ham_aka_stam

The problem for me was that Rice and Gallagher were hiding behind the two Slovakian CFs when our CBs had the ball. The movement was lethargic, and decisions couldn't be made quickly because players weren't immediately showing for the ball, and when they did, it was too late and the passing lane was blocked.

"Imagine how bad we'd be if he didn't" is the natural counter argument. I'm not saying it's working, but I reckon that's Southgate's logic.

Bit of a hot-take. The game was boring - 100%. But we all know by now, surely, that Southgate plays the group games as low-intensity rehearsals for the knockout games against more expansive teams? That's why he's got them playing with the ball to feet so much, being fairly static with the personnel/tactics and not necessarily making big calls early to go out and attack, because he's practicing for games where for ball retention is key, and trying to get the players playing together well. Viewed from that lens it was OK, certainly a better overall performance than Denmark, and we were more in control than the Serbia game, which admittedly had a better result. The passing improved massively once Mainoo came on (he's not the messiah, he's just a different player to Trent/Gallagher and likes those short quick passes rather than Trent's hollywood balls and Gallagher's suicide ones). The fact it's taken Southgate this long to realise TAA isn't the answer to the second midfield spot is concerning (or maybe it'd work better if he actually had runners to hit...), as is the lethargy, niggly arguments between players, and the individual mistakes being made. My biggest concern though, are the number of players we're asking to do something different to what they do for their clubs. Players (sportspeople in general) play best when playing instinctively. And whilst coaching something counter-instinctive is fine if you have the time to embed it (and a system around that supports it) I don't think that's the case in international management or specifically this England setup. Not giving Kane runners around him means his instinct to drop deep and play passes - a dangerous asset when used properly - is wasted, and it's counter intuitive as there's then no-one in the box Telling Kane to stay up wastes his talents, and potentially leads to him dropping out of frustration anyway, getting in the 10s way. It also makes play predictable. Playing Foden on the left, whilst he can play here, he isn't playing naturally and doesn't have the players (runners) around him to make him shine, and potentially further condenses the 10 space when he naturally drifts in Tripper is possibly the worst type of FB to have behind Foden too, it's working ok defensively, but he's having to play counter-instinctively to offer overlaps, where he then has no natural blueprint for what to do. The answer is to underlap, but that weakens Foden as a "winger", and again, further compresses the centre of the pitch. Bellingham looks so conflicted at 10, and since he was told to stop trying to do it all is playing like someone torn between what he wants to do and what the coach/team want him to do. The experiment with him and Foden switching is nice, but it's not natural, so it's happening in a slow, laboured way. He's used to playing deeper, being involved in everything, and being the guy making plays. With Kane and Foden in the team, he can't be that guy all the time. Playing TAA in CM is an experiment best left to club football / the bin. I would bring Bellingham into CM, pull Foden inside (they both want the ball, get them where they can use it) and play Gordon on the left. That way the only real issue is whether Kane can stay up, if not, sub him for Watkins. The Left Back is then the last issue and I think Trippier coming inside is far from the worst idea. Hopefully Southgate's theory comes good in the next game(s) otherwise it's made me look a twit for writing this mini-defence of him and given the players and the fans a frustrating first three games for nothing. I know we haven't been helped by the teams we've been playing as they aren't expansive, and are sitting deep to limit us.

It's not handling the interview in isolation is it? It's being misquoted and dragged through the press afterwards. - "Mainoo considered playing for Ghana" - *England lose/get knocked out* - "Would this have happened if Mainoo had been more committed to the cause?" Don't get me wrong, I expect this was all discussed, and planned for, but it doesn't look great when some media twit tried to corner him.

Ukraine leaving it a bit late to start playing football.

Why on earth is Zinchenko trying to muscle people about on set pieces

Did Gheorghe have a baby with Milan Baroš?

Ah they can score tap-ins.

RoMania

Romania have won me over here with the support, however my brain is slightly baffled that Ukraine AREN'T the ones in yellow.

Romania to try and stack their right side to defend against Mudryk, Stepananko and Zinchenko, only for a goal to come from the other side. I reckon 1-0 Ukraine.

I agree, I think those moments when we need a counter threat it used to be that Rashford would push on and move more centrally whilst Kane dropped deep. The thinking was either to allow Foden to play himself into confidence/form, or to increase ball retention rather than encourage route-one balls (which Foden was helping to reduce by providing an additional midfield outlet when the ball was deep).

Lucky that's just a status change and not a name change...

Southgate's legacy, if nothing else, will be reducing that awful fear and pressure you could feel on the players.

Good news though: I was massively concerned about defence before the tournament, and whilst our left side still looks weak in attack, Trippier was solid at the back, and I was massively impressed by Guéhi too. Complaining about the patterns of play in midfield being dominated by the best midfielder in the world is better than what I expected us to be moaning about.