I spoke too soon! Thought Mowbray should keep this private?

It was all over the media so hardly private. To do an in depth multi article interview with Dack and not touch on it at all is a bit disrespectful to the intelligence of the fans in my opinion, brushing it under the carpet. It could have been done from a positive view, I will learn my lesson, and concentrate on my football etc etc. Just a bit of acknowledgement. Hes brought the club into disrepute and we want to be assured that it wont happen again.

Still no mention or acknowledgement of his failure to do community service.

You've previously said that you agree that Dack is a shoe in starter if fit, and now that he is, we both surely agree that he comes straight back into his favourite position. Obviously a 10 role has defensive responsibility, but my point is it gives you the most freedom. I like to see flair players in that role. I love how you say a toss up between 2 players, then pick neither of them! Playing Bennett there would be an attacking move, in that it would free up his space for an attacking player, namely a Palmer or Rothwell. Would you agree that both Reed and Davenport deserve a chance after Smallwoods retched recent form, including the tail end of last season, before Smallwood, and at the moment should both be higher in the pecking order? Continuing with Smallwood would be blind loyalty at the moment from Mowbray.

Totally agree with the need for balance, but Smallwood isnt doing his job at the moment, Reed should be brought in.

I wouldnt say it is going for it to play Dack and Graham, in fact Mowbray often mentions playing Dack and 2 other attackers so he clearly agrees. I agree about getting the balance but that balance has to include getting the best from your main attacking players, notably Dack. They do have better players on paper but it would make no sense to play our very best player out of position, or not at all. I didnt see the Brentford game but Bennett as a 10 will always be a conservative decision, and one that should never be made when Dack is available. In the game you mention we had numerous players unavailable to us, specifically Dack. Your team has Rothwell, Brereton and Armstrong ahead of Dack essentially, albeit obviously via a slight tactical change. If Bolasie plays, surely it would make more sense to put Bennett on that side, and then play Dack. The number 10 role is arguably the one with the least defensive responsibility attached, hence it often being referred to as a free role. That said, I wouldnt say that Dack has ever really proved a liability in that regard. Im sure he will start as a 10 on Saturday. Obviously it was a friendly but we had absolutely no attacking threat in that game. Dack is never a number 9, false or otherwise. He will naturally get frustrated with the lack of the ball and influence he would inevitably get and leave us without a focal point. And hes the one attacking player who you do not want to risk minimising the impact he can have on games. He is our best player and the team should be built around him, which in a 4-2-3-1 it essentially is. The false 9 role was glamorised in recent years by a Spanish team with an unprecedented abundance of midfielders who were above any other country in the world, all at the same time, Iniesta, Xavi, Alonso, Fabregas, Silva etc. They also had to slightly compromise as their main attackers, especially Torres were on the wane. Their tactic worked because of the continuing dominance of possession tiring teams out and eventually Spain breaking teams down. Obviously we do not have the midfielders they had to dominate possession in every game and do what they did. Very few if any teams can replicate those tactics. Such a decision to play Dack as a false 9, one which im sure Mowbray wont and thus this is all hypothetical anyway, would also make a mockery of Mowbray spending 8m on strikers as well as having Graham already at his disposal.

Dack isnt an out ball, if you want an out ball then surely Graham and his terrific hold up skills are the best bet. Then you have Brereton and Armstrong as options of players to try and stretch Villa and to run in behind. Dack looked like a fish out of water against Liverpool, its not a role hes familiar with or suited to. Our strongest position is the number 10 role in Dack, Palmer and Rothwell, to play a system without one would be crazy. That said, we cant approach home games with too much overcaution. Against Brentford we were without Dack, Armstrong and Brereton with Graham unable to play the full game, hence the compromised team.

Dack is never a number 9 in a million years. Played there v Liverpool and it felt like there was a forcefield stopping us from going into the attacking third. Round peg in a square hole. Play our best player in his best position.

