Intent does come into play with fouls on the pitch. Consider a winger who runs with the ball straight into the defender, who didn't try to block him but couldn't get out of the way. I'm not a ref, and feel free to correct me if anyone knows better, but I don't think that is technically a foul (though, they're given). I think the unintentional handball exception is/was in the same spirit of recognition of our physical limitations and sense of fairness. And, I think, it worked on the basis that it was possible to make the call with reasonable confidence. Misplaced but well-intentioned tackles became fouls when the rules were drawn up, most probably because there was a desire to make the game safer and a test of speed and agility, as much as strength - and, it'd be impossible for a referee to be adjudicating intent on the constant tackling going on in a match. In a sense, I guess, you're right, misplaced tackling is/was treated more severely in the rulebook, than certain other types of fouls for these reasons. Edit: Generally speaking, I believe VAR opens a Pandora's box of Big Tech, whose financial interest is to expand technology's role in the game and become a massive lobby in the industry.

Chelsea apparently want Leicester’s star player, Dewsbury-Hall, after taking their manager. The raiding of newly promoted sides before they’ve kicked a ball in the Premier League seems to be being normalised. Sheff Utd sold Berge and Ndiaye before their first game last campaign. A few seasons ago, Norwich sold their playmaker, Buendia, to Villa after he led them to promotion. As far as I’m aware, this didn’t happen normally before. It’s another really damaging, rapacious part of the growing inequality in the game and surely makes the league less competitive and more predictable.

Is this Euros the first major international football tournament of the podcast age (aka, online self-broadcast age)? It might be that I wasn't online as much the last time and it was comparable. However, it's really odd to go online (on my phone, usually) and see likes of Gary Lineker and Ian Wright not only on match TV coverage but also in adverts and podcasts. My first thought is that they're filling their boots, but, then, I wonder if traditional TV roles pay as much because of changes in the media world. I guess it'll be a lot but maybe not as much. Podcasts do offer more time and thoughtful discussion than the typical TV punditry. They're also less censored - though still limited by Youtube's rules, for example. So, overall, it's an improvement but there is just so much content being churned out and the same people appearing, its creating a sort of new reality TV. The biggest issue is the volume and the targeting. It's got to be unhealthy to be targeted in social media, especially, for those who a more vulnerable. And, it's probably creating new problems for the players (who are, of course, all over the adverts). Lineker called England's performance "sh*t" in a podcast, I believe - probably, after a wine or two, and that was put to Harry Kane in a press conference by a journalist. Overall, I'm a bit confused as to what to make of it as there are pros and cons for the average watcher. I guess, ultimately, it's about how it's "consumed", as with most things. You could probably watch content 24/7 with everything that's coming out. And you have to be discerning about finding shows. Some of the stuff is just mindless banter, which is fun for those in the room but watching it from a "window" feels a combination of creepy, demeaning, dull but fascinating at the same time. Edit: A really key issue, I feel, is that with all this content, the fundamental issues regarding the governance of football are overlooked, either because they're deemed not commercial - or, concerns about demonetisation or deplatforming. There's a lot to critique, from financial fair play, the football regulator to the endless expansion of tournaments but it's often shrugged off. Which suggests that whilst content has grown exponentially, the range of perspectives and subjects has not, and not because, in my opinion, they're not interesting.

Interesting piece by Jonathan Liew of Guardian on England, reflecting on lack of English football identity. Comes up with idea that we don't have one but have a sense of fun and thrill-seeking and that's what the team should try and play into before their inevitable exit. I'm not sure I agree that this team is so egotistical, as he suggests, (not compared to previous teams) but they definitely do look like a team of individuals without a strategy. At least at the last Euros, there was a sense of an approach, with Phillips and Henderson guarding and Sterling trying to make things happen on his own by running with the ball. England under Gareth Southgate: rampant individualism and a saviour complex: https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/26/england-under-gareth-southgate-rampant-individualism-saviour-complex-euro-2024 Edit: Is this the first international tournament of the endless podcasts era? Whatever it is, Southgate's thinking, and, potentially, the players, seems to be influenced by the media more these days. He fancied Eze and Bowen, who did ok for newcomers but the media demands for Palmer and Gordon seem to have been heard. Though, who knows if it really was a factor. And, it must be hard for the players to avoid the chatter coming from their phones.

The clamour for Palmer and Gordon (seems the media don't much like Bowen) misses a key point that the control and supply from midfield has been non-existent. Foden has played wing for City and I think he'd do well for England, if he received decent passes. I do think he's best centrally but I think it's a mistake to think that new forward players will change things if the centre isn't sorted out. And that includes Kane, who is often in central midfield looking to hit a cross-field pass. LB is also a big decision because the moment a player runs at Tripper, England's defence will be exposed.

