A few thoughts after the World Cup Quarter-Finals

Hey, Jude.... 

A slightly dull round...

After such a thrilling tournament, with so many 'surprises' in it, it does feel like something of an anti-climax to have a round where everything pans out pretty much exactly as expected. The only real exception was Belgium, who were much better than I'd expected, and managed to give Spain a little bit of a scare by scoring the first goal they have conceded in this tournament - but were eventually overpowered. And Switzerland gave Argentina a damn good fight, forcing them into extra-time. But the other two challengers, Morocco and Norway, both showed a disappointing lack of ambition, and produced their weakest performances of the competition. 

Prospects for the semi-finals

But these results have set up a fascinating pair of semi-final ties: the 'old enemies' of Argentina and England pitched against each for the fifth time in a World Cup, and the two favourites, France and Spain, facing off in a premature final. It's not often that we actually get the best four teams all advancing to the semis, but this year, somehow, it's happened. (Well, OK, I wouldn't necessarily rate England as the fourth best team in this tournament, even with Bellingham's supernatural contributions: I really think Morocco and Colombia and Norway have, mostly, looked much better, and arguably Cabo Verde too; and Mexico and the USA were much better in the group stage. However, these are the top four teams in the FIFA rankings, so the 'seeding' for the tournament has worked out perfectly.)

France will be facing a real challenge for the first time, as Spain probably won't allow them to have much of the ball. But Spain's finishing has often been quite poor so far, with Oyarzabal blowing somewhat hot-and-cold. And Yamal hasn't yet shown that kind of 'I don't care if the rest of my team isn't very good, I'm going to win this game on my own' mentality that we've seen from Messi and Bellingham (and Mbappé; although his motivation to produce at that level is less acute, since France are actually a really good side) - so, I'm expecting that France will win it, but perhaps only narrowly, and it might well go into extra-time.

I am similarly expecting Argentina to prevail, narrowly, over England. But that one will almost certainly depend on the pair of star players who have been carrying the two teams in this tournament. I think Argentina-without-Messi are better than England-without-Bellingham, but if those two are playing at the top of their game, the result will probably turn on which of them can produce the bigger performance on the night. It should be a great watch.

Bellingham v Messi

One of the things that is marking this out as probably the greatest tournament ever is the truly astonishing form that these two players have been showing. They've both regularly been achieving a god-level of performance, single-handedly dragging their fairly mediocre teams to the brink of the Final. It is all the more remarkable to be seeing this from Messi, who is well past his prime and really ought not to be capable of dominating a tournament like this any more. Whatever happens in these last few games, seeing two such phenomenal players achieving such heights at the same time has been a remarkable privilege - something all football fans should cherish forever.

Mind you - much as I strive not to succumb to foolish, painful optimism about England's prospects, I have always fancied that 2026 ought to be 'our year',.... if only because it fits so well with the scansion of the song: "Sixty years of hurt... never stopped me dreaming...." [I only just found out Ed Sheeran's done a new variation on the beloved classic for this tournament. Feels a little bit sacrilegious - the original Lightning Seeds anthem with Baddiel & Skinner is so iconic; although the update they did for '98 World Cup in France was arguably even better.]

More 'controversies'?

The online hordes on the Fantasy Football forums display two ridiculous vices: they only 'notice' decisions which go against the team they like, and these decisions are always deemed to be obviously 'wrong' and 'unjust' and even 'corrupt'. I often try to gently point out to them that something is not a 'controversy' simply because they disagree with it. But many of the mainstream media outlets add fuel to these fires with silly clickbaity headlines listing the supposed 'controversies' in the latest round of matches.

Norway appeared to have taken the lead again when Heggem lashed home a corner 10 minutes into the second-half; but Haaland had clearly shoved Anderson to the ground just before the corner came in, so it was quite rightly disallowed: no 'controversy' there. There was also a claim that goalkeeper Nyland's clearance had brushed one of the cables supporting the overhead 'spidercam' immediately before Bellingham equalised on the stroke of half-time. If such a contact did occur, it had no material effect on the flight of the ball - so, I don't feel it can really be considered any sort of injustice; the handful of Norwegian players who insisted they'd seen this contact were in a tiny minority in the stadium, and appeared to be just clutching at straws. None of the officials saw this, there were no still or video pictures clearly showing that it happened, and FIFA insist that the in-ball sensor did not register any such contact - so, in effect, it simply 'didn't happen' (even if it did; only a handful of people think they saw it, and there is no independent evidence to corroborate their appeal). Again, that's hardly a 'controversy'. Norway deserved to lose because they sat back and allowed England to have the ball for long periods; and they wasted the few chances that they did create.

Switzerland had lost momentum again, after the sustained period of pressure that got them back in the game, and were starting to look like they were just hanging on rather than actually going after the game to win it - before the Embolo sending-off. So, although an incident like that obviously had a negative impact for them, it's hard to argue that its effect on the game outcome was really decisive; Argentina were simply the better side. And it was an obviously correct decision: Embolo was guilty of a ridiculously exaggerated dive; and it was his second yellow-card offence, so he had to go. The only element of 'controversy' here concerns the manner in which the decision was reached. The referee had originally interpreted the incident as a foul by Paredes and given him a yellow card. VAR intervened, citing the 'Mistaken Identity' rule - but that is only supposed to cover cases where the referee erroneously shows a card to someone other than the player who committed the perceived foul, not to cases like this where the referee misinterpreted the foul. It's hard to complain about this too much (unless you're the Swiss coach!!) as justice was clearly done - but there does seem to be some doubt as to whether correct protocol was followed by the VAR team.

Of course, most of the world was rooting for these 'underdog' teams, so it rankles when they appear to have suffered some tough breaks. But Embolo clearly did deserve to be sent off; and it didn't really appear to affect the course of the game very much anyway. And the Norwegians really didn't have much of a leg to stand on with their two complaints about goals scored or not scored. So, 'controversies'?? Not really.