His all round game is average but he scores a ridicilious amount of goals year in year out. That said, the importance of goalscoring seems to somehow have become underrated in a striker. His all round game is obviously more complete than Rhodes when he was here, plus his goalscoring is not only more impressive in terms of the numbers but also the standard hes playing at. I feel that Kane is better suited to playing as a lone striker, as I did with Rhodes here, with people supporting from deep. He has played alongside Lucas this season who has played more centrally than usual and im not sure it best suits him. If people compare him to Rhodes as he was here, ie someone who scored stupid amounts of goals regularly, for me thats a compliment, especially as obviously Kane is far better. Also, @joey_big_nose would you think Switzerland are our level if we both had our strongest teams out? Harry Kane, Raheem Sterling, Kyle Walker, Jesse Lingard, Dele Alli, Kieran Trippier, Jordan Henderson and John Stones are for me a class or 2 above what they can offer. Just look at their clubs. Key players for Switzerland include Shaqiri, a Liverpool sub whose a liability more often than a threat, Xhaka who is a really average player lucky to have a regular spot in a patchy Arsenal side and Schar who has been signed as a squad player in an underfunded Newcastle squad. Id suggest we are in the middle of them and the likes of Spain in terms of quality.

Not sure how Loftus Cheek is near an England squad. Hes ok technically and physically but he doesnt ever do anything with it, plus his work rate and his general demeanour is very poor. Add to that a lack of playing time at Chelsea and even with a lack of alternatives hes probably had one too many chances. If we are to continue with this formation then it goes without saying that its key to try and find the correct balance in midfield. We have to somewhat accept as well that when we play teams like Spain, we wont win the war for possession. We usually play with one pivot (Henderson was very progressive in his passes again when he came on tonight) but I think we need 2 together to try and exert a little more control and give a little more stability. Will Hughes for me would be the man from a very limited choice to partner him. Then have 3 attacking players, with Kane a given. Id probably have Sterling and Lingard either side of him, which could change to Lingard as the 3rd midfield man and Sterling around Kane. Butland should be well down the pecking order, didnt really have much to do but hes looked poor in the last year whenever ive seen him for Stoke, he obviously cant play out and he certainly makes his mistakes. Goalkeeper is a weakness in general but McCarthy at Southampton should be over him, as should Pope when fit again. Tarkowski isnt an England player either, its difficult being an England centre back in that Maguire, Stones and Joe Gomez all are not the best defenders youll either see but are obviously good on the ball, Tarkowski isnt really, but he plays in a system at club level that guarantees him far more protection than for England. Feel like players such as Welbeck, Butland, Loftus Cheek and Delph were selected tonight as a reward for being part of the world cup squad without contributing anything. Honourable in a way but we should be looking to the future and how we can improve. Kane contributes very very little when he doesnt score but his goal record has to make him the first name on the team sheet. I also feel that Southgate needs to at times compromise on his strategy of not just picking players because they are doing well in the Prem, solely looking for young players. In areas that we are weak, such as up front and in central midfield, if any of the likes of Shelvey and Wilshire put some form together then we cant be pompous enough to ignore them.

Fair too early to make such a judgement on potential to play in the Premier League. Going forward, he is not remotely a threat. He gets so far then seems to get a nose bleed and wants to turn back round. Crossing very, very poor and often doesnt make it off the ground. Technically not the best in general at all. That said, very powerful and quick and can see much improvement in his one on one defending and also his positioning and reading of play. Weak in the air so never a centre back however, where he has filled in once or twice.

Believe that tag would go to Ronaldo Vieira.

Made his England under 20 debut today, and missed a penalty.

Last season, the majority of our attacking players were only here or only available for half a season (Armstrong and Payne only joined in January and Chapman and Antonsson had lengthy injury spells) but I stand by my statement that at such a poor level, Bennett didnt contribute enough going forward last season. His goal drought obviously niggled at him hence his relief when he finally did score, as shown in his interviews. The season before he showed he could score goals. You say whether I think that is good enough but that is what the discussion is about. Whilst I appreciate that Mowbray had ideals of what he wants from a winger, and it is something I acknowledged but that doesnt mean that I have to agree with it. I feel we lack width and are slightly imbalanced in attacking positions. The point that I have always made is that even if a wide man was chosen partially for his defensive work rate, I would still expect him to make an attacking contribition in order to merit a place in that position. As you said, 2 assists in 6 isnt a bad return, Rothwells inclusion was a personal decision made based on very promising cameos, and his selection was baring in mind 2 tricky away games during the rest of the week that Bennetts more hard working aspects could be much more useful in. Villa have big defensive question marks and we are at home so I would like to see a positive approach.

