Report on Rovers U21s 1-3 win over Fleetwood U21s, goals from Bloxham, Boggan and Biniek: https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/july/18/report--fleetwood-town-under-21s-1-3-rovers-under-21s/ Solomon Honor’s turn between the sticks. If I can work this out, he might be seventh choice goalie out of eight - though the rotational use of them and intermittent disappearances of Eastham makes it unclear: Pears, Hilton, Barrett, Michalski, Eastham, Goddard (loan), Honor, Khan. Edit: It’s a bit concerning that Rovers only transfer signing, winger, Doherty, is a sub for NI U19s. NI have, apparently, some promising players coming through (Linfield’s star academy players have moved to Everton and Arsenal this summer) but it seems the player may be well off from making a first team impact. He’s a young player who’ll deserve time, of course. However, unless the first team squad is improved, these players will possibly be relied upon at times.

I think a way to go about it might be to focus as much on the junior internationals and U21s as much as the seniors. If England are successful at the lower levels, that success will sooner or later translate higher. Clearly, the Premier League isn't providing the conveyor belt of English coaches/managers, so the FA might need to do it themselves. Though, keeping hold of them will be a challenge, if they're successful. It is rather short-sighted, I feel, to expect the seniors to be all conquering, if England aren't successful at the lower levels that many of the seniors will come through. Though, it's true, the best often by-pass youth level. I haven't followed it much but I believe the England youth internationals, including U21s, have been more successful in recent years, which hopefully is a sign. I remember yesteryear when no matter the big names England U21s had, they couldn't win tournaments. There was U21's Euro 2002 when David Dunn was given the captaincy and David Platt, the manager, suggested that Dunn might be the best player/midfielder in Europe. Inevitably, England disappointed and didn't make it out of a tough group, losing to Portugal and Italy. Portugal's Hugo Viana, made a mockery of any suggestion that Dunn was amongst Europe's elite. Though, ironically, Viana couldn't adapt to the Premier League's style when he made his big money move to Newcastle. Looking it up, that England U21 squad was incredibly strong on paper. Peter Crouch, Bobby Zamora and Scott Parker were on the bench at times, with Alan Smith, Gareth Barry and Jermaine Defoe starting. It's long been a stylistic and tactical problem for England to make a team out of talented, albeit, stylistically long ball oriented players - albeit, the stylistic gap is far closer these days, compared to the Premier League's era when every game was 100 miles an hour. Then, the team would step out to and be hit by the culture shock at international level where teams comfortably passed the ball around.

It seems to me you can rarely predict what's going on with the back-up goalkeepers at Rovers. In the Tranmere friendly, Rovers had Adam Khan as the understudy on the bench, with Hilton and Pears playing a game each. However, the fact Michalski is going to Austria (and has been on the bench before) suggests he is ahead in the pecking order. With Barrett being looked at, it would suggest that Eastham isn't in the picture, even though he has a year left to go on his contract, as far as I know. Hopefully, he'll get the transfer or the decent loan move he needs.

I think one of the warning signs was when Southgate selected Wharton. It suggested that the intense public scrutiny was getting to him, I think, because it was out of character for a defensive-minded, cautious manager. So, it turned out that Wharton would not play. Even if Rice had been injured, either Trent or Gallagher would've come in. Personally, I don't think this tournament was about individuals in the England team. It was a lack of an attacking strategy and set-up. The players who were fielded were good enough to put on a show, but they never did. Even an England 2XI, albeit, very inexperienced, would probably have done pretty ok in the tournament, if set-up correctly: Ramsdale, Trent, Konsa, Dunk, Eze, Gordon, Gallagher, Wharton, Bowen, Palmer, Watkins

Yes, really strong squad with excellent individuals but no effective system or mentality to bring them together. When they started doing something in the first half against Netherlands, it looked promising, but that 3-5-2 system wasn't taken up. The defence, however, was impressive and Guehi deserves all the credit, with Stones, for his tournament. I think it's fair to say that there is a dearth in quality in European football (players and, maybe, managers), compared to the past, and that's one of the reasons England's disjointed team made it to the final. The other reasons, I feel, were an excellent defence and, also, individual moments. There are one or two glaring weak points in the England squad, namely central midfield and left back. However, the overall quality should have been enough to put on some good performances. There were none - just fits and starts, between really negative and confused play.

Trialist, Jack Barrett - a 22 year-old goalkeeper released by Everton who went on loan to Canadian club last season? Could mean that Hilton is now the regular No.2, with Eastham and a newcomer serving as a back-up. Would be interesting to know if Rovers have made a decision on NI striker Jack Hastings who has been on trial. He seems to be promoted in the media and reportedly has interested several clubs. Edit: 2-0 defeat to Macclesfield, who had former player, Tre Pemberton playing. Two second half goals. Trialist goalie conceded a pen. Not a great start to pre-season for the U23s.

Listening to some commentators, I've found the argument quite compelling that England should be, in theory, seen as being as strong as Spain, if not, possibly, more so. The fact they are seen as underdogs is a reflection of poor management. If you consider the players England have and the depth in many areas, they really do have an abundant of riches. Yamal, after all is a 16 year old, and Nico Williams is a good winger but decent full backs are meant to be able to deal with wingers. If England had Foden, Rice, Bellingham and Kane emulating club form, or even 80% of club form, it would be a different team. Remember how people were all worried about the defence, pre-tournament, and confident about the forwards. It's as if the desperate under-performance of the attack has been normalised. As I was hearing from some pundits, other teams would dream of having options like Watkins, Toney, Eze, Palmer, Gordon on the bench. Spain have the technical edge but, with possible better management and performances, England would have an attack to fear.

