Whether he lucked into it or not, he's leaving an almighty task for the next bloke to even get close.

You're probably right, but after 3 semi finals out of 4,I'm sure there'll be a bit of interest from other national teams.

Ours was the "strongest" half of the draw, but we've come through it to reach the semis. If we do get anything which is seen to be "favourable", we've deserved it.

Aye well, we'd be unlucky to get this far then go out to Holland.

Pulling a perceived easier team out of a bag could be seen as lucky. England, France, Holland and Spain played who they played because of their results. England were drawn to potentially play France in the semis, the pre tournament favourites. I don't remember you saying they were unlucky. There seems to be this need to put Southgate's relative "success" down to luck, rather than acknowledge that he has actually done a more than adequate job.

Our side of the draw had England and France, the two pre tournament favourites,ours was the perceived "hardest" side of the draw .

The tournament is a pre determined route towards the final, results then determine who and when you play as you progress. That England wouldn't meet France until the final is due to both teams' results, not the consequence of being drawn out of a bag. It really isn't difficult to understand, any fixture is determined by the success or failure of each team,not by the luck of the draw.

Which translates to, no they wouldn't.

Would England have been unlucky if they'd finished second in their group, and ended up on the other side of the draw for the latter stages?

That, and reaching 3 out of the last 4 semi finals.

Amazing how many people won't accept the simple concept of football results determining the outcome of the fixtures.

Let me reverse the situation, would you say England had been unlucky if they'd finished second and had to go in the other side of the draw? I'll preempt your answer as no, England ballsed up for not winning their group.

France were in our half of the draw, England and France were pre tournament favourites despite the prospect of having to face each other ,there's a lot of amnesia knocking about. I suppose we'll see if they both reach the final and prove the bookies right.

We should have been playing France to get to the final, they were pre tournament favourites. It isn't England's "luck" that we aren't playing them, it is down to French failings.

We were drawn in the toughest half of the draw, England and France were pre tournament favourites. England did their job, France didn't. Like you say, you can't argue with how far he's got us in tournaments, then go on to argue it.

For those who constantly criticise him, it just makes me wonder what they said about every manager since Sir Alf. The bloke's done a fantastic job.

Hard to tell who they wanted, but they definitely didn't want Parker or Bellamy.

Not a very popular choice. The second person to win today with a small share of the vote ✖️

For Germany to get the penalty against Denmark, and not get that one, sums up everything that is wrong with the decision making.

Could do with a half season flexi ticket😁

Because of the smaller sell on percentage for Bellingham , it looks highly likely that, as and when Wharton is sold, we'll receive more for Wharton than Brum did for Bellingham.

No, pity. We're guessing they changed it because of England.

Thought it was Bristol City

We'll almost certainly reach the £22 million total. Because Rovers negotiated a much higher sell on percentage than Birmingham did for Bellingham, we'll get more for Wharton than Brum did. Apparently the Bellingham deal is the benchmark.

You can't say never, not enough I agree, but it isn't never.