7 goal contributions isnt enough especially at a low level. For me anyway. Makes no sense to move him from a position in which he thrived to one that doesnt suit his skillset.

Think they were very efficient and did go 2-1 down v Argentina thanks to a screamer and a lucky deflection and had the answers. Quality all over the pitch (even Giroud for all his limations was such a perfect foil for Griezemann and Mbappe) and all across the bench. Belgium were the best team to watch when it all clicked but had players like Chadli starting knockout games. Not the basket case of years gone by.

Well I have higher standards than you on what is considered sufficient from a winger. Weve done this debate before, I dont think he got enough goals or assists when played wide. The same amount of assists and one more goals than Derrick Williams who got 1 goal and 5 assists. You did. Agree to disagree. Whilst I agree that id start Palmer from the bench, he is a natural number 10. Playing him anywhere else is slightly out of position. I know, number 10 can be a second striker but either way Armstrong wasnt effective there. He was very effective wide last season is my point. Agreed. If hes fit and not in jail, first name on the teamsheet.

But I think even you would agree that if Dack is fit the 10 role is unavailable. Dack has to start. Centre back? Left back? Up front? In net? Obviously your point doesnt make sense. He has to warrant and justify a place in the specific position chosen. If that is out wide, he needs to contribute with goals and assists. Something surely everyone would agree with. And something he did v Hull from out wide. If that is what he thinks then id strongly disagree. He was superb from out wide last season and dovetailed perfectly with Dack and Graham. That was the performance level that made us all desperate to sign him permanently. He lacks the subtelty to play as a 10, and considering we have Palmer and Rothwell even in Dacks absence, and Bennett who was apparently very good as a 10, theres no need to play him there. Play him where he was so good last season, especially considering our chronic lack of width. To clarify, he was very much the 12th man when I picked that team, hes a player that every squad needs in terms of he can fill in various positions. But if his primary position is out wide then he needs to be judged on attacking output too like anyone else. He does have 2 assists so far this season and he will start v Villa, I would like to see Rothwell given a start and wanted to shake things up after the Bristol game when I felt Bennett was as bad as anyone, but I would understand if Bennett plays. Smallwood less so.

Scouting who and where? Theres not a hidden gem or 2 hidden away who can compete with Spains midfield. Henderson for all the grief you gave him is our only good central midfielder. He had a superb season at Liverpool, plays quite a lot of forward passes for someone in his position and had an impressive World Cup in which I felt the media started to appreciate him more. Southgate playing how he does, Henderson as a pivot with Alli and Lingard either side advanced of him is for me an admission that we cant control games in there so its him saying lets try and at least enforce our own strengths, playing between the lines, and giving Henderson at least the respite of a third centre back behind him. I do think he got it wrong tactically yesterday in that he needed to compromise on the above, play one number 10 and give Henderson a bit more help against 3 top class central midfielders, and Isco sat inside helping them. One way would have been to put Dier next to him, someone who basically would have been there to stop, without being able to impact the game on the ball. My choice would have been Will Hughes as I said, ticks all the boxes, good on the ball, technically good, fiesty, young, in excellent form. Shelvey is I think injured but for me he would have been shown up. Wilshire is in poor form and has done nothing to deserve a place, Lewis Cook isnt in Bournemouths team, Maddison is a number 10 so that wouldnt improve the situation, Delph hasnt played for ages either, Loftus Cheek hasnt warranted a place for me and again is more of a 10, as is Barkley who again struggles for game time. Foden is one who is always mentioned to be fasttracked but hes barely played senior football. Winks another with injury issues and hardly any experience of senior football. Mount maybe a bit more deserving after his spell at Vitesse. For all of these names though, Spain would still have dominated yesterday. Spain, like a few other teams, Croatia being one of them, have midfields far superior not only to our own but to most. When you play them its important not to play them at their game, you need to instill your own style on them. For me the frightening thing yesterday was the subs bench. Only Sterling really missing who may have been available and we try to change the game by bringing on Eric Dier and Danny Welbeck.

