say that it's been the best world cup since Japan/Korea in 2002.

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances. Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal. You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane? Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team. How many assists does he have in this tournament? One? How many shots did we have on target against Croatia? How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition? I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances? Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role. I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament. He's very unfashionable, sadly. Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all. Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game. Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances? I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all. Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling. We'll have to agree to disagree because I can't relate to that outlook on what Sterling did vs what Vardy did even in the slightest. Right, you've said all sterling did was give the ball away. Lets have a look at him performing well: His pass completion percentages were as follows: 50,75, 60. Sterling's lowest? 78%. In every game he played. So your assertion that he's constantly giving away the ball and "cant pass 3 yards to a team mate is simply not true. And if you want Vardy to come in, he's gonna give the ball away at a rate miles above Sterling. Did you watch him today, or against Croatia, or against Colombia? He couldn't find Delph today from 3 yards, and literally lost the ball pretty much every other time he had it. Statistically in the other games he may have completed a bunch of small meaningless sideways passes to the midfield or a few when we brought it back into the defense, but going forwards he offered absolutely nothing outside of the 1 assist. He was all over the place today, and when he went off we converted more chances into shots, had more possession, more free kicks, and more corners. Against Croatia we had 1 shot on target I believe, and were under pressure for just about the entire 2nd half. Vardy played around 1/3 of the time Sterling did, and in the one start he was given he was able to create just as many chances for others around him, and also win possession back when pressuring defenders with his pace and work-rate more than Sterling could. Vardy for what it's worth also covered just under half of the ground that Sterling did, given that he was given significantly less time on the field. I'm not sure where you got your stats from, or how many passes he attempted per game, or throughout the entire tournament (it says he completed 115 overall on FOX Sports) but I'm sorry, if you couldn't see him losing possession when trying to run at defenders and falling over like a dog on ice, or getting muscled off the ball then you need glasses. How many of those 115 passes created chances for us as an attacking threat? How many times was he able to go past defenders without losing possession? Right, so now the stats have proven you wrong, and that Vardy was way more wasteful you've changed the goalposts? I don't need glasses, you're just consistently changing what you are saying. First its he cant pass 3 yards, he gives it away all the time. When that's proven wrong, Oh well they are just sideways passes Yeah no shit, players lose possession when they take players on, otherwise you'd have the most perfect footballer of all time. The stats are from whoscored, which incidentally says he had a key pass every single game bar colombia. And yes we turned to shit when he went off actually, so yeah I did watch him. Vardy made zero interceptions statistically, and made two tackles against a reserve belgium team in 90 mins. So he didn't do any of those things you're saying he did. Just because you don't agree with the stats doesn't mean you can then change the argument around. I'm not moving the goal posts at all. My point is he never learned from his mistakes throughout the tournament. He constantly tried to take people on and was tackled or muscled off the ball, or he took too long in possession and lost it. He created little to no chances in the box and took way too much time on the ball before losing it. How the hell could we "turn to shit" if we created more chances and won more set-piece opportunities (which are clearly the biggest strength with this team) after he went off? We even had less possession when he was on the field man :lol: Vardy made an interception against Belgium that was able to set Rashford up for a chance he curled wide. Go and watch the game again, or even the 2-minute highlights. He used his pace to win back possession for us on a number of occasions. He "made two tackles against a reserve Belgium side in 90 minutes", meanwhile Sterling got one assist, outside of the box, against the worst team in the tournament, in 454 minutes. How many times did Sterling win back possession for us per game? Who gave possession away more than Sterling per game or overall in the tournament? I don’t particularly want to get involved in your two’s debate, but you have to ask yourself one question: Would Vardy starting over Sterling help the team more? You can say well he had more shots or didn’t lose the ball more when he came on as a sub, but that is being selective. I love Vardy me, but the way we are set up and play, playing him from the start wouldn’t make sense. He was brought along as a plan B IMO when the game is stretched late on or in extra time where his pace and pressing could come in handy. Sterling didn’t excel at all and his finishing was poor, but he played a key role in the team that enabled us to get to where we did with his running, wide play, dropping deep, work-rate and him drawing a marker on him constantly. For me, he didn't look relaxed at all and was too tense and tried too hard at times. I think the pre tournament media crap weighed on him heavily. He’s never been a great finisher because if he was he’d be one of the best players in the world, but the lad can finish and some of his chances he would usually bury for City. Although I’m not convinced he is the answer for us in this team going forward, he has played a part at Russia and it would have been stupid to drop him. Southgate had to stick with him because if he had clicked, bingo. Vardy most certainly isn’t the answer and never was. I’d like to see him and the likes of Young, Jones and Cahill among others phased out, same with Dier who I think is bang average. No point using Vardy if you’re not gonna start him, may as well look at younger more suitable players like Solanke or the Everton youngster even though they haven’t exactly looked that promising. I genuinely believe Vardy would help the team, because he did everything Sterling did in the time he was given. He works just as hard off the ball, is just as fast, and has a better eye for goal. Even if he has to sacrifice goals for the way the team plays, he's very capable of doing that in my opinion. I may be criticizing Sterling for his carelessness on the ball here, and his finishing, but I'm not calling for him to be dropped from the squad. I can see the potential there with him but there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out what he's been doing wrong. I just don't think he brought enough to the team in terms of key passes, assists, or goals, to justify being started in every game bar the Belgium one in the groups, and being on the field for 80 or 90 odd minutes. Had Vardy started more games then he may have gotten a couple of goals or assists to his name. He should have had at least one assist where he played Rashford in on goal. Vardy brings more to the team than just running in behind the back line. I'd honestly say it's the other way around, that it should be Sterling who is used as the impact player off the bench to run at people when they're tired, because having him do that from the start simply hasn't worked for him in this world cup. Maybe then he'd be getting those key passes into the penalty area, or be able to take a chance when he's through on goal.