Calafiori looked like their best defender and their best attacker. Looks an exciting player. He’ll be a huge miss for their next game. Italy look like a side with talent but no ideas. Like a team of Brett Emertons! I don’t know what Croatia did at the end there. Their midfield suddenly were all pushed up and threw it away. But great finish from the Italians.

Disappointing for Scotland. I think their clubs’ readiness to import so many average standard overseas players can’t help their national team. Though, it can equally be argued that they do that due to shortage of talent coming through. They were without Hickey and Ferguson, mind you. Another difficulty for Scotland and others is the shift to possession football across the board. Direct football, for all its criticisms, could be an equaliser - not just route one but consider how Damien Duff’s Ireland did that World Cup with direct running with the ball. Possession football definitely helps at international level and there’s no going back but I wonder if northern Europe is giving up too much of their style and strengths to match the style that southern Europe plays? Ironically, Spain, the archetypal possession team, are playing a more direct game with wingers this tournament, and looking promising.

Some interesting comments by Southgate in a press conference on England's defensive press options: "We know with the profile of players that we've got, we don't feel the way to press is really high up the pitch. I don't think that's the physical level of the team at the moment either. But we've got to find a way of being more compact and more difficult to play against than we found in the last three halves of football.” I can only guess that Southgate is implying the older players like Kane, Walker and Trippier are not capable of the intense press. Or, perhaps, he's just referring to Kane. Gary Linekar has strongly argued that Kane has got to change his game and lead a high press, even if he's not the most athletic. Playing high press isn't the only option for a team, though, it's pretty common in the Premier League. However, at some point, there has to be an intense press, whether that's on the half-way line or beyond. England don't seem to have found that intensity yet.

I think that the evident fear must have a lot to do with experience and age. I don't think just putting in Eze or Palmer or whoever will make a huge difference as long as there is that psychological insecurity throughout the team. This England squad is missing experienced leaders. Throw in the fact that the system is experimental and imbalanced, and you have a recipe for under-performance. I keep saying it, but I really think that if the central midfield is ticking, the confidence of the rest of the team will flip and you'll see a completely different side. However, I'm not sure how it's to be done, given that all the options are so youthful and inexperienced.

I might be going to far, but Wharton plays as a Busquets, with creative short passes but given his youth and his apparently natural languid nature, I don't know if I'd trust him as a defensive midfielder. However, he has played in a two with Will Hughes at Palace, where Hughes does a lot of running back and forth for him. This could potentially be replicated with Rice. That said, I can understand Southgate's hesitation in putting in such an inexperienced player into such a high pressure situation. I have to admit that I would go for a Bellingham, Gallagher or, even, Mainoo and play two holding midfielders, with some attacking licence. I don't see any real role for Wharton in this tournament but we'll see.

Reminds me of the England side under, I think, Sven, when Beckham seemed to decide he would have a free role. Southgate and his management have a huge job on their hands. The main thing is to sort out the centre of the midfield. If that, and Harry Kane's free role are sorted out, I think things should fall into place. It's an exceptionally young squad, it seems to me, so I don't expect them to go all the way, but they can do well if the balance is rectified. Edit: I'm undecided but I think I would give the midfield to Rice and Bellingham and ask them to hold their positions and give the forward three licence to push up.

Romania might be a team to watch for. They looked really good against an albeit disappointing Ukrainian side. They kind of played a Liverpool-Klopp style of breaking with pace and no shortage of skill. In that game, at least, their defenders played in a really aggressive and technical way. It's probably harsh to expect much of Ukraine. Their players have been, I think, constantly travelling for their international games, not playing home games in Ukraine - as far as a I know. Also, I believe the players' families are, in some cases, dotted around Europe, even though many have been playing domestic football in Ukraine. I did notice a lot of their players play for Ukrainian clubs, which made me wonder if this is a patriotic choice or, perhaps, a legal stipulation, as, the easier option in terms of practicality, perhaps, would be to move abroad, using their pro athlete exemptions from conscription, which I believe they have.

I do think a Rice-Wharton midfield duo would be very good. Whoever plays, they need a structure. It all felt rather ragged latterly versus Serbia, except for the defence that looked like a collective unit. The rest of the team looked like individuals doing their own thing. The potential is there, if they can hold their nerve, sort out the middle and players like Kane can show some leadership.

Controversial to say here, maybe, but I’m not sure why Southgate’s taken Wharton. I can’t see an important scenario when he comes on. Yesterday’s game made me think that having a DM, even someone on the wane, like Henderson (though, not sure if there’s a better option), would be helpful off the bench, when the team needs a bit of stability and organisation. Maybe, someone, too, with the authority to remind Kane of his core duties as a striker. A lot will rest on Rice, as the starter and basically irreplaceable heart, and; also, Gallagher, who will, no doubt, play a part in every game as the reinforcement sub.

I think Foden hardly touched the ball in the last third, in the second half - most of his work was around the half-way line. Work for Southgate to do to give his flair players a platform to perform.