The fatuousness of the FIFA 'conspiracy theories'

We see this ridiculous bias in counting up grievances against the offiating - only decisions against the team I like are worth noticing and remembering, all such decisions are obviously and inevitably wrong - in the case of Argentina, who are now widely derided online as being at the centre of a comprehensive FIFA conspiracy to ensure that Messi wins the Cup for a second time. These dingbats now tally up the number of 'injustices' in Argentina's favour to include every penalty they've been awarded (all four of them pretty unarguably correct), the Messi foul on Algerian right-back Aissa Mandi in the opening game (he clumsily stepped on to the back of his calf, but with zero force, zero follow-through - it probably should have been a yellow card, but it was nowhere near a red card offence), and the two disputed goals in the Egypt game (similar, but conclusively different circumstances in the two incidents; again, tough though they were to accept for Egyptian and neutral fans, both decisions looked unarguably correct); all incidents where the detractors insist that the referees were wrong - with no foundation to their argument at all.

But of course, these loonies then take it a step further, and maintain that not only are all these unjustly favourable decisions racking up to Argentina's advantage, but that they are being orchestrated to this end - that FIFA is repeatedly seeking to 'rig' their matches. They omit to consider how many other factors are having a major impact in games - how do FIFA ensure that Messi is playing such god-like football, how do they ensure that Julian Alvarez can score one of the goals of the tournament to avoid having to face a penalty shootout with Switzerland? They can't, they aren't; Argentina are progressing on merit.

Probably some wrong decisions have been made in this World Cup, some perhaps in Argentina's games. But none of the headline 'controversial' decisions the conspiracy theorists cite appear to be anything other than straightforwardly correct. And when mistakes do happen, they are more likely the result of simple human frailty rather than conscious bias, or wilful corruption.

The one area where some kind of a case could be made for Argentina having received 'favourable treatment' is in the small number of yellow cards they have received - with Messi, in particular, appearing to be utterly card-proof (this was even more conspicuously the case in the last World Cup in Qatar, where he committed several clumsy challenges which could have been eligible for a yellow card - including two in the same game on one occasion - yet he wasn't shown even one in the whole tournament). But this is probably the result of a natural human sympathy rather than orchestrated match-fixing. It is entirely likely, unavoidable, that referees may tend to be a little more lenient to the best teams and the best players. Argentina - strangely - have not been a very physical or 'dirty' team in this tournament so far; they haven't needed to be, as they're tending to have the lion's share of possession most of the time, and so they're not having to go chasing after the ball very much - hence, an impressively low number of fouls and yellow cards. (They probably should have picked up one or two more cards than they have, but it's hardly a glaring bias in their favour.) And Messi, of course, is a notoriously mild-mannered and affable player, always well in control of his emotions; he can occasionally be a bit clumsy or over-eager in his challenges, but he's not a very physical player, and he almost never evinces any sign of aggression or petulance. So... he's not the kind of player referees are inclined to give cards to; if you have the reputation of being a bit of a 'hard man' or a thug, you're far more likely to receive a yellow card for a challenge that might be only borderline card-worthy; whereas, if you're a player like Messi, you're quite likely to be let off the occasional quite bad foul, because the referee appreciates that it was untypical, an unfortunate accident, not likely to be repeated. There's nothing very surprising or 'unfair' about that. And it's not as if Argentina and Messi are the only beneficiaries of this sort of leniency: Mbappé hasn't been booked either, and England have received remarkably few yellow cards in the tournament so far.

For me, however, the most ludicrous part of the prevalent 'conspiracy theory' is the total lack of motivation for it. Messi is 'yesterday's man' as far as FIFA are concerned. He'll almost certainly be retiring this week, from international football at least, if not from football altogether. (I'm sure he won't want to limp on into his forties and become a laughing-stock, as has unfortunately happened with Cristiano Ronaldo.)  He's been the leading draw in the game for the past decade-and-a-half, but the baton is being passed on now. FIFA does not have some weird sort of homo-erotic fetish for Messi; their interest is solely in consolidating their brand and maximising their revenues from sponsorships, ticket sales, TV rights, etc. They are interested in narratives that promote those ends. Messi has been their trump card for a long time now; but that stops with this tournament. They are surely now going to be far more interested in building up the 'legend' of Jude Bellingham or Kylian Mbappé; and if there were any 'match-fixing' going on at this stage, it would be more likely directed against Argentina than for them.

Fantasy dilemmas for the Semi-Final round

Since the 'favourites' all got safely through the quarter-finals, most of us are left in a not-too-bad condition with our squads ahead of the penultimate MatchDay. I only lost 4 players from mine (although I had taken the chance of leaving 3 blank spaces on my bench). This means that I can probably get by without using my Wildcard (if France and Spain had both been eliminated, I would have had to), and can keep it up my sleeve for the Final (although I probably won't need it there either, and it will have proved to be superfluous).

Fantasy points don't always correlate very well to actual individual and team performances, but... I think it is rather telling this year, powerful evidence that England are much the weakest of the four semi-finalists, that apart from Bellingham and Kane, none of their players has averaged above 4 points per game. Even though they've come through three knockout rounds and are on the brink of an historic appearance in the Final, it's really a bit of a struggle to think of any players apart from the 'big two' that you'd want in a Fantasy squad. Maybe Saka, if you could rely on him starting; maybe Rice, for the chance of an assist from a corner; maybe Anderson for 'tackles' points, or Pickford for saves....? But I'd only go for one of those options, not more... and only if I felt fairly confident that they would get past Argentina to play again in the Final - and I'm afraid I don't. But things aren't much better with Argentina: who do you want, apart from Messi? Maybe Emi Martinez or one of the defenders, maybe Julian Alvarez or Enzo Fernandez?? So, I'm looking at a 5-3-3-2 split across France, Spain, Argentina, and England - with a couple of non-playing 'enablers' still on my bench (Kobel and Dest!). And I'm going to risk my last booster chip, the 'Maximum Captain', in this round rather than the Final (only one opportunity to rotate the captaincy in this round, and a large number of potential contributors that you thus might miss out on).

