KB1862

I love the back and forth banter between England and Germany. This is a great message.

It's a difficult one to judge. Even with the replays I saw both sides of the argument. I do understand why the penalty was given after the referee saw the footage back, it could seem a harsh one to concede but I think the main judgement from the referee was how high Dumfries foot was and the fact his studs caught Kane's foot with the angle he raised himself at. I'm not 100% certain that's a stance a defender would make to block a shot like that. The thing about this type of situation is that had a striker done that to a defender anywhere on the pitch, it's given as a free kick. As is usually the case, they say "anywhere outside the box it's a free kick". So if it's a free kick anywhere else on the pitch surely it's a penalty when it's inside the box? So based on this I think the correct decision was made. I do get the frustrations by the Dutch with this being given as we'd all be up in arms about it if it went against England. Had Kane not stayed down like he did, I don't think that's given as a penalty. But, football boots are super thin these days and when a stud collides with a players foot while they're connecting with the ball like Kane did, it probably was a painful one to take cause of the combination of the impact and thin boots catching on studs.

From the things I've heard about the lad, he sounds like a promising defender and could possibly be a welcomed addition to the club.

The game last night was by far England's best performance of the tournament, especially the first half. Dominated the midfield so much so that when Memphis Depay came off Ronald Koeman had to bring on another midfielder to regain some control in there. Phil Foden looked to be on form last night. He was closing down well, running with the ball well, making spaces for himself to receive a pass and get attacks going. He can feel hard done not to have scored. That little jinking run he had in the box deserved a goal but unfortunately got blocked on the line. His other effort from distance that hit the post was unlucky and would have been deserving of that goal had it gone in. After a good first half, thought the game was there for the taking. But whatever was said at half time or changed tactically, it hindered our performance. We looked a different side in the second half to what was out first half. We allowed Netherlands to get themselves back in the game, had shades of Croatia in 2018 and Italy in 2021 about it when we were comfortably dominating the game only to allow them a route back into the game with a chance. Fortunately that wasn't the case. Was it a penalty for Harry Kane? I understand why it was given and there is a case for it. Had it been awarded to the Netherlands of course we'd all be up in arms about it. Maradona handled it in 86, Beckham shouldn't have seen red in 98, Sol Campbell's goal should have stood in 2004 and Lampard's shot went over the line in 2010. So it was nice for us to get a little bit of luck. Even better when it was against a team led by Koeman. Payback for 1993 when he should have been sent off for the foul on Platt. Harry Kane had a better game, still not 100% convinced by him this tournament. The substitutions were, again, late but it proved to be good subs as Palmer linked up with Watkins to grab the winner. Watkins took his chance superbly well, I thought he had gone too wide but he someone managed to bang it in far post. I'm still not sure why Saka's goal was disallowed, Walker looked level to me on replays would have liked to have seen Var show the Semi automated offside replay of that one to settle it. Everything that happened in the game was something all of us England fans have wanted to see. 3 at the back, Mainoo in the midfield, Foden playing as a 10 and Harry Kane off for Watkins. Weghourst should have seen a yellow at least with some of his fouls. There were multiple of them worthy of being booked. But in terms of the Netherlands breaking and looking dangerous, I thought our defenders matched up to them especially Guehi. He's been superb this tournament and continued that last night. It was a great hit by Simons, take nothing away from the strike however I think it could have been avoided Rice was caught out needlessly and Walker perhaps could have closed him down sooner.

It's amazing how there are people commenting on how we're going to finish mid table or lower this season and that the manager will be gone before christmas based on this pre-season friendly. From what I heard of the game, there were a few good signs especially from the trialists as @ARLukomski has highlighted. But what is key to note about this pre-season game is that, it's not just about performance it's about players get match fit and ready for the season ahead.

Here's hoping that England will meet Spain in the final. I think Spain can be got at, Georgia got at them so to did France multiple times. Plus take how good the French back line has been this tournament, Spain didn't fully play their usual tiki taka game and at times couldn't break the defence down like they would normal, instead they went for diagonal long balls to get in behind. With that being said, England's defence has been well organised and I think we could nullify their game if we end up meeting them in the final.

All set for the game tonight. Dropped kids off at dance class and informed their dance teacher that I'll be fetching them earlier than usual tonight. It was either miss dance altogether, see out the whole dance lessons and I miss the football or miss just one lesson and be back for the football. Plus, my daughter doesn't mind missing one lesson cause "we can't miss the football tonight" ???? Would agree that it's quite possibly the goal of the tournament. Based on like you mentioned the importance of it plus it was a tremendous strike, no keeper was ever saving that. Gary Lineker has been raving about him all season tbf and I can see why, I just hope that they allow him to develop rather than hype him up too much and then it amounts to nothing as we've seen with many players in the past who had bright futures.

