Very true. Look at Man City. Yes Haaland is an incredible player, but he is the type of player Guardiola the present day king of tika-taka would have typically not had in his side. With Haaland City have adapted. When they are having zero luck breaking down a defensive side they swing a cross into the box. Or go longer to use his physicality to disrupt. Tika-taka is still plan A, but they mix it up with plan B throughout a game. Pep has adapted. Spain had Morata. He's not in the same league as Haaland but has a similar style. I think he started every game on the bench, then anytime he came on they looked far more threatening. The need for a proper centre forward has returned.

Incredible performance from Portugal tonight. No way is Ronaldo starting next game. They looked so much more dynamic without him. And his replacement Ramos. What a game. First strike was out this world.

Coventry issued a stadium eviction notice. No idea what impact this will have on their finances / if there will be a bit of a fire sale.

Agree. The thing I like most about Southgate is the way he's not only handled himself off the pitch, but the way he's handled his players off the pitch too. He's made the England team likable. The represent good values. Prior to him supporting England felt like a chore, not only because of performances but also because the players were a difficult bunch to get behind. I do feel like they now represent the country. For that I'm very thankful. Tactically though. He's lacking.

I've watched Qpr a few times this season. One of my mates is a huge fan. Their form has fallen off slightly of late. Whether you can attribute that to his flirtation with Wolves is up for debate. Even so you can see the plan when they play. They have looked excellent. Much like us being so high in the league at one point was way above expectations. I think they had made a cracking appointment in Beale and he'd eventually get them promoted. Even so, my mate and according to him, most Qpr fans are now happy to see him go. The flirtation with Wolves wasn't good. But for it to happen a second time is out of line. Everyone can admit clubs are used as stepping stones. But its a mutual transaction whereby your club needs to benefit too. And that needs at least 18 months to 2 years worth of loyalty.

England's record in major tournaments under Southgate. WC 2018 Wins: Tunisia, Panama, Colombia (Pens), Sweden. Losses: Belgium x2, Croatia Euro 2020 Wins: Croatia, Czech, Germany, Ukraine, Denmark Drew and lost to Scotland and Italy. In all of that bunch I'd say our squad is significantly better than all opposing teams rather than Croatia and Germany. Possibly Denmark. In the losses we've been ahead and Southgate hasn't changed the set up until we've conceded or gone behind. Like some I'm not even saying unleash all the attacking talent we have. But simple adjustments to out set up, specifically when we're outnumbered in the middle. When it's our 2 battlers vs 3 opposition players we constantly lose any kind of stranglehold in a game. That and doing away with favoritism. Sterling and Mount for example seem guaranteed of a place regardless of performance. With the talent in the squad. It doesn't even need a handbrake being let off. Just play our most in form and talented players. My point being. His record is to be commended. You can only beat what is in front of you. However we've repeatedly failed in sterner tests. When you see the same mistakes being ignored (USA dominating us in the middle of the pitch and again... favoritism) it's only right that his credentials are questioned. Just to give an analogy to another national team. Would anyone say Belgium have achieved what they have over the last 6 years in spite of Martinez or because of him? I think most would agree he's failed to squeeze the extra 10% out of a world class squad and they've always fallen just short, with him being the weak link. England have huge talent in the squad. Failures of old lead us to thinking reaching the latter stages of tournaments is a huge achievement. It should be an expectation.

It seemed pretty simple to me. USA had 3 very athletic players in the middle. We had two athletic players in the middle. They inevitably won that battle. Mount can play a bit deeper, but he was a complete passenger in the number 10 role. For me Southgate should have switched by getting Mount to drop after about 25 minutes. Personally I'd have been taking him off for Gallagher. We simply lost that midfield battle so we never even got into their final third. It was a poor performance and that's on Southgate. I've no reason to think he'll adjust. Either before a game and especially mid game. Croatia 2018 - outnumbered in midfield Italy 2021 - outnumbered in midfield Last night - outnumbered in midfield The only difference was the quality of the opposition. Southgate has never played a 3 man midfield in all his time as England manager. Without elite ball playing players we always get overrun there. It's obvious. Very clear what a lot of people have said previously. He's a steady eddy of a manager who will see us progress through group stages, but he lacks any tactical noise which will eventually see us achieve nothing. And I've not even mentioned the attacking talent on our bench he always fails to utilise.

My thoughts exactly. 1 point is as useless as 0 points for USA tonight.

I thought he was superb against Iran. Even though he didn't score he linked up play really well and allowed our wide forwards to become a threat. He even managed this with a couple of fairly aimless punts up towards him. On his injury. It was an absolutely ridiculous tackle by the Iran player. Kane had broken past him. If he wanted to foul him all he had to do was trip him, not lunge with his whole body. There's always a chance a foot will get caught underneath falling bodies. I think it was way back in 1998 there was a big message about tackles from behind being outlawed for this very reason. I don't think it was malicious, I don't think it warranted more than a yellow, but it was bloody stupid. There were a few of them in the game and in other matches I've seen. If Fifa are dead set on increasing the number of teams in a tournament, we're going to see more nations who are international 'minnows' and more of these types of tackles and injuries to big name players. They try and mix it up (rightfully so) but lack the technique. The result is clumsy tackles.

I have to add Ronaldo Nazario to this list. Injuries curtailed his career at a young age. Up until his knee exploded he was, like Maradona not just up there with the best, but head and shoulders above. BBC iplayer has a great documentary about him at the moment. A genuinely brilliant watch. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001ffsj On the subject. Two others who stick in my mind are Ronaldinho and Neymar. Both players who never quite reached the levels of those already mentioned due to their mentality. But in terms of insane natural ability, absolutely astounding.