It is a pity that France and Spain have to face-off in this penultimate round. I think they are clearly a class above either of the teams in the other semi-final, and whoever wins this tie should go on to lift the trophy relatively comfortably. So, I want to go in fairly heavily for their players, expecting that they'll do well for me in the Final too. (If I'd had another Free Transfer to spare, I would probably have gone for Unai Simon as a back-up keeper, in case France should be the ones to go out and I lose Mike Maignan.)  But you really don't want to go anywhere near the maximum quota of 6 players per country at this point; even going to 5 with France is a bit of a big risk. I could potentially lose 8 players, including my only keeper, if France and Argentina go out; so, I'd probably resort to my Wildcard then. But I'm hoping I might only lose 5 players, and be able to leave it unused. If I didn't have that Wildcard in hand, I probably would have left 1 or 2 more spaces on my bench, and settled for a 4-4-3-3 or a 4-4-2-2 distribution, so that the 6 Free Transfers for the final would have been enough to rebuild my starting lineup, whatever the semi-final results.

The imponderable wrinkle for the last phase of the tournament is that the Third Place Play-Off game is also part of MatchDay 8 alongside the Final. (A lot of Fantasy managers seem to be playing their 'Qualification Bonus' chip in this round, in the deluded belief that everyone is guaranteed to 'qualify' for another game - sorry, folks, it doesn't work like that: getting into the consolation game is not 'qualifying'!)  This should at least mean that you're not really 'losing' any players, regardless of the semi-final results. But in practice, of course, teams tend not to take the play-off game very seriously, and often field a second-string team; so, there's no way to know how competitive this game might be, what the most likely result is, or even who's going to start in it - so, for Fantasy purposes, it is best avoided; you really want a full squad (or at least a full starting eleven; you don't really need a bench for a single match) playing in the Final.

I rather fear that both games could largely turn out to be tactical stalemates - all teams being a bit over-cautious because of the magnitude of the occasion, and largely cancelling out each other's threat with an emphasis on ball retention and defending deep. It would be nice if we could see an early breakthrough goal in both games - that might force the opponent to open up more, and perhaps see the games develop into end-to-end ding-dongs. I'd like to hope that we might see a thrilling pair of 3-3s or 4-4s, but dour 1-1s seem much more likely. Either way, I fear both games might have to be decided by penalty shootouts - I really hope not, but that's what my gut is telling me at the moment. We shall see.

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!!!

Five Levels of Self-Delusion

 

I rather fear that England's football fans may be some of the most obnoxious and objectionable in the world. It is one of the reasons why I abandoned the country to set out on my globetrotting adventures 30-odd years ago.... and I have seldom been back since. But, of course, you can never completely escape them. In just about every sports bar I've ever visited in Asia, the most loudmouthed, offensive, unreasonable punter in there is almost invariably a Brit (in fact, 9 times of out 10, it seems to be a Spurs fan;... but that's another story). And now, of course, they're all over the online forums too.

It would have been nice to be able to enjoy a rare moment of success for England, the gruelling victory in the Azteca stadium yesterday morning, without having to suffer all of these dingbats crowing about how we trounced the host nation and it was a thoroughly dominating performance, and.... all manner of other horseshit. I even saw one poor lamb today averring that it was the best England performance in the World Cup since 1966; I can only assume that he's less than 30 years old and thus has nothing in his memory to compare it to. An important win is not necessarily the same as a great performance. (And, alas, all too often for us a great performance has not been rewarded with victory. Our defeats to Argentina in the 1986 quarter-final and to Germany in the 1990 semi-final were by far the best England performances I've seen in the tournament.)

Now, to be fair, I think this was much our best performance yet in this tournament (though that is fairly faint praise), and included many elements that should be greatly encouraging: Pickford emphatically getting his mojo back, Saka being fit again at last, Bellingham continuing to look as if he's a man determined to steal Messi's last Ballon d'Or. And our determination and discipline in defence was especially impressive, as we grimly clung on to our narrow lead with only 10 men. Many online commenters have also asserted that it was part of Tuchel's gameplan to surrender the bulk of possession to Mexico, confident that they weren't incisive enough to hurt us too much (that was surely the case in the opening period; but not thereafter - I fear they were just better than us at keeping the ball).

And I have an inkling that the manner of this victory, the huge flood of relief at having managed to pull it off in such demanding circumstances, may prove to mark a decisive momentum-change for us, giving us the emotional boost we need to kick on and play better, more successful football from here on. (Although, I am also anxious that our players won't be able to completely recover physically before our quarter-final against Norway. By the end of the game in Mexico City, both teams looked utterly, utterly knackered, and I really don't think any of them could have played 30 minutes of extra time. After all the thunderstorms in the vicinity earlier in the day, the humidity in the stadium was apparently up around 85%, and all the players were completely drenched, perspiration dripping off their faces, from the opening minutes. I think that might have been one of the sweatiest games of football I have ever seen!)

However, having given credit where it is due,.. I cannot countenance all of this absurd hyperbole that instantly sprung up around the game - how the result was so thoroughly deserved, how we had completely outplayed our opponents.

We did not. Mexico - even before Quansah's (entirely uncontentious) sending-off - had had the lion's share of possession. Overall, they saw twice as much of the ball as us, and created nearly five times as many attempts on goal (the majority of those actually before the sending-off; we contained their threat much better once we'd 'parked the bus'). But for some uncharacteristically 'off' finishing in crucial moments from Raul Jimenz, and a couple of absolute world-class saves from Jordan Pickford, Mexico might have won fairly comfortably. In fact, but for Jude Bellingham's astonishing last-gasp clearance when Cesar Montes had been presented with an open-goal opportunity at the far-post to equalise at 2-2, seconds before the half-time break - I feel fairly sure Mexico would have gone on to win in the second-half, even without the Quansah sending-off.

Moreover, Nico O'Reilly was very, very fortunate not to have become our second sending-off, when he petulantly flicked out an elbow at Jorge Sanchez's face just before the second drinks break (it doesn't matter that it 'wasn't that hard', or 'barely made contact'; you can't usually get away even with making a gesture like that). And we clung on to our precarious lead by our fingernails for the whole of the last half-hour, resorting to a 5-4 low-block - and even taking Kane off in the closing minutes to bolster the defensive ranks even further.