I think this is the take that the game will shape. I feel as though it will be the Netherlands who will take the game to us and force us to play. It's not necessarily a bad scenario because when we are forced to play, we can blow teams away as has been shown before but we shouldn't need another team to force us to play to our strengths so I'm hoping that we get going from the start and don't sit back on it. This could be a more open game than we've seen from either side so far in the tournament. Neither England nor the Netherlands have been exactly great throughout this tournament in terms of performances. Keep to the same system as the previous game and we can get at them. As @Robbie mentioned subs can make an impact and it could be that that turns the game. Hopefully he makes them earlier than he has previously, especially when things need freshening up if they do.

Thought there was potential in the lad but I wish him all the best and hope the transfer works out for him, seems like it could be a good move.

Think for sure Matty Palmer is the first point of call to take the armband.

It was inevitable that Langstaff would eventually be sold to a team higher up the divisions than us. He's been remarkable over the past 2 seasons, 71 goals in 97 games is an outstanding record irrelevant of level it's played at. Thought for sure that when he was given the armband, we'd at least have him for at least one more season. I hope that the fee for Macca is higher than is being reported or there are some decent add ons to go with the deal. But, I'm sure the owners have a player or 2 in mind to potentially come in as a replacement. All that's left to do now is watch a Macca goal compilation and wish him all the best going forward. ????

@Joshua You can understand the disappointment of going behind, no one likes to see their team go behind especially with the timing of their goal but the main thing was the performance. All fans wanted was the team to turn up to this tournament. Of course they want to get the win but given how they turned up finally and played good football that wasn't boring to watch, I don't think many would have come away too disappointed had we lost compared to how frustrated they'd have been had we lost and played like we did in the previous 4 games. It's good that England gave us all some joy and as you mentioned about fans backing the team confident that they'd come back into the game. Something we wouldn't have seen in the previous 4 games. I think the whole performance was benefitted by players playing in their natural positions, which also helped fans get behind the team that bit more. It feels like everything England fans wanted during this tournament was finally given to them for this game and it proved to be successful.

If we utilised Scott more than we have done, he could prove good for us. He may not provide the same amount of goals as Langstaff but he's capable of doing a job for us. But on the flip side who knows, if he's utilised more because Langstaff goes he may be able to fill them boots and more. It's going to be interesting to see. We've all said it for a while now, there's bound to be clubs higher up keeping tabs on him and he'll eventually be sold because of how good he's been for us and I agree it needs to be the right time but during this window and the chance to get extra additions, which if he's being sold the owners would have gathered ideas of replacements, you could say it's an ideal time if they're willing to sell.

The only thing that was lacking in the game for England yesterday was it was still a bit slow and the tempo needed upping. But, despite that, it was still a much improved performance. It was a performance we've been crying out for. The thing that is left to ponder is was it the fact that the formation changed allowing more width and fitting Bellingham and Foden as both number 10s or was it that because we was playing a more challenging team? I think it was a combination of both but more the tactical side of things. Agreed, all the penalties taken were exceptionally good. They didn't look nervous and they dispatched everyone of them brilliantly. Again, I agree on the point of Saka had a blinder. When I saw him and Trippier switch over their sides I wasn't pleased with it but he soon changed my mind as the game went on. They just couldn't cope with him on that right hand side. I didn't think Kane had the best of games once again. Something about him doesn't look right. His pressing game wasn't exactly fast and he didn't look like he wanted to challenge for any of the long balls that come his way. He allowed every single long ball to be won by the defender. Even when balls were delivered into the box, he wasn't getting into the right positions to get on the end of any of them where he is normally clinical. Bellingham and Mainoo were both good driving with the ball creating attacking opportunities. I feel a bit sorry for Konsa because he had a solid game at the back but I suspect that when Guehi returns from suspension next game, he'll be out and Guehi will be put straight back in. Can't fault putting Guehi back in as he has also been solid at the back for us.

Obviously Macca is our main man up top but I think we have capable players in that area like Jatta and Scott. They might not be able to do much of the job or grab as many goals as Macca has done but I think they're capable of filling that role. When Macca and Scott first arrived, there was talk that Scott was the more prolific of the 2. Scott has always been second fiddle behind Macca at Notts so maybe if he's given the chance to fill Macca's boots, he might provide us with the goals needed. As for Jatta, he's shown he's more than capable of both providing and scoring goals so starting with us from the start of the season, he could also be a player to chip in with the goals.

100% agree with you on this one. I've said this for a number of games now. He doesn't seem quite right at the minute. Perhaps he's carrying a knock or isn't quite up to speed with things. I also feel that his dropping deep hinders the team a little. Many times, especially in yesterdays game, the likes of Bellingham, Foden, Mainoo were all bypassing him and running in behind him. There was also a few occasions in which Saka got the ball into the box but Kane was nowhere to be seen to attack it. There was also multiple times in which Shearer on commentary said Pickford goes long and players need to get around Kane to support him but Kane didn't seem to challenge for any of the aerial battles. He didn't even seem like he wanted to press either, while Bellingham and a couple others pressed, Kane seemed half hearted to do that. The formation that we played last night is something in which we need to keep going forward. It offers so much attacking threat.

