We'll be having Rudy on our podcast, so if anyone wants to post questions they'd like asked we'll be happy to put them to him. No gotcha questions. Nothing rude. We're going to try to get a clearer understanding of what his role is. What the infrastructure of the club now looks like.

I think 'disgraceful' is an incredibly strong way to describe it. He's been a long way off his best, but he still contributes to the side in terms of the work he puts in defensively. I found it interesting that there were glowing remarks surrounding Morata's effort for Spain against France. It was a performance that almost perfectly resembled what Kane does for England. Often isolated up front, but does wonderful work tracking back, contributing defensively, and dropping into midfield. That effort comes at a cost and often means he's not in the areas of the pitch that you want him to be, but it's still useful effort. He's also not been helped by quality service in most matches. Even in the Switzerland match, where some examples were highlighted of him not gambling on a couple of balls Saka put across the face of goal, you can actually argue that he had dropped into excellent space around the penalty area but Saka failed to get his head up and instead blindly hit a ball into a 'good' area.

Yep, anyone who thinks otherwise has not been watching enough football over the past 5 years. I could find a similar example being given across major leagues in Europe every weekend.

I wasn't 'dissing' anything. I was responding to your original comment that their international record was 'far superior' to England's. A statement that certainly isn't true over the last 40 years, but is even questionable over the last 100. The only reason you might think it, which is sort of my point, is because you were probably around the perfect age to really enjoy a great Dutch side of the 1970s. So, it's possible that my 'youth' might actually be providing me with more perspective. I won't even get started on your thoughts on the penalty from last night; however, it is true that it wouldn't have been given as a penalty in 1974.

Since 1988 England have appeared in 2 world cup semifinals, two Euro finals (including this one), and one Euros semifinals (plus a host of quarterfinals in both records). You really want to tell me that record over the last 36 years is better? Compare and contrast. For all the 'great and successful footalling nation' talk, where would you rank them? In Europe, clearly behind France, Germany, Spain, and Italy in terms of pedigree and success. Then certainly behind Brazil and Argentina outside of Europe. Those are all givens. Maybe lessen your adjectives as we aren't then even moving into the the countries that would then produce debate (England, Uruguay, etc.). I'm 37. Not sure I can put myself in the 'youth' category anymore.

No luck with that penalty. It was absolutely stonewall based on how the laws are interpreted these days. Neville and the defenders union can lament the fact that it is harsh on defenders - which it may well be - but that doesn't change the fact that it is consistently given as a penalty across Europe now. It was reckless, it was studs up, and it impeded Kane's follow-through. The fact that no one on the ITV commentary team initially thought that it was a penalty shows that they probably don't pay enough attention to modern football. Zero luck. Penalty every day of the week until the laws or instructions given to referees are changed. *Sort of. They beat Germany in extra time, I'm not sure you can really count that as a win, although I know that stat has been bandied about.

It wasn't ignorance, I could list every winner and finalist of the World Cup, but it doesn't change the relevance. I don't consider Uruguay to be a great international footballing nation, but they've won a World Cup and lost in a final. That was before your time, so you probably don't add the same weight or significance to their success that you might to the performances from the Netherlands that you witnessed. The Dutch team of the 1970s was certainly one of the greatest of all-time and they did a lot to help revolutionize the game of football with their approach, but it's long enough ago that it's purely historical. I feel the same way about England winning the World Cup in 1966. Great for the history books, but not even remotely relevant to what happens on a football pitch nowadays. The Netherlands, much like England, are a team that have mostly been living in the past for the last 3/4 decades. The Southgate era has been changing that for England, but the Netherlands have yet to have a true resurgence (one appearance in a World Cup final aside). The answer wasn't meant to be smart. "Age" doesn't always translate into wisdom.

Some people just want to be miserable.

Maybe in your lifetime, not in mine.

When have the Dutch won anything in recent memory? 1988? Hardly recent.

Not to defend Venkys (I want them gone as much as the next person), but I suppose the bond situation could be a bit complicated. Say they send us 5m for the running of the club and we then go and sign a player for 4m. Is a court likely to look favourably on that? Even if they can point to running costs, there's a chance that it could be seen as them funding a transfer which would fall outside of the essential elements that they may be allowed to fund at this point. Now, the counter to that is that they are more than wealthy enough to risk losing 10-20m to keep funding this club in the way that a proper owner should. But they aren't proper owners.

At this rate we will have about 16 first team players by the time the season kicks off. It's easy to dismiss sales of squad players, but we are seeing the gradual reduction in quality across our entire squad. It's impossible to not be concerned by this number of departures when there are no signs of anyone new joining.