And the thing that soured me most about our victory was that during that siege of our penalty area in the closing stages of the game, we resorted to peak Arsenal tactics of wrestling opponents in the box every time they had a set-piece delivery, practically ripping the shirts off their backs on a few occasions. We committed more than enough holding fouls to have conceded 2 or 3 more penalties, but the referee and the VAR team were mysteriously sleeping, and we were allowed to get away with every single one of them.

So, all this talk of 'deserved' and 'dominant' quickly began to rankle with me. You can celebrate a success without being dismissive of your opponent's performance in a game. If England lose a game in circumstances like this, we whinge about it for the next 50 years. So, it seems to me to be only fair to acknowledge that on this occasion our gallant opponents were somewhat hard done-by. Yes, we played well; but all the breaks went our way as well - and without that, we wouldn't have won.

After an hour or so perusing the Internet forums yesterday, I concluded that we could attempt a classification of just how out-of-touch England fans were being in their assessments of this game. So, I give you.....

The Five Levels of Self-Delusion 

(about the Mexico v England game)

Level 5: England fans who insist we must have been the 'better' team simply because we ended up with (narrowly) more goals. [Football 101: the final scoreline is not always an accurate indicator of desert.]

Level 4:  England fans who 'didn't see' any of the numerous holding offences we committed in the later stages of the match, simply because the BBC commentary declined to draw attention to them.

Level 3:  England fans who think Nico O'Reilly did nothing wrong - because the Mexican had it coming to him, or similar. ['Retaliation' is not a defence, lads.]

Level 2:  England fans who don't even think Mexico should have got the penalty that was awarded to them. [A 'thought experiment': imagine Harry Kane is in the opposition box, raises his leg high to meet a falling ball and gets there first, but a defending player behind him decides to try to kick the ball anyway and instead kicks through the back of Harry's calf with full force. What would you say then? Eh, Mr Shearer??]

Level 1 (the most extreme form of this mania):  England fans who don't even accept the Quansah sending-off!! (They are depressingly numerous.)

It is astonishing and dispiriting how the environment of 'anonymous' discussion on the Internet seems to lead people into a total loss of any sense of objectivity. So many England fans are intent on spinning themselves this fantasy narrative about how this was the most wonderful, wonderful England performance ever and Mexico were hardly in the game. And they will rapidly get surly and abusive with anyone who rains on their parade by daring to point out any facts inconsistent with this comforting lie they want to keep on telling themselves.

All I'm arguing for is a little bit of balance and open-mindedness. I'm an England fan, I like to see us do well. I'm pleased that we have progressed to the quarter-finals. But I resist the pressure to buy into this absurd narrative that every important victory must also necessarily have been a flawless performance and our finest moment ever. There were still a lot of problems in this performance, and we've certainly had many finer moments. And I do find it difficult to exult about a victory in a game where we really should have had a second player sent off, and should have conceded another penalty.

Thoughts on the World Cup 2nd Round

 

It has continued to be a colourful and thrilling tournament, with the underdog teams continuing to show a lot of fight, and - in at least a few cases - proving to be much better than most people had expected. (I scarcely find the time to even watch much of England's qualifying campaign, and know next to nothing about almost anyone else's - certainly not any of the teams from outside Europe. But I suppose we should assume that, now that Africa is a pretty strong footballing continent, any team that qualifies out of one of the African groups is probably fairly decent - even if it is a tiny island group with an official population of barely 500,000....)  And Round 2, though it contained more goalless encounters and slightly fewer goals overall than Round 1, still produced an average of 2.75 goals per game - including quite a few absolute belters.

Some of the most fancied contenders - Spain, Brazil, Portugal, Holland, and Switzerland - 'woke up' rather, after very subdued performances in their opening games. Turkiye, South Korea, Belgium, Senegal, Scotland, and Ecuador, alas, did not - although all could still qualify. (If I have one gripe about the new expanded format for the tournament, it is that, with only 4 of the 12 third place teams being eliminated, there's too little jeopardy in this group phase; few, if any, of the 'big names' are in any real danger of going out until the knockout games begin.) 

And England.... stumbled rather, in a frustratingly sterile goalless stalemate with Ghana. We played about 20 minutes of excellent football in the opening game against Croatia, but have looked pretty mediocre for the other 160-odd minutes. And I am finding it a bit vexing that Tuchel hasn't actually played our best eleven yet; I cannot understand why he's rotated out O'Reilly and Guehi, and given only very short minutes to Rashford and Saka. I am tempted to downgrade my expectations for us from likely semi-finalists again to.... likely to exit in the 'Round of 16'.

The star players are continuing to shine: Messi, Vinicius Jnr, Mbappe, Haaland - and even the ageing Cristiano Ronaldo this time - all produced a brace of goals again.

Yet Morocco, the USA, and Mexico are continuing to look probably the best teams so far, in terms of all-around cohesion and consistency.

And, luckily for us Fantasy managers, the unexpected closeness of most of the groups so far - with some of the bigger teams not starting strong and/or supposedly 'weaker' teams proving slightly more formidable than expected - means that we shouldn't see too many mass rotations in this 3rd Round of games. Only Mexico, the USA, Germany and Argentina have definitely secured first-place qualification already; most of the other teams could still theoretically finish as low as third, if the last batch of results goes against them. And the appeal of getting a - probably - weaker opponent in the opening knockout game is usually sufficient to make it quite a big deal even whether a team finishes in first or second place, let alone third (which could put you in a very nasty corner of the draw). So, almost everyone still has a lot to play for over these next four days of competition; and hopefully that means that we won't see the likes of Vini, Haaland, Mbappe, Kane, etc. being rested, as we have so often suffered in the past at this stage of the tournament.

This in turn means that we should be able to hang on to our Wildcards until later in the tournament. If we found that several of the top teams and players were already assured, or very nearly so, of qualifying top of their groups, we'd probably be seeing a risk of huge holes in our squads, and might feel we needed to use the Wildcard here in MatchDay 3. But with the likelihood of accumulating absences from injuries and suspensions in the later MatchDays, as well as the ever-present risk that unexpected eliminations can - probably will - put some huge dents in our squads, it is nice to be able to hang on to the Wildcard as long as possible in these tournaments, as a safety-net. Very often, it proves otiose, because of the increasingly large number of Free Transfers we're given in the later knockout rounds. But if a lot of things suddenly go very badly wrong for us, the Wildcard is very nice to have in such an emergency.