I've heard that medical has been completed by Macca at Milwall with the fee as many have said on this thread to be around the £700k mark with add ons included and will be announced tomorrow at some point. It's obviously disappointing to see Macca depart, especially considering he was given the captaincy thought for sure he would have stayed given that responsibility. Maybe the whole giving him the captaincy was to run the price up but that wouldn't make sense considering the fee of £700k doing the rounds is lower than the £2million many of us were expecting to be the region.

@liampie I see your point and I agree with you that lower teams should be given good fees. Unfortunately bigger clubs, who have the money at their disposal, take advantage of lower league clubs need for money that's why they often get players cheaper than they perhaps should. They could always negotiate a deal and some clubs manage to secure this like I believe Birmingham got handed a fee due to Jude Bellingham winning the Champions League with Real Madrid. However, negotiating a deal could lead to a bigger club pulling out of the deal which means that money that was needed by the lower club they won't be able to get. Gary Lineker has told a story about his transfer to Everton many times on his podcasts. Clubs unable to agree a fee would have to go to a tribunal and each manager would have to make a case of what they believe is a fair value for a player. Howard Kendall, manager of Everton at the time, said that Lineker wasn't as good as they made out and he'd probably sit on the bench most of the time. Because of this Everton paid a lower price than it should have been. Afterwards Lineker started doubting his move to which Kendall reassured him that he was gonna be his main striker and he only said all that to pay a lower fee.

I'm in the same mindset. I used to be into political matters and would vote but as the years have gone on, I began losing interest and faith. There's a few things I still keep an eye on in terms of politics but I don't get into it like I once did. My dog shredded my polling card anyway so probably wouldn't have been able to vote even if I chose to go.

Offering a membership is a good incentive to get people to attend games on a more regular basis. As someone who isn't able to attend many games, the price doesn't put me off I think given how rising costs have gone elsewhere, it's still an OK price to pay considering I'll only at best be able to make a handful of games per season.

@BromPie Agree. The only tweets I believe as truths before official confirmation are those made by Fabrizio Ramano as he is well informed and what he's tweeted or mentioned get officially confirmed days or weeks later. I know that's slightly off topic from the Brooks situation. On the loan front you've mentioned, how many more loans can we send him out for before he's given a chance or it's time to sell up as he's constantly out on loan? He most definitely should be considered as a future asset.

Gutted if it is the case that he's departing Notts. Been saying for a couple years now that he deserved some sort of opportunity at Notts especially last season given our goalkeeping woes. Even if he doesn't play regular football and is used as a back up, it would still be useful to have for that just incase moment of a red card, injury or even replacing an out of form keeper.

I've been keeping a close eye on this "PSR deadline" situation that's been going on and honestly I don't see an issue with it. Clubs make a pure profit on selling their young players so if a club comes in to buy one of them and is willing to pay an inflated price then it's not the problem of the selling club. I think it's a good thing that clubs like Villa, Newcastle and Everton who are involved in this situation have managed to find this loophole. Newcastle and Aston Villa, despite making the Champions League (Newcastle last season, Villa this season), were told they must sell players to be able to sign players. It seems like a very unfairly flawed situation that clubs can achieve such things only to have to sell their best players to avoid breaking FFP rules. The Premier League has been so much for this whole Profit and Sustainability rulings so if this loophole clubs have found allows them to maintain financial security avoiding breaking rules and making losses then why should they be concerned with it and intervene? The fact that the Premier League have come out and said they will impose a block on transfers if they believe the fee is inflated is ridiculous. As I mentioned earlier in this post, if a club wants to pay an inflated price then that's down to them. It should be the decision of a club and it's owners not by the Premier League. It seems like the Premier League are starting to show their colours and favouring the "big 6" by investigating this. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cx724w5v641o https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5111jg2r3yo https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cj7dk73p441o As well as that article @Piethagoram posted about, here's a few others.

Precisely this, we need to get out of the mentality of soaking up pressure when we go a goal ahead. Serbia and Denmark we became second best in both games after going 1-0 up, should be looking to build momentum and go for goals 2 and 3 secure the game. In the past this strategy has cost us. As for the other point about where the tactic come from, it has to be a Southgate instruction. Now I'm not saying this to blame Southgate as such but if it was a one off situation where England went 1 goal up and then dropped so deep to defend and soak up pressure than I'd say the players have taken it upon themselves to do that but considering it's happened on 3 occasions like the extra time against Slovakia you mentioned despite going ahead early in extra time, it has to be down to Southgate instructing this.