Better second half last night, we stepped things up albeit against a side as bad as any bar Qatar in the tournament, with a poor manager scared to drop past it players. Any competent keeper would have saved both Rashford goals too. Foden was really good and stood out with his technical ability and the way he can weave through defenders, and Rashford was also very good. The question is whether they will be persisted with or whether Southgate will want to put back in his favourites in Sterling and Mount who would weaken the team. The midfield is a big question mark, Rice is not a top level midfielder as useful as he is due to his technical limitations and Bellingham is someone who I am not sure where he is best, as the furthest forward of 3 I am not convinced that he does enough in the final third. Henderson was our weakest player and I would drop him on Sunday. Also, fed up of hearing our fans (and official account) going on about Hedges' omission as if he would have made a difference.

This is a terrible watch. Our midfield is so one paced and technicaly lacking.

Well that our selection will "cause havoc."

Your blood pressure must be all over the place when England play. Saying you arent watching then questioning committment, demanding the manager goes then defending any notion of easy draws and going from the manager needing booting and showing no positivity to thinking we will batter them!

A third centre back surely if anything would make it more sensible to play Bellingham to give him more scope to get forward. Henderson/Rice AND 3 centre backs is just asking for slow and side to side.

A nice big pay rise would be a huge thing for anyone before considering big European nights in front of a full stadium. Plus there is no reason why he cant get to the Premier League from there.

Where is the expected team? If the intention is to play 5 at the back in the knockout stages then we should have played that throughout the tournament. Henderson in a 2 with Rice in front of 5 defenders is typical Southgate. I don't see why it has to be unless there has been a rule change. Give me the best person for the job regardless of nationality. I cant for the life of me remember the decision, just that the decision was correct.

It has happened once in this tournament but I agree. Still, the ref to blame.

Reasonable was not meant as a put down. I would consider managers from any nation so pointless even comparing. Tuchel wouldnt be too bad.

Its a terrible decision that the ref deserves to be blamed for, not the technology. Even the pointless Walton disagreed.

None of Lampard, Rooney and Gerrard would come into the thinking of even yourself if they weren't legends from their playing career. You could say anyone could potentially be England manager if he did x, y and z, absolute nonsense.

What an oddly bitter post 😂

That side would be very slow, I don't get why Grealish starts considering again like Mount he has not really performed to a high level for a long period of time. I will qualify my comments on Bellingham if you are being pedantic by saying on the assumption that Bellingham is not injured, that it would be crazy to drop him for Henderson. I would bring in Foden for Mount, Walker for Trippier and probably Maddison for Sterling, although maybe Rashford and allow Foden more centrally. If the intention is to play a back 5 in the knockouts then I would play it now, and also either start Trippier or Alexander Arnold rather than Maddison, with our 3 attackers who have performed at a very high level across recent months (Foden, Kane and Saka) all starting. Howe and Potter are reasonable shouts on merit as managers, but you just threw in big name former players for no reason. You genuinely cannot look at Lampard, Gerrard or Rooney's mixed managerial careers and think that minus their status as players, that they would come close to being England manager otherwise. It is important but not as much as so as the first 2 games. The likelihood of Wales having anything to crow over is very unlikely considering even a win for them will probably still see them going home. The main objective must be to get back on track and finish top but essentially qualification gives us some room to manoeuvre.

Maybe not a dead rubber but we are already through so not as critical as it could be. He will be putting in Henderson befitting of his inability to get the most of our more attack minded, exciting players in Foden, Bellingham and Saka. Some of your potential managerial choices named to justify this desperation to have an English manager are bizarre. Herdman set his Canadian side up very naively and motivated his opposition with stupid comments in the media, how has he suddenly become in the mix? Then you have just named former players topped off with the hilarious shout of Frank Lampard.

I had assumed that there would be a number of changes due to it being close to a dead rubber. I think of the upcoming games in the next few days, the conclusion of our group is possibly the least exciting.

How do you known that Foden won't play?

Nothing says Gareth Southgate like the rumoured change of Henderson for Bellingham tomorrow night.

I think you struggle to look past your bias with England. Colombia and Denmark missing their main players as well as Sweden and Ukraine are not teams in knock out international football that you would be sad to draw. They are not the cream of the crop like you seemingly have us as. France not only overcame Argentina but also Belgium when they were a serious proposition (and beat us) and also the same Croatia team that beat us.

I don't get why it needs a fixed period of "loyalty" which wouldn't exist if any of us were offered a considerable job upgrade and pay rise. Even if he goes QPR will receive compensation so they will be in profit. They would sack him if he went the other way, its football.

That at least some consideration is given towards supporters attending the games. There should be a limit on moving successive games for one club/games within a specific period of time.

You do this weird thing whereby you repeatedly compare to Eriksson and Capello, as if they prove as a rule that foreign managers shouldn't be considered. They are 2 individuals who underachieved, not one person has suggested getting either back. It would be like me saying that Hodgson was a success because at least he qualified unlike McLaren, why is your benchmark that of an underachiever? I very strongly disagree, ultimately there is no way of proving either way but I know not one single person who rates Southgate and that impression is further strengthened by anything I read about Southgate as a manager. If he had anything about him, Foden would already be a well established key member of our first 11, not someone we turn to when others underperform. Saka has also been performing at a level well in excess of either Sterling or Mount for a long while.

That doesn't make it acceptable, it shows the typical lack of care towards supporters. But I bet that a recently promoted Premier League side will be on TV less than a top 3 Championship one. Managing at an old firm side will almost certainly pay better and will give you regular European nights in front of a full stadium, can understand the appeal.

Canada are a strange side, full of energy and good to watch but so tactically naive.

They haven't been walks in the park but equally we have had favourable draws. We firstly had Colombia who were missing their best player at the time and are far from one of the World's elite even though they have some handy players, and we only just got there via penalties. We then had Sweden who were really average and then we met our match in Croatia who themselves were possibly at the peak of their powers but were still not a France, Brazil or Belgium. It was our inability to beat Belgium that saw us fortunately get onto a much weaker half of the draw in what was an otherwise very poor group. Go forward 2 years when many of the games were in England, comfortable enough group, then the toughest knockout draw we have probably had under Southgate. It was a Germany in transition but it was a really good win, had we gone a goal up early or a goal down obviously it may have been different and either of those situations would not leave me with much optimism in Southgate. Then we got a very easy quarter final and then the most favourable semi finalist, a Denmark side missing their best player and it took a dodgy penalty to win that. So yeah, we definitely have had favourable draws in the last 2 tournaments. Our record under Southgate is good against lower opposition, my fear/expectation is that when we come across one of 5 or 6 heavyweights, our game management would let us down. France have been consistent throughout Deschamps' tenure, he is quite pragmatic and sometimes picks more safety first choices but they always seem in control of the big games.

I don't think that it is anything to do with being a sexy name. Ultimately if he had left prior to this World Cup, then you would have to rate his tenure as a success. But as I said, international knockout tournaments are not necessarily going to conjure up the best team as the winner, as they are massively reliant on luck, if it was a league then every team obviously plays each other home and away but Southgate has had incredible fortune in the draws that we have had. We have flair players that have only really emerged in the last couple of years, but their international form and how they are used is not comparable by a man who is very pragmatic to the point of not getting the best from his players. If we played a big nation in the knockout rounds, I would not trust Southgate to be tactically savvy enough to win a game having scored early, nor would I have faith in him to turn a game that we were losing in. It is a good foundation to have a squad that seemingly enjoy playing for their countries, but that alone won't overcome top sides.