I also tend to feel that this probably isn't a great round for playing any of the 'bonus chips'. Some teams are going to be able to take it easy: we might not see Messi, Pulisic, or any of the popular German players, for example; or only for token run-outs, anyway. Most of the other games could prove to be quite nervy, with so much riding on them; the final round of the group phase tends to be quite low-scoring. And it just so happens that in quite a few of the groups, two of the strongest teams are matched together in the last game, further reducing the likelihood of a one-sided goalfest, and indeed making it difficult to anticipate some of the results altogether: Switzerland v Canada, Japan v Sweden, Norway v France, Uruguay v Spain, New Zealand v Belgium, Croatia v Ghana, and Colombia v Portugal are pretty tough to call, I think. So, I'm hanging on to my chips - even though this now means that I'll have to use one in every round of the knockout phase (as a result of a glitch in the FIFA website that wiped out my attempt to play the '12th Man' on Mbappe in the 2nd Round - gggrrrrr.....).

I noticed more maddening glitches with the web version of the FIFA Fantasy version today: it was freezing up and refusing to process transfers for a couple of hours this morning (though this was outside 'office hours' in Europe, where I imagine the game is based). All seems to be OK again now, thank heavens - a massive 12 hours before the next Round kicks off!

However, I would reiterate my warning about the vexing captaincy glitch in the FIFA game. I recently discovered that you can't switch your vice-captain directly to being your captain - you always need a third player that you can transfer the vice-captaincy to, before he becomes available to select as captain. Since the vice-captaincy is completely redundant in this game, the safest thing to do is place it on one of your players who has a game early in the MatchDay - so all of your other players will be available as potential captains, without the vice-captaincy getting in the way. (This is not a trivial problem. In MD2, I wound up with my vice-captaincy stuck on Nuno Mendes for the last few games, which meant I was unable to transfer my captaincy to him. I wouldn't have chosen to, since I'd already got good returns from Haaland and Messi, but.... he did come up with a 15-pointer, damn him!)

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!!!

How will England play?

Given the squad we now have, the formation and 'best lineup' seem fairly obvious, incontrovertible: the side picks itself. Pretty much everyone is expecting England to look something like the team above during this World Cup. 

But... Tuchel likes 'surprises'; and I think - I fear - he may have a few in store for us.

This wouldn't be a bad team, by any means. If it works, it should be well capable of progressing far into the tournament, maybe even winning it. It has good balance, good pace, and a fair amount of experience - despite the low average age.

Reece James can readily invert into a holding role in the middle, as he so often has for Chelsea this year (although Tuchel, in the past, has scoffed at the idea of him being a 'midfielder'; I hope he's been convinced otherwise now), which would allow Declan Rice to move further forward to support the attack. Harry Kane is likely to drop back into the '10' space, or even a bit deeper (though I doubt if he'll retreat all the way back to his defensive line, in the manner of the later Toni Kroos, as we've often seen from him at Bayern this year), allowing Jude Bellingham to play a little ahead of him as a 'false 9', or to roam freely wherever he will to pick up the ball and encouraging Rashford or Saka to drift into the central space. In theory, I think that could work very nicely.

However, Morgan Rogers is such a 'golden boy' of Tuchel's that I think he will be shoehorned into the starting eleven somehow. Letting him come in off the left-wing, in place of Rashford, would perhaps make the most sense, as that is how he's mostly played at Villa this season. But I think Tuchel may fancy him in the No. 10 slot, and keep Bellingham in reserve as a 'super-sub' (and I'm not sure how well Jude will take that; he does have a bit of an ego on him!). There is also a possibility that John Stones may be favoured over Ezri Konsa, for his experience. Again, I think that's non-ideal. Konsa has played well enough to have earned a regular start, and I feel we ought to be concentrating on building up his partnership with Guehi (they have played remarkably little together as yet). And I suppose there's an outside chance that Gordon might be preferred to Rashford on the left, though this seems very unlikely to me; Rashford's recent form should guarantee him the start (while Gordon's club form this year frankly makes his inclusion in the squad at all highly questionable).

There is one further possible variation, which I'd approve of, but which I fear Tuchel may consider 'too risky'. That would be to designate Kane openly as the 'No. 10' and play Ollie Watkins ahead of him as the central striker. I think that might work even better; although I'd be loathe to sacrifice Bellingham to facilitate this.

This is pretty much the formation and approach I would have favoured. I have been saying for a decade now that Harry Kane is really more of a 'No. 10' than he is a 'No. 9' (we are spoiled that he's so good in both roles), and that we need to play him deeper to get the most out of his exquisite passing. And I really like the idea of playing another forward ahead of him, to give him more freedom to wander around the pitch. And I'd like to try playing Bellingham deeper also, alongside the pivot (I'd happily sacrifice Declan Rice for that; great though he is for Arsenal, I think he's entirely expendable for England). Bellingham is a capo carismatico, an inspirational figure who lifts all those around him; and he has that magical ability to come up with a game-changing moment out of nothing. We need him on the pitch.

I would have fancied playing narrower wide attackers: Eze and Palmer flanking Bellingham or Kane. The amount of rotation and creative passing you could have got from that combination of front players might have been breathtaking. 

But I can see that this is a team built for Harry Kane. And the one asset our Harry has always lacked is pace; so, he needs to be supported by very quick wide players who can break down the flanks to try to produce crosses or cutbacks for him, or run through the middle on to the long through-balls he can play from deeper in the midfield.

[Just before the tournament started, Conor McAinsh of Football Meta, one of the best analysis channels on Youtube, dropped this video that goes into a bit more detail about how Tuchel wants England to operate - but essentially affirms my outline above.]