Looking it up, Southgate was in the FA development role for 18 months. He had several years at U21s level, though and, I believe, had a great qualifying record, and won a Toulon tournament but crashed out of group stage in the 2015 U21 Euros Championship. I think Southgate has made a real contribution but I really think he has been very fortunate to come in in this era when the possession skills gap between England and other top nations has been all but closed. I reckon England fans should appreciate this high point, for a couple of tournaments, too because I think that the Premier Leagues return to hyper spending throttles England’s talent pool. I recall when Chelsea were under spending constraints, under Lampard, they were forced to play English talents and you saw, I think, Mount, James, Chalobah and others come through.

Maybe, to an extent, at U21 level but really the transformation, as far as I can tell, it is much more fundamental. There's long been a desire to make the English game more possession based and technical, so I'm sure credit goes to others too. But, at the surface level, it looks like Guardiola's City has had the most influence simply by dominating with a completely new style and approach. Maybe, there's an element of several factors coming together. It seems many have forgotten, but the England teams of Ferdinand, Beckham, Gerrard and Owen could not play even the dullard and negative possession football this England team have played most of the Euros. They had the technical ability to pass sideways and backwards endlessly but it simply was not in their cultural DNA. The game has transformed so much that the "genius" Jude Bellingham can be considered to have had a fair game, the other day, when literally all he did was stand and pass the ball back or sideways, and mis-control every difficult ball. He was a non-entity on the ball except in basic, ball retention but that is a net positive in this type of football. (To be fair, he also did the running and has a charisma which seems to help the team).

I don’t know who’s the best but you can’t judge Southgate without acknowledging the dramatic transformation in English club football inspired, particularly, by Spanish influence. The biggest difficulty for Gerrard, Lampard and Co. was not, I feel, cliques or substandard management (though, real) but that English football was long ball based. For whatever reason, international football is possession based and England couldn’t compete. Maybe, an analogy would be a grass court tennis player specialist trying to compete on clay or vice versa? Club styles have changed and English players have basically caught up (near enough) with rivals. It was very rare that England youth teams would ever win anything. They were so behind the technical level of teams. Now England, as far as I know, are more successful at youth level. Southgate has benefited greatly from this skill and mentality evolution from club level.

The squad is so talented but plays in fits and starts, with slow backwards passing and reactive play. The possession is negative and aimless. You saw England go back to it in the second half. I believe Shaw was told to restrict his game due to fitness and they switched to a 4-4-2, of sorts and the old problems of not being able pierce the midfield arose again. Some will celebrate wins regardless and I understand that. But when a superior side scrapes wins with negative play, I can’t really commend it much. If England played progressively and with intent, they would be winning by clear goals, I feel.

Looks like a negative switch to 4-4-2 by Southgate? With no left midfielder again.

It’s so simple, it’s painful. Run forwards. Pass forwards. It makes all the difference.

Their star player, if I’m not mistaken, was Leicester’s Theo Zagorakis.

Ian Wright suggested him after the first game. Regardless, I can’t fathom why the excellent players out there struggle to make forward passes.

The contract extension and, apparent, promotion of Saadi looks very strange. He’s barely played in the past year and been on loan to Marine. One to follow, I think.

There's such a cognitive dissonance between the hype built around football and the actual thing. It's probably been the case since forever but that Fra v Portugal game summed it up for me. A terrible advert for the game with ultra conservative keep ball and little quality or composure in the final third. There's such a contrast between the hype and promotion and the real thing that, on this basis, it's basically a scam.

Very fair point, and it's possible we could have got more, but Birmingham were wise/capable enough to reject advances in January and wait to the end of the season, I believe, before selling him. Despite the lowly league finish and being a teenager in his breakout season, he won Championship Apprentice of the Year and EFL Young Player of the Season. He was then sold for a reported 25 million with possible add-ons, as a seventeen year-old.

You have to remember that Wharton was in a struggling and dysfunctional side closer to the bottom of the league. He had not showcased his true abilities. Hence, why, as more-or-less everyone agrees, keeping him until the end of the season, at least, would have made more sense to attract more bidders. But, fair play to him, he hit the jackpot with an England call-up from it and I can't begrudge him that, especially, as he didn't militate for a move. If the club was run properly, we could console ourselves in the money being reinvested. We could also console ourselves if exciting talents were coming through, but aside from Finneran, whose future remains unclear and Tyjon, we may be hitting a trough. (I do have some hope that Garrett and, maybe, just maybe, Isaac Whitehall might both turn out to be decent).

I think that team looks promising, though tempted to have Toney in there. I think England are caught between possession football and something more direct. Having width on the left will make a big difference, however, I still maintain the problem is less personnel selections and more strategy. Foden could stay out wide. Saka could get the ball and whip crosses in, as Palmer does. But they don't and are trying to play like a Guardiola or Arteta side and failing. A really noticeable aspect of England's game is how they struggle to break the press of the opposition forward and midfield. With Stones, Walker and others in there, it's a surprise and I really don't full understand it. Somewhere, they are getting it wrong - perhaps, the midfield not positioning themselves right - because they surely have the technical ability to pass it out comfortably from the back.

IFAB Laws of the Game 2024/25 - Rule 5.2: "Decisions will be made to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws of the Game and the 'spirit of the game' and will be based on the opinion of the referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game." I believe the way rules are being amended and technology is being used, in some cases, is failing to uphold the "fairness" inherent to the spirit of the game. If technology doesn't support achieving fairness, then it shouldn't be used.

Agree, the 3-5-2 looked like a genuine shape, albeit, it was used only briefly. Hard to judge if it could work in the future but I did like the look of Harry Kane having support up front in the form of Toney. Also, Walker as CB seemed to suit him because going forward he seems to have all but given up (like Tripper).

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.