You do make your own luck to a certain extent. England have had easier draws by mainly winning their groups - something they often failed to do in the pre-Southgate era. They've also benefited from the expansion of tournaments leading to weaker groups and weaker early knockout stages. But I think we sometimes go overboard in dismissing some of England's opponents. Switzerland were good enough to totally outclass Italy, but it's a meaningless win for Southgate. Germany in the last Euros weren't any good. Colombia aren't up to scratch. Denmark, Senegal, and others were all pushovers. England pre-Southgate would have lost AT LEAST one of those matches - regardless of the talent available. Beating weaker opponents is one of the signs of being a very good side. Yes, England have tripped up against equal or tougher opponents, but only the Croatia match stands out as an example of a team that England really should have been beating (and they're still very talented and experienced). This semifinal and potential final will determine how the Southgate era is viewed, but I sometimes think that England fans don't know how good they've got it at the moment. Recent tournaments have seen sides like Germany, Spain, Italy, and others experience total embarrassment, yet England supporters are critical because we're ONLY making a semifinal and not doing it in the style that they had hoped for.

I wouldn't write England off against that Spanish side. England are better than France in virtually every department and France caused Spain plenty of issues over the course of the 90 minutes. Spain look very good and they're the in-form side of the tournament, but they still have a donkey up front and aren't great at the back. Carvajal being back will help sure them up defensively, but they still leave a ton of space in behind and England should be able to exploit that if they set themselves up correctly. On the Morata subject, it is interesting that he was being praised for doing all of the things that Kane gets criticised for. Dropping back, helping out defensively, basically becoming part of the midfield. He did a good job of winning cheap free kicks towards the end of the match, but he was anonymous aside from that. I don't think that match was any better than Portugal v France. It just had goals. But it does stand out in a tournament starved of enjoyable matches. Both the Netherlands and England will fancy their chances against Spain. It's the final of a major tournament, no one would expect to have an easy match.

I mean, that just isn't true. He had an injury early in the season and that allowed a couple of other players to stake a claim, but he's been a mainstay in a City side that have been the best in Europe for several seasons. There's a reason why they've been happy to let other centrebacks leave in that time period. He's also clearly in the best possible line-up and used in big matches whenever fit.

He does speak really positively about the club, but he's already attracting interest and it appears that it was a struggle to get him to sign on this time. It's difficult to imagine that he won't opt for the easier move and the big pay rise if there are offers on the table from some decent sized to big Premier League clubs.

Think you are underrating Stones and I'm not sure you can make a strong case for a better England goalkeeper than Pickford over the last 20/30 years. This current England squad has more talent and depth in midfield and attack, but is currently a bit weaker defensively.

England would be slaughtered, France would point to some mitigating factors. They would, rightfully, point out that England have more talent. They would also use the Mbappe injury as an explanation for his poor form (so far). It's a French team that is lacking a lot of star power in key positions and relying on some ageing players in others.

He probably doesn't. His Rovers career will probably be very similar to that of Ashley Phillips'. Hopefully, everyone involved at Rovers is driving home the difference in the career development of Phillips versus Wharton, but we will probably see him snapped up by a Premier League club before he plays much for us and before we can get much money for him.

Two matches away... England go in as favourites against a decent Netherlands side and then we'll have to see who they might face in the final. Spain would be an issue as it could see England sit deeper and deeper. France would be an interesting test as it would be two sides struggling to get out of their own halves.

And Igor Tyjon possibly playing some kind of role in the first team this season. I thought Telalovic was unlucky not to be used at all in the second half of the season, but I would rather see Tyjon get 10-15 minutes here and there over Telalovic

Exactly. He'll be open to everything as he won't want to appear negative about whatever he ends up with. He'll know that there's a chance that both will resign and he will have no real say in the matter, so why would he want to be on record saying that he didn't really want them? He'll have seen what happened to JDT. He's here to be a yes man and he'll be fantastic at it - it's the only part of the job description that really matters at this point.

I do think it impacts the overall market though. Clubs higher up are less likely to make moves until the tournament is over and that has a knock-on effect on clubs lower down. We won't know exactly which players are available on loan or on less expensive deals and even smaller clubs that we might be buying from will be holding out to see how the market develops once the tournament has wrapped up. You can see that there's been very little transfer movement across the league.

There are a couple of factors that do play into that though. Southgate acknowledged early on in his tenure that the focus was being on defensively solid as they'd analysed previous tournament winners and identified that defensive teams tended to do better. What bothers me slightly about him is that he isn't sticking to his guns and driving that point home when facing criticism. The other issues that he faces are that the overall quality of international football has rapidly improved over the last 20 years and most teams are struggling to play expansive football. The football has been awful and his refusal to make substations before the 70th minute or bring in more in-form players are both definitely a problem, but he has still turned England from a side that never really got past the quarterfinals into a team that now consistently makes the latter stages of tournaments. France have been worse to watch, but their players and French supporters as a whole have accepted that the be-all and end-all are the results. There are no medals for playing pretty football and losing in the quarterfinals and people will forget boring football when you're lifting the trophy on July 14th.

Doubt it, he has much the same image as Southgate - although he's missing all of the benefit of the culture change. France are just as negative and he's not much love in France, but he is respected for the success that he has brought. He may get a gig somewhere in Ligue 1, but he wouldn't be hired anywhere else.