This, I fear, may be the set-up's most dangerous weakness as well as its main strength. This system could work so well with Harry Kane; but I'm not sure how it will function without him. And we really need Harry at his best to get the most out of this. And there is a danger that, after such a long season with Bayern, he may be a bit rundown physically and mentally - a bit knackered. Harry, alas, has never really 'turned up' for us in a major tournament yet. (Yes, he's banged in a decent number of goals against very soft group opponents. But he's looked increasingly anonymous as the tournaments have progressed - often leading to calls in the press for him to be dropped. And this time.... we don't have a soft group.) If that happens again, if he's operating substantially below his peak - or he picks up an injury and isn't available at all - I don't know who else can step up and lead this team. I rather fear things might all unravel rather quickly if Big H isn't on top of his game. So,.... let's hope that he is.

Come on, England!

Not quite what we wanted...

 

When Thomas Tuchel selected his first England squad 14 months ago, I observed that the England manager's job is a thankless task, and that invariably every fan will have his own perfect selection in mind and will carp at every variation from that Platonic ideal, however trivial.

However, the just-announced World Cup squad has a few oddities in it that are so egregious, it has got the majority of England fans not just mildly irked, but seriously dismayed, even outraged.

I don't take issue with as many of the choices as some (the compiler of the 'Rejects XI' above cannot seriously have supposed that all of them were going to get a call-up??), but I fear there are a few really big errors in it - which may cost us dearly in the tournament.

So, I'll quickly run through my take on the good, the bad, and the ugly of Thomas Tuchel's picks...

Expected, justified omissions

Not even Nick Pope's mum thinks he's one of the best three goalkeepers in England any more; and his club manager no longer seems sure if he's even better than Aaron Ramsdale - so, there's absolutely no surprise that he didn't make the cut (especially after a season disrupted by injury). The goalkeeping line-up is surely the one part of the squad where there's really no controversy at all.

Trent Alexander-Arnold, rightly or wrongly, was already being sidelined at England under Southgate; and Tuchel immediately made it clear that he has no interest in using him. I think - somewhat controversially - that this is the correct decision. For me, Trent is player whose excellences occupy a very narrow spectrum, and who thus needs to have a team built around him if he is to flourish (he needs hard-working midfielders who will cover for him when he's caught out of position defensively, and very quick forward players who can exploit his long balls over the top). Klopp was able to do that at Liverpool; but I don't think an England manager can.

Harry Maguire, I've said on here before, is 'yesterday's man'. He's given excellent service to England over the years, and he's still a fine player. But he's obviously not our first-choice starter any more; and I fear he's too big an ego to accept merely a back-up role in the squad. Likewise, Luke Shaw, although he has - surprisingly - been an ever-present for Manchester United this season, has clearly declined a bit in fitness from his peak a few years ago, and no longer looks like an obvious prospect for us at left-back... even though that is, currently, the position in which we have perhaps the thinnest cover.

Phil Foden is a bit of an unfortunate omission, but not an unexpected one. He doesn't seem to be securely in Pep's favour, and has played less than 2,000 Premier League minutes this season. I fear that his confidence has been broken by his manager's lack of trust in him (and/or that there may be reasons, unknown to the public, why that lack of trust is justified...). And alas, he's never really managed to make his mark with England, and he had a particularly ineffectual tournament in the Euros two summers ago. In an area of the pitch where we are rather spoiled with an over-abundance of talent to choose from, it really is not surprising that he didn't quite make the cut.

Unfortunate omissions

I was a little bit of a sceptic about Levi Colwill a couple of years or so ago, but he impressed me enormously last season, and I think he could become a mainstay of the England team. For that reason, I would have been tempted to make a place for him in this squad, even though he's unlikely to start, and is probably going to be a little ring-rusty after his long injury absence. I also think we need a specialist left-back as cover for Nico O'Reilly, and that slot really ought to have gone to Lewis Hall; he might not have the adaptability of Spence or Livramento, but he is more consistent, and offers much more of an attacking threat.

Jarrad Branthwaite and Myles Lewis-Skelly (and perhaps also Rico Lewis) will no doubt enjoy an England career at some point, but unfortunately they just haven't had enough first-team minutes this year to be in contention for this squad.

Adam Wharton and Alex Scott are perhaps too young and inexperienced to be relied upon yet as regular starters, but they are outstanding prospects for the future, and I would have liked to see space being made for at least one of them in this squad. I think that space could have been easily created by taking one or two fewer defenders.

Harvey Barnes, many people would say, has done enough this season to be considered for a call-up. It is unfortunate that Eddie Howe never seems to view him as an automatic starter, even when he's in hot goalscoring form, but he really has looked a much better prospect this year than his teammate Anthony Gordon; and, given that he's only likely to be called upon as a late substitute when we're chasing a game, his pace and finishing could surely be very valuable to us.

Questionable, but possibly justified inclusions

Tino Livramento undoubtedly has a lot of promise, but he has had too many injury problems this season (and is injured now - so might get replaced in the squad), and just hasn't had the opportunity to establish any settled form. His clubmate Lewis Hall looked a far stronger candidate to me; one suspects Livramento has only got the nod because of his ability to operate on either flank. This was presumably the decisive factor in Djed Spence's favour too. I have been impressed with Spence's development over the past couple of seasons, but I worry about his mental state after the appalling season Spurs have suffered; 'failure' can be contagious, and I would be very wary of bringing in players from relegated clubs (or clubs that have been floundering in that mire; I'm writing this the day before the season finale, so don't know if Spurs managed to escape the drop). I've said before that I like Dan Burn for his adaptability and his attitude; but he hasn't been a regular starter with Newcastle this season, and when he has played, it's been most often as a centre-back; when he has had a start at left-back, he's looked much less composed than he did a couple of seasons back when he was playing the role regularly, and has often been found out for pace. I can see taking Burn as a makeweight, because he'll be an inspiring presence off the pitch, and can provide emergency cover anywhere across the back-four (and possibly even in central midfield); but he does look perhaps the weakest of the defensive picks, and if you feel - as I do - that we're taking too many defenders, he's probably the one that should be cut. Though I really don't think we need both Livramento and Spence - so long as there are no lingering question-marks over Reece James's fitness.