I actually thought this when I was typing. But couldn't be bothered to keep going 😂

Allow me to live in fantasy land for a moment. First preference of course would be for Brereton-Diaz to sign a new contract. But if we did sell him. Gyokeres, JpvH on loan with an obligation to buy at the end of the season and then a ball playing battling midfielder. Our core would be set for the future. We'd be in a position in the summer to look at players who give us an edge. Pace and trickery. Rather than continuously having to work on filling holes in our squad.

I do question whether Qatar will be silently regretting hosting the World Cup. As far as 'sports-washing' goes it's having the opposite effect. The whole world is talking about their abhorrent human rights record, corruption and then the general irritation of its timing. They've obviously spent a fortune in preparation, though for an oil state I imagine any amount of Billions is a moot point. The motivation must have surely been to put them centre stage in a positive light. Once the games start with an atmosphere and attendance reminiscent of lockdown, as a nation they are going to look like a joke. Literally nobody is happy they're hosting. Its a shit show for everyone. (Yes I'll be watching btw)

This messageboard, this thread, social media, the LT. Everywhere I look people are incredulous. Rightly so after something we could all see coming. I have a strong feeling JDT had no idea just how much this game meant to the fans. He said he did, but actions speak louder than words. I hope that he's aware now, reflects and works logically to right the wrongs. When I say logically, you only need to look at comments from 90% of the fanbase to understand what that means.

I'm sure there has been a conversation between JDT and Brereton. And he's privately expressed that he's tired and needs a break. He would struggle to withdraw himself due to the reaction in Chile so JDT is happy to play the 'bad guy' and take the flak. It's good management. And the friendlies are ridiculous considering the schedule all players have been having to go through prior to the World Cup. A rest is the best thing for the player. Chile should see this too. A fit and healthy Brereton isn't just good for us, but them too.

Does anyone know if JpvH signed a new contract in the summer? I know his deal was up at the end of the season and a loan for him hinged on it being signed. If he didn't I imagine he's very available. Centre back isn't the priority right now but sometimes if the right player comes along for the right price you have to seize the moment. Bring him in and our Ayala succession planning is sorted. Hyam, JpvH, Wharton, Carter and Phillips sees us sorted there for years to come and all have resale value.

Why do you insist on playing the same way regardless of the players on the pitch? Do you not think that asking less technical players to be brave on the ball is a recipe for disaster? I would add in that I am supportive of plan A. But there is seemingly only a plan B when defending a lead and no plan B for when we are losing a game, either in scoreline or territory.

To hear JDT talking about the pace of Mola being a reason he started is maddening. We were so deep there was no space for anyone to run into.

Even if we play it short from Kaminski, one pass wide to the left/right centre back or the wing backs, then float a ball over the heads of the opposition full backs. Do that with Gallagher and Diaz knowing that's the tactic and running full pelt it puts pressure on the opposition. They don't have many options. Back to the keeper who in turn can be quickly closed down or put it out for a throw in. That's not rocket science. But it gets us up the pitch quickly and will get us in behind. I was looking at Championship stats the other day and we've actually played more long balls than any other team in the division. But they're mainly floated down the middle which is easily dealt with or hoofed under panic. Simply because we play so many passes across the back and invite pressure. Most of the time though, that's more appealing than the alternative which is suicidal passes into the central midfielders who are being hounded and lose the ball in horrible situations. We tend not to play well because of things we are doing, but play well when we face a team that don't press.

1. Mola for Scott Wharton - many expressed their concern before the game and turned out to be right. Those saying they thought Mola played well first half I'm sure are basing it on the one crunching tackle he made. Positionally he was all at sea. 2. Garrett and Travis - They don't have a pass between them. We were always going to struggle to retain possession so you need someone who can pick a killer ball through ball in an instant and hit them on the counter. 3. Playing out from the back - similar to the second point. Without A. Wharton we aren't keeping the ball. We have 2 big strikers. If you only have battlers in midfield go long and rush to get the second ball. 3.1 Players have different skill sets - if you want to play out from the back you have to play the players capable. If you want to change the personell you have to change the philosophy/style. 4. Outside the obvious players who didn't fit the philosophy: - Morton who I think is a good player has been off the boil for a while now - Ayala for someone who is supposedly old school was bullied by Barnes - Brereton-Diaz. As good as he is coming in off the left he's begun to play wider and wider this season. If we've got 2 up top I'm certain getting him slightly more central and closer to Gallagher would benefit the team. All the above seems pretty obvious to me. And is pretty damning on JDT. No calling for his head etc on my part. We're third which is brilliant. But I do think it's based on a lot of luck at the moment. So many games have been such fine margins when we've won, but abject when we've lost. To his credit he can set up a team defensively, but if he's going to succeed there needs to be a big turnover of players. Ones who are comfortable on the ball. They aren't cheap which means recruitment wise we'll need some real unpolished diamonds.

Plan B didn't have to be a switch in formation but a simple single for Gally and Diaz to start playing on the shoulder of the last defender and going long. That should have happened halfway through the first half. All we did was switch formation and have one less player to tap it around at the back making us more likely to lose it. Change the pattern of play, not just where players are standing on the pitch!

Says it all

Offered absolutely nothing until they scored. Then proceeded to piss about with it at the back and gift them the rest of the game. That was an atrocious performance. Clinton Mola was terrible. If we were going all out defensively why start him above Wharton. All out defense then tapping it around the back line doesn't work.

Mola has been absolutely woeful.

John Buckley on for Garrett for me at half time. Buckley is the type of player we need in this situation. Need to put trust in him that he'll help retain the ball better.