Some interesting insights into Wharton’s mentality from his agent but overall, a pretty humdrum piece. I don’t think the media are appreciating the extent of Wharton’s achievement in getting into the squad or his potential. I can’t think of another England player who’s had such a meteoric rise without having gone to one of the big clubs. I also don’t know if we’ve seen an English playmaker with Wharton’s potential since Michael Carrick. It can be argued Mainoo and Wharton’s inclusions reflect a shortage of English CMs. And, he won’t, it seems, be involved a lot if Trent and Gallagher are ahead of him. However, I get the impression that the media just aren’t overly interested. For Wharton, it’s probably a good thing. But curious nonetheless.

Learnt recently that Keira Walsh, now of Barcelona and England women, was at Rovers as a youth player. I don’t know how long for but it’s some credit to Rovers men and women teams for developing two midfield passing maestros in Walsh and Wharton. Unfortunately, both left for bigger clubs very soon.

Chrisene and Moran, and, potentially other loanees, are contracted as loan players until end of June - according to the official site. Nothing against them but seems unnecessary extra month in wage contribution/loan fee. I may be missing something here but as the season finished in May, I would have thought that would be the end of their deals.

A difficulty faced by those players was the British football style was direct and physical and teams were like rabbits in headlights when on the international arena and faced by a team that retained possession. All sorts of insecurity crises were played out on the pitch. Some teams resorted to trying to play possession football and suppress the urge to hit cross-field balls (which there was no opening for, because the games were slower) and ended up looking constipated. The shift in the Premier League to possession football, which has gone all the way down the roots, so that youth teams play it, has brought England closer, I think. It could be argued, England have gone too far, and risk abandoning what strengths they had and under utilised. (E.g. We have a top target man forward, so we should play with width, even if others don't). Nevertheless, I would argue, Southgate is benefiting from a major advantage his predecessors didn't necessarily have. Edit: The more I think about it, the more I think that playing with width and some directness could be key to England. It would give them a sense of identity, for a start, rather than vaguely trying to imitate everyone else. There's no need to always go wide but now and again, having a winger or full back whip in crosses and have Kane and Bellingham in the box could open teams up.

An issue might be with leadership on the pitch to organise the team, especially, at pressure moments. Kane is the captain and there's experienced club captains in the side in Walker and Trippier, if he plays, but I don't think there are many outstanding leaders there. It might not be necessary if the players click and the opposition are simply blown away by the ability of the star players. On the other hand, if things do get difficult, Southgate and his management will have to step up. This might especially be the case considering some of the players, especially, from City and Arsenal are so used to looking to the touchline for instruction.

Fair point and looking at the stats, it seems Foden started 33 league games. That said, he does get moved around the pitch by Pep, which I don't believe helps him. Though, arguably, in the long-term, it may develop his game. I feel a little disappointed that Maddison has been cut from the squad, with, it seems players like Palmer and Eze preferred. Without having watched him that much, he strikes me as a big personality who could potentially have what it takes to carry the responsibility of England's attack. That said, he has struggled with injuries this season. I do feel that personality and readiness to seize the moment is something that we've lacked in the past and I wonder if Maddison has that in his character, as well as the creative talent. However, it's not to be.

I agree that Foden is underrated and one of the reasons is that he doesn't play consistently due to squad rotation at City. For me, he should probably be central and must start. He'd probably do a job on the left but with his ability to shoot from range and to turn on the ball, I think he can carry the attack - if he rises to the mental challenge with all the pressure. It does raise issues with fitting everyone else in but I think I would start there. I also don't think it's ideal to have Rice as the DM; he's probably better going forward. However, there isn't an obvious other candidate in the squad.

I'm not sure there is the talent in the Championship for that. An interesting one, though, is Leif Davis, who's Ipswich's left back and was the top assist maker in the league last season with 18 assists, apparently, a historical record. We are short of left backs but I'm not sure if he was ever in the running. I can't comment because I haven't watched him. I think Dewsbury-Hall will play for England one day but understandable that, at the moment, the Prem midfielders are preferred.

Yes, Leipzig and Salzburg, who are owned by Red Bull, who also have added minority share ownership in Leeds to their portfolio. The question seems to be about whether an owner has "decisive influence" over more than one club, as to whether UEFA will allow them to compete in a competition. In the case of Red Bull, some people were removed from key positions and some financial and commercial ties were amended or dropped at Salzburg and that seems to have satisfied UEFA. The legal standard is "comfortable satisfaction" , I read, rather than "beyond reasonable doubt." Without knowing too much about it, it seems, as long as the clubs look independent, then that is enough. Whether they are actually operating independently maybe a different matter.

If I am not mistaken, just over 12 months ago, he was behind Tyler Morton in the pecking order. I think what Palace have picked up on is that currently, at least, he is not a defensive midfielder. He plays as a metronome but needs energetic midfielders around him who’ll do a big share of the dirty work.