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances. Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal. You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane? Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team. How many assists does he have in this tournament? One? How many shots did we have on target against Croatia? How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition? I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances? Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role. I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament. He's very unfashionable, sadly. Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all. Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game. Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances? I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all. Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling. We'll have to agree to disagree because I can't relate to that outlook on what Sterling did vs what Vardy did even in the slightest. Right, you've said all sterling did was give the ball away. Lets have a look at him performing well: His pass completion percentages were as follows: 50,75, 60. Sterling's lowest? 78%. In every game he played. So your assertion that he's constantly giving away the ball and "cant pass 3 yards to a team mate is simply not true. And if you want Vardy to come in, he's gonna give the ball away at a rate miles above Sterling. Did you watch him today, or against Croatia, or against Colombia? He couldn't find Delph today from 3 yards, and literally lost the ball pretty much every other time he had it. Statistically in the other games he may have completed a bunch of small meaningless sideways passes to the midfield or a few when we brought it back into the defense, but going forwards he offered absolutely nothing outside of the 1 assist. He was all over the place today, and when he went off we converted more chances into shots, had more possession, more free kicks, and more corners. Against Croatia we had 1 shot on target I believe, and were under pressure for just about the entire 2nd half. Vardy played around 1/3 of the time Sterling did, and in the one start he was given he was able to create just as many chances for others around him, and also win possession back when pressuring defenders with his pace and work-rate more than Sterling could. Vardy for what it's worth also covered just under half of the ground that Sterling did, given that he was given significantly less time on the field. I'm not sure where you got your stats from, or how many passes he attempted per game, or throughout the entire tournament (it says he completed 115 overall on FOX Sports) but I'm sorry, if you couldn't see him losing possession when trying to run at defenders and falling over like a dog on ice, or getting muscled off the ball then you need glasses. How many of those 115 passes created chances for us as an attacking threat? How many times was he able to go past defenders without losing possession? Right, so now the stats have proven you wrong, and that Vardy was way more wasteful you've changed the goalposts? I don't need glasses, you're just consistently changing what you are saying. First its he cant pass 3 yards, he gives it away all the time. When that's proven wrong, Oh well they are just sideways passes Yeah no shit, players lose possession when they take players on, otherwise you'd have the most perfect footballer of all time. The stats are from whoscored, which incidentally says he had a key pass every single game bar colombia. And yes we turned to shit when he went off actually, so yeah I did watch him. Vardy made zero interceptions statistically, and made two tackles against a reserve belgium team in 90 mins. So he didn't do any of those things you're saying he did. Just because you don't agree with the stats doesn't mean you can then change the argument around. I'm not moving the goal posts at all. My point is he never learned from his mistakes throughout the tournament. He constantly tried to take people on and was tackled or muscled off the ball, or he took too long in possession and lost it. He created little to no chances in the box and took way too much time on the ball before losing it. How the hell could we "turn to shit" if we created more chances and won more set-piece opportunities (which are clearly the biggest strength with this team) after he went off? We even had less possession when he was on the field man :lol: Vardy made an interception against Belgium that was able to set Rashford up for a chance he curled wide. Go and watch the game again, or even the 2-minute highlights. He used his pace to win back possession for us on a number of occasions. He "made two tackles against a reserve Belgium side in 90 minutes", meanwhile Sterling got one assist, outside of the box, against the worst team in the tournament, in 454 minutes. How many times did Sterling win back possession for us per game? Who gave possession away more than Sterling per game or overall in the tournament? Again, my issues aren't with his pace or his running/movement off the ball.

