Both beat the teams they should have beat but lost every time they hit a 50/50 or worse game, with the exception of Argentina in 2002.

Southgate= Sven

There’s one way he can solve the argument once and for all.

Edit - Sorry, you mean the McGuire deal and not the fall out.

I've re-read it about 10 times and I genuinely don't know what you mean. I think you've misread what I've said somewhere. All I've said is "if we had lost to Argentina in the group stage we would have been practically eliminated". It's a fact. The table had we lost would have been: Argentina P2 Pts 6 Sweden P2 Pts 4 England P2 Pts 1 Nigeria P2 Pts 0 You said we wouldn't have been practically eliminated as beating Nigeria in the final game would have got us through regardless of the SWE /ARG result, which is simply not true.

How so? Had we lost we would have had 1 point, Argentina 6 points and Sweden 4 points. It would have been out of our hands. There was huge pressure on us going into that game.

I'm with you here. Sven qualified for every tournament, got out of every group and never lost in a major tournament to a team we were expected to beat. However like Southgate, every game which I felt was 50/50 or worse he lost with the exception of Argentina in the groups in 2002. Had we lost that game we would have been practically eliminated and we won. That's why I have Southgate and Sven in similar regard, despite the obvious better progression deeper into tournaments by Southgate.

Southgate has got better as the tournament has gone on - slowly. The Trent experiment in the first game clearly didn't seem to work, but even after he put Mainoo in the slow, ponderous build-up and lack of any incision was awful. It clearly needed changing and yet we still approached the first knockout game against Slovakia the same way, and it took a Big Sam-style long throw and a piece of brilliance to save us. If we hadn't switched to 3 at the back I doubt we would have gone through the next two games. But fortunately he did, and credit for actually doing it. His substitutions have also worked out, from Toney in the first two knockout games to Watkins spectacularly last time. I said before the tournament he wins the games we expect to win (when many England managers haven't to be fair), but every time I've got to a game I think is 50/50 or worse he's lost. Regardless of whether its due to luck or not, on Sunday we have the first game I expect us to struggle in. If he wants to leap out of the Sven / Venables bracket, this again is the chance. Even if we lose though, he's still done well in another tournament. People calling him poor are forgetting 2008 to 2016

We have to have someone in that role to oversee outgoings as well as incomings. Our "ambition" is to sell players for a profit to fund the club, avoid relegation somehow and hoodwink the fans that there is a crumb of ambition leftso they still turn up to some degree. Eustace will be on less than JDT. Gestede will be on less than Gregg. The whole new scouting/transfer team will be on less than the previous one. Cheston and Silvester's replacements will be on less than the previous incumbents. I reckon there's only two senior employees at Rovers who haven't been replaced for cheaper alternatives. No prizes given for guessing who.

Miserable? Im ecstatic we won, enjoyed the last two performances and really looking forward to Sunday. But, like with Martin Olsson at Burnley, I can admit it wasn't a penalty. Do I care that we were helped getting through because of a dodgy penalty? Not one bit. I've never had as many downvotes on a post though 🤣

It’s clearly not a foul either way. Kane kicks the ball and follows through and then goes into the defender. But it’s Kane who goes into the defender and not the other way round. There more of an argument (wrongly) for a foul on the defender than on Kane.

He tries to block the ball and wouldn’t have made any contact with Kane. Come on, It made Speedie’s penalty in 1992 look like GBH, but I’ll take it. 😂

I know I’m late to this penalty debate , but if the defender is going into Kane after the ball has gone it’s a foul. But he isn’t. He’s static and Kane follows through and kicks him. Kane comes off worse because he kicks his studs but it should be irrelevant what part of the guys body Kane kicks. If the guy had tried to block the shot with his head, and Kane had kicked his head, would people think that was a penalty? It’s not a foul, or if anything it is a foul on the defender.

Karma’s a bitch Koeman

One of the two at work is pretty clued up. He would normally do pre-season friendlies, even abroad, and he has no idea. The other one hardly talks football to me except every now and again blubs "Not fair, you should have given us the whole Darwen End"

I believe Burnley have no friendlies announced at all. Their fans have no idea what's going on. .

It’s not ‘probably’.

I’ve just pointed out Szmodics goal scoring rate was unaffected whether Gallagher was playing with him or not last season. In Armstrongs last season, Gallagher wasn’t on the pitch for 17 of his 29 goals.

Yep. When he was absent between September to January Szmodics only scored, err, 15 without him.

Yeah, that's not happening.

Needing funds for Balaji's celebrity bunga bunga parties.

Yep. 4-0 defeat. Leo only played half the game and at fault for 3 of them. The first three goals are at:- 1hr 31 1hr 33:40 1hr 50 Pears is bad but I don't get those who don't see this guy as worse.

I can see what’s coming now. No significant incomings. Sell a couple. Court case goes against us. Fire sale. Transfer window closes and the following day Burnley get proper revenge for the April Fools day massacre.

Bellingham's one season at Birmingham they finished 20th. But they knew what they had.

I dont think this one was. I remember listening to it on radio Lancs when had it been on Sky I'd have certainly watched it. Plus other than Rhodes header the game rings no bells, even a last minute equaliser for them.