John Stones is presumably included for his experience, and his adaptability (able to fill in at right-back, in an emergency, or even as a holding midfielder). And it's interesting that Tuchel apparently cites 'training data' as reassuring him in this choice: presumably his fitness levels appear to be strong, even though he's almost inevitably going to be short of full sharpness after playing so few competitive minutes this year. Though it seems a rather risky call, I can see the need for including someone with significant tournament experience in what is, mostly, a very young squad. The worry, I think, is that Tuchel likes him so much, he might actually be thinking of starting him. For me, Guehi and Konsa have established themselves as deserved first-choice starters, and we should be concentrating on building their partnership - one which could become the backbone of the team for the decade ahead.

Anthony Gordon has pace, aggression, adaptability; at his best, he's certainly an asset to the squad, and so I can see why Tuchel has stood by him. But he has had a very ropey season at Newcastle, rarely anywhere near his best; his club form does not justify his inclusion at the moment.

Bizarre inclusions

Jordan Henderson is now slow and injury-prone, and has only featured for Brentford half the time this past season. He surely can't be considered for anything more than the occasional token 10-minute run-out in internationals. And if he's been included simply for his dressing-room leadership.... surely we could have brought him along as a 'coach', rather than wasting a squad place??

Ivan Toney has been scoring for fun in the Saudi Pro League - but does that really count for anything? The overall competitive standard in that league is so low that your gran could probably score goals there. He surely can't have been included just for his penalty-taking prowess,... can he? Dominic Calvert-Lewin and Danny Welbeck must be scratching their heads in dismay: they've both had outstanding domestic seasons and notched some good goals against proper defences. There might be reasonable question-marks over their consistency and resistance to injury, but on recent form they should certainly have been in consideration. I think the last forward slot should have gone to the outstanding Jarrod Bowen. The only possible logic I can see for this choice is that Tuchel may be considering using Kane in a deeper position and starting Watkins ahead of him as the central striker; and, if so, you can see why he'd want another forward of closely similar profile to Watkins as a back-up for him. (Though in that case, I would still have gone for Calvert-Lewin.)  We shall see.

The really culpable errors

James Garner has had an outstanding season, and is clearly now our second-best holding midfield option; therefore, he was, I think, an absolutely essential pick as back-up for Elliot Anderson - and if Anderson should get injured, his omission might become one of our biggest regrets.

Morgan Gibbs-White has looked our most versatile and consistent central midfielder for the last few seasons; and I would have taken him to America ahead of Declan Rice (yes, I know what a great season he's had - but I stand by that: Rice is a jack-of-all-trades player, remarkably good at almost all aspects of the game.... but not quite the obvious first-choice for any one role or position) or Morgan Rogers, and certainly ahead of Jordan bloody Henderson.

Jarrod Bowen, I think, deserves a place for his workrate and his attitude, as well as for the fact that he offers a rather different profile to anyone else we have up front. I think that difference of style could prove valuable in games where we're still chasing a late goal. And in games (hopefully the majority!) where we're just sitting on a lead for the last 20 minutes, we can rely on his tenacious pressing to hinder an opponent from coming back at us. If he were being passed over for an obviously superior player, a player with an outstanding goalscoring record this season, then the decision would be less baffling; but to take Ivan Toney instead...?? That is a WTF?!

And of course, the really super-colossal blunder is leaving behind Cole Palmer - who is, quite simply, our best player,... and probably, in fact, the best playmaker in Europe. Tuchel's only proffered explanation seems to have been that "we don't need five No. 10s". No, indeed; but we probably do need to take at least three of them. And Palmer is by far the best of the candidates. Moreover, it is perfectly possible to play two '10s' (or 'false 9s') alongside each other. And most of our players who fit this role, like Palmer himself, are also able to operate a bit wider, coming in off the flanks; or, in the case of Bellingham and Gibbs-White, to play a bit deeper in central midfield. And ironically, two of the nominal No. 10s Tuchel has chosen... aren't really No. 10s at all: Bellingham is a sui generis play-anywhere-and-everywhere player, who's probably at his best breaking from deeper positions as an occasional late box-crasher; and Rogers, for Villa, generally starts out wide, and drifts into the half-space to attack the box, rather than dictating play from central areas. So, that 'too many to choose from' argument just doesn't hold water for me; there must be some other reason why our gaffer doesn't like him. But whatever it is, I think he's wrong; and this is the one selection decision that might cost us our chance of winning the tournament.

And finally.... my TWO unpopular exclusion suggestions!

Morgan Rogers and Declan Rice. Yes, I know, they're outstanding players, and I'm sure they'll do a decent job for us. It is looking rather as if Rogers, in fact, may be so favoured by Tuchel that he might be the preferred starter in the No. 10 role - even at the expense of Bellingham! But for me, he's just not quite good enough: he's had long spells at Villa - not just long passages in a game, but long runs of games - where he's been very ineffectual. He's not as good as Palmer or Eze at threading balls through into the box, he's not as good as Mainoo or Gibbs-White at carrying the ball forward through the midfield, he's not as good as Saka or Rashford at coming in off the wing to shoot at goal. And I wrote at some length about Rice the other day: I admire his qualities, but for me he's better as an attacking midfielder (and he just isn't going to get in contention there, because we have such a wealth of other talent - to the point where we can consider omitting the likes of Palmer and Foden and Bellingham!!); he has his shortcomings as a holding player, and for our central midfield positions, I'd much prefer Anderson and Garner, Mainoo and Wharton, Gibbs-White and even Bellingham.

It's not a terrible squad. And it's not that unexpected (apart from the omission of Palmer, and perhaps of Bowen). Let us cross our fingers and hope for the best!!!

What is Declan FOR....?

 

More than 18 months ago, I did a lengthy piece here on the blog about why I was unconvinced that Trent Alexander-Arnold could usefully fit into the England set-up. Now, I'm going to risk even greater derision and disparagement by attempting to make a similar case about Declan Rice. (In fact, I recall that I already did so, in outline, in a post from last Spring about my thoughts on the likely development of the England squad under the first few years of Thomas Tuchel's stewardship.)

And as with Trent, it's largely about him not being a style of player who fits any need I can see in the England team. He is undoubtedly a very, very good player; and he's found a very particular niche in the current Arsenal team - where he has come to seem essential to their success. But that does not mean that he would also be essential - or even necessary or useful - to England's success at this summer's World Cup.

I said in that earlier post, actually, that I could see Rice retaining a place in the squad for his value as a utility player and his off-field leadership. But I've shifted my view on that now. And again, it's not for any reason to do with his attributes; I still rate him very highly for those qualities. But I am increasingly convinced that - in an ideal world - he wouldn't any longer be a starter for us. And I fret that he might be too big a personality to accept merely a bit-part role in the squad, to play the dressing-room cheerleader as selflessly as someone like Conor Coady did. Even if he would, there's a greater fear that his presence would nevertheless have a disruptive influence by acting as a focus for any public and media discontent with our performances; I can foresee that if Rice were with the squad - after the season he's just had for Arsenal - there would be constant lobbying from others to reinstate him in the starting line-up.

I mentioned in that earlier post that I worried that, like Harry Kane, Declan Rice had been unfortunately pigeonholed by his physique. For me, he's always looked much more effective as a progressive midfielder, pushing up into the final third and trying to make things happen around the edge of the opposing box. But because he's so physically imposing, he's almost always been lumbered with a more defensive role in central midfeld. And yet the funny thing is that, despite his excellent reading of the game and his sometimes incisive tackling,... he's just not actually all that good at a pure holding role in the middle - at least not on his own. He was fine supporting Soucek at West Ham, or Partey, and now Zubimendi at Arsenal; but when he has to try to control that central space on his own - as he was during Partey's long absences a couple of years ago - he often gets found out.

And I'm afraid that the decisive emergence of Elliot Anderson and James Garner this season should effectively punt him to the sidelines of England selection. They are simply much better at the nitty-gritty of the holding midfield role than Rice is. I think their progressive passing is rather better too. (Arteta, with his obsession with 'control' in games, has not given Rice much leeway to develop the more creative aspects of his game. Much of the time, he wants to draw more on his defensive qualities, even when he's pressing forward. But even more of the time, he just wants him to sit a bit deeper and maintain possession by playing the ball sideways all the time.... It is not developing his vision for the more probing ball forward.)

There are other weaknesses in his game too. He's not great on the turn, not strong when receiving the ball under pressure, facing his own goal, not great at spinning away from a harrying opponent to open up the chance to start carrying the ball upfield. Kobbie Mainoo's way better than him in those aspects of the game. And if we're looking for someone who can put in an effective shift in deeper midfield, but still offer more creative potential through their range of passing, then... I think we have to try to start making use of Adam Wharton,... or Morgan Gibbs-White, or maybe Alex Scott.

For me, Declan Rice is a bit of a jack-of-all-trades type: he's very, very good at almost everything - but he isn't quite the best at any one thing. (Well, perhaps at set-piece delivery. But I don't think someone gets into the England team just for that. And we do have other excellent options there: Palmer, Saka, Foden, Gibbs-White...)

Also, I feel that his greatest strengths are probably in the attacking third - but he hasn't been given full opportunity to develop this dimension to his game in a very conservative Arsenal playing style where he's more often expected to be the gatekeeper than a lock-picker. And again, good as he is, is he really going to get in contention for one of our more advanced midfield roles - in competition with Palmer, Bellingham, Saka, Eze, Rashford, etc.??  Sorry, but I just can't see it.

It is particularly difficult to write this after Rice has had such an outstanding season - a season where he might in fact lift the two biggest trophies in club football. (I wrote this a few days ago, before we'd seen if the Gameweek 37 matches might settle the Premier League title race, or if Arsenal might somehow be letting that trophy slip from their fingers...)  I fully acknowledge that he's a great, great player, and that he's been playing sensational football this year. But he can be this great and still not quite be starting material for England: he's not our best holding midfielder (not even top three, I don't think), he's not our best option for a more creative central midfielder, and he's really not going to be considered among our top half dozen or so attacking midfield options.

So, absent an injury to Anderson or Garner or Mainoo or Wharton,... I wouldn't be taking Declan Rice to America this summer.

I'm pretty sure Tuchel will, and that he will probably start him alongside Anderson in a double-pivot. And I imagine that will work out OK; if... when we under-perform and crash out, it will probably be because Palmer or Bellingham or Kane or Saka, or one of the defenders, or even Jordan Pickford had a poor tournament, rather than some failing on Rice's part we could pin it on. But I still feel it would be a non-optimal selection, that our squad ought to be just that bit better without him.

Don't hate me, Arsenal fans. It's just an opinion.

A-spurning we will go!

 

I had thought that the England squad in the run-up to this summer's World Cup couldn't hold many - any?! - surprises. Thomas Tuchel and I seemed to be on pretty much exactly the same page in relation to the general approach and the particular selections. Heck, it had started to seem that, for once, maybe the whole country was on pretty much the same page: it looked as though the squad was essentially going to pick itself.

But where would be the fun in being the manager of England if you couldn't mess with people's heads just a little bit, stir up a bit of a kerfuffle among the punditry with a few.... surprising (baffling, irritating) choices of player??  And he's certainly done that with the current squad for the two warm-up friendlies against Uruguay and Japan over the next few days - effectively a 'long list' of 35 players, which will be whittled down into the 26 to go forward to the USA this summer. A few big names have been mercilessly spurned; while a few others have been given a slightly unexpected lifeline.

Nothing really too earth-shattering, but deserving of some brief comment, nevertheless.

And this is somewhat of a specialist topic of mine. Spurning, that is. Last month, atter being turned out of my current home with barely two-and-a-half weeks' notice by a bonkers landlady, I was left desperately scrabbling to find a new roof over my head in a matter of days. And the first four places I set my heart on... all spurned me. The nicest of them, in fact, initially accepted me; only 24 hours later was I sheepishly informed that the husband of the lady I'd spoken with had supposedly let the place to someone else behind her back on the same morning I'd gone for my viewing... With employment, it's become even worse: I have been turned down for every single job I've applied for in the last five years - must be several dozens of them now. At the end of last year, I somehow managed to get turned down for a trio of jobs in Myanmar; and, you know, it can't be easy to find folks who are willing to