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances. Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal. You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane? Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team. How many assists does he have in this tournament? One? How many shots did we have on target against Croatia? How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition? I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances? Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role. I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament. He's very unfashionable, sadly. Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all. Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game. Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances? I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all. Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling. We'll have to agree to disagree because I can't relate to that outlook on what Sterling did vs what Vardy did even in the slightest. Right, you've said all sterling did was give the ball away. Lets have a look at him performing well: His pass completion percentages were as follows: 50,75, 60. Sterling's lowest? 78%. In every game he played. So your assertion that he's constantly giving away the ball and "cant pass 3 yards to a team mate is simply not true. And if you want Vardy to come in, he's gonna give the ball away at a rate miles above Sterling. Did you watch him today, or against Croatia, or against Colombia? He couldn't find Delph today from 3 yards, and literally lost the ball pretty much every other time he had it. Statistically in the other games he may have completed a bunch of small meaningless sideways passes to the midfield or a few when we brought it back into the defense, but going forwards he offered absolutely nothing outside of the 1 assist. He was all over the place today, and when he went off we converted more chances into shots, had more possession, more free kicks, and more corners. Against Croatia we had 1 shot on target I believe, and were under pressure for just about the entire 2nd half. Vardy played around 1/3 of the time Sterling did, and in the one start he was given he was able to create just as many chances for others around him, and also win possession back when pressuring defenders with his pace and work-rate more than Sterling could. Vardy for what it's worth also covered just under half of the ground that Sterling did, given that he was given significantly less time on the field. I'm not sure where you got your stats from, or how many passes he attempted per game, or throughout the entire tournament (it says he completed 115 overall on FOX Sports) but I'm sorry, if you couldn't see him losing possession when trying to run at defenders and falling over like a dog on ice, or getting muscled off the ball then you need glasses. How many of those 115 passes created chances for us as an attacking threat? How many times was he able to go past defenders without losing possession?

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances. Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal. You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane? Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team. How many assists does he have in this tournament? One? How many shots did we have on target against Croatia? How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition? I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances? Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role. I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament. He's very unfashionable, sadly. Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all. Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game. Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances? I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all. Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling. We'll have to agree to disagree because I can't relate to that outlook on what Sterling did vs what Vardy did even in the slightest. Completely different players. Vardy doesn’t fit the England system. He should just come play for us and retire from international football tbh Again, Vardy was able to create clear-cut opportunities against Belgium, which Rashford squandered with poor finishing, and he made a big difference when he came on against Colombia. Vardy won possession back for the team more than Sterling did, and lost possession less than Sterling did. How does he not fit into England's system? What, because he didn't score? Vardy can't adapt? That's absolute madness to even suggest. He might not have been able to run in much beyond the back line due to lack of creativity in the midfield, but on the whole he offered way more to the team's cause because again, he wasn't constantly losing possession due to a lack in concentration. How someone at that level can even lose possession as much as Sterling did when we're supposed to be playing a possession-based system is even more baffling. His off the ball movement and his work-rate are not the issues I have with him starting every game. Like KI said, maybe we should just agree to disagree to avoid going round in circles.

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances. Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal. You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane? Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team. How many assists does he have in this tournament? One? How many shots did we have on target against Croatia? How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition? I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances? Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role. I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament. He's very unfashionable, sadly. Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all. Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game. Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances? I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all. Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling.

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances. Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal. You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane? Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team. How many assists does he have in this tournament? One? How many shots did we have on target against Croatia? How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition? I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances? Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role. I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament. He's very unfashionable, sadly. Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all. Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game. Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances?