I was away on holiday for the Brentford game so cant comment on it but fair enough. I did hear that he played as a 10 on here which obviously is a no go with Dack returning, is that true? He was poor wide v Bristol, albeit he wasnt on his own with a poor performance, he was ineffective until being moved centrally v Reading, and didnt do much v Ipswich and Millwall. I feel like, with his versatility there is a bit of a question mark as to where he is best. Not doubting that he will be an important player but I feel like if he performs as he did wide last season, he wouldnt merit a place out wide as he didnt contribute nearly enough going forward, goals and assists, for all the credit he got about his character, personality, work rate, committment etc. Arguably his best spell of form was at right back, followed by central midfield. The reason I was particularly dissappointed was that the half season under Mowbray prior, he contributed quite a few brilliant goals. Armstrong was superb playing wide last season. Sadly we failed to address our lack of natural width in the summer and have no one with Armstrongs pace. He was really poor v Bristol but played a 10 role that didnt suit him, in fact hes not played wide from memory this season bar briefly v Millwall. My tactical discipline comment was based on Smallwoods comments about what he wants from his central midfielders. Bennetts natural instinct is to chase the ball round like a dog and his work rate is fantastic but that sort of performance would probably expose the centre backs too much.

How could Southgate have addressed it in the summer? How arent France anything special? World Cup Winners and quality in literally every position. And so much depth in every position. You wouldnt swap Varane, Kante, Mbappe and Griezemann for basically anyone in world football.

What hyperbole that is. Henderson was as good as anyone in an England shirt at the world cup. A key player to give experience to what is otherwise a young side. Didnt have his best game tonight but neither did anyone really, especially Kane. Which brings me on to your other point. It was a side that did well in the summer and is very young. Didnt we have one of if not the youngest sides in the tournament? And he brought in only Joe Gomez and Luke Shaw. Bottled it? Regressed? Pack it in. Our problem is in the centre of midfield, Henderson is the only natural central midfielder and for me the balance is slightly off. Against big teams I think we need only 1 of Lingard and Alli and someone next to Henderson. Dier is shite so id have someone like Will Hughes who is tidy in possession. But thats a problem area, Foden has done nothing to suggest picking him bar doing well at youth football so lets not get carried away. Either way, we simply dont have the personnel to dominate against teams like Spain centrally who have such resources. Busquets, Saul, Thiago, Isco etc all top top class. Pickford should have done better for the first, I dont think he is the best keeper, yes he made the save in the shootout v Colombia and hes excellent on the ball but he makes so many mistakes for all the hype.

No i know he wont but its the team I would pick, not the team I expect he will pick. Bennett would probably play in the 2 away games but at home against a team with defensive issues I feel like we should be on the front foot. I dont think he will drop Smallwood either. Surely the home game is the one that Graham is best suited to. For me, the shirt belongs to Graham for now, id consider rotating him midweek if need be.

I think youve misunderstood my point clearly. I defended him because you wrote him off as a "show pony" without end product, when he has already scored 3 goals. I also felt you were focusing on him too much in what was a generally terrible team performance. All that said, Id like to see Rothwell and Armstrong, who was at least as bad as Palmer but he gives us pace that no one can match. Why have you dropped Graham, who was far more effective against Bristol City? I disagree, thats Corry Evans. Maybe harsh but more a tactical change, and not convinced he has the tactical discipline in central midfield. Hes obviously all action, running everywhere.

Think Waggott has made it abundantly clear where he ranks supporter happiness as a priority in the grand scheme of things.