I think we can all agree Jones is a joke.

Agreed. Would love to see him start more games for England in the future.

They’ve stopped playing. We’re also actually trying to use the midfield. Suspect Delph not being there helps that. Sterling also isn't on the field So we’re having to use the midfield more now that nobody is making decent runs? Suppose it could be that yeah. We're actually creating chances now because he can't give it away every time he has it.

They’ve stopped playing. We’re also actually trying to use the midfield. Suspect Delph not being there helps that. Sterling also isn't on the field

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances. Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal. You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane? Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team. How many assists does he have in this tournament? One? How many shots did we have on target against Croatia? How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition? I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances? Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role. I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament.

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane? Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team. How many assists does he have in this tournament? One? How many shots did we have on target against Croatia? How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition? I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances?

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane? Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team.

The alternative is playing a headless chicken. I don't see the difference tbh. Vardy offers so much more in the role Sterling is being played in. He has the pace, the work rate, and can create opportunities as he's proven already. I'd even prefer Rashford starting as he's more positive-minded as well.

I still don't understand what Sterling is doing to justify starting every single game. Can't beat a man, can't shoot, can't pass, can't even find a team-mate from 3 yards.

Couldn't agree more. If they aren't prepared to host it when it should be hosted, then it should go to someone else.

I think it's hilarious to say we were being arrogant when you look at that Lovren quote.

I get where you're coming from, but as a loan I would be willing to take a crack at it if we could get 11 goals from him.

What has pleased me with our own fans and media has been the lack of hyperbole one way or another. My mate the other day said he was disappointed by the reaction after beating Sweden, he thought a bigger song and dance should have been made about it. I was quite happy it was kind of low key. The manager and players especially have been very professional and humble which I think the nation and media have fed off. When the dust has settled though, I do fear the media stoking the flames of expectations to heights that are simply not compatible with the New England if you like and hope it doesn’t derail any progress. That said, if you want to be champions, you have to deal with pressure, criticism and expectations. We can all accept thought that England teams, managers and players of the past leading up to a major tournament have been unfairly compromised by outside expectations, pressure and criticism which like penalty shoot outs and the Germans weighted us down massively. Hopefully what seems like a fresh start and a common understanding and bond can continue. I think for fans, everyone has had enough of the old England and really taken to Southgate and the players like NUFC fans have with Rafa and our lot, accepting that it’s more about having a team that tries and that we can be proud of. I think there are mistakes we absolutely have to acknowledge and learn from if we want to become serious contenders, in spite of us exceeding all expectations this year. This tournament could be a valuable learning experience for this team. We still need to develop that winning mentality and learn how to be ruthless and put games to bed. It's the same problem that has haunted us for decades. We can definitely be proud of a young England side reaching the World Cup semi-final as they've given us a few gems that we'll never forget. The record win, the penalty shoot-out win, Kane potentially taking the Golden Boot are all things we can look back on with pride. As it has been said there's a renewed passion and enthusiasm towards international football again that I think has been missing for a long time, definitely for me personally. There's a sense of pride in the England team again, and maybe from this point on there will be less of a collective groan when an international break rolls around. However this World Cup will ultimately go down as a major opportunity missed because Croatia were absolutely there for the taking in that first half. One of the alarming factors of our run in the tournament has been wasting priceless chances in the first half before sitting back, inviting pressure in the second, and allowing the opposition back into the game. Strike 1 was Tunisia, and strike 2 was Colombia. Strike 3 has sent us packing with a bit of a whimper. Croatia had winners in their squad, they had more experience and were able to put us under pressure by implementing more width and not being afraid to press forward, but they could and should have been out of the running by this point. This is where Southgate has to also take a few things on board in my opinion, because we had no reply when we were under heavy pressure. No plan B, right down to the substitutions. It was 3-5-2, Sterling and Lingard starting, Dier comes on at 80 minutes, or bust. It felt a little formulaic at times and started to feel like places weren't being awarded on merit. Maybe it sounds harsh of me to say but I don't think Lingard and Sterling offered enough to justify starting every single game. The high-pressure games were crying out for the likes of Vardy and Loftus-Cheek to be introduced (Vardy sooner than he was as he made a big difference against Colombia with his work rate and ability to create chances). Loftus-Cheek offered a good physical presence in the time he was given and it could have worked in our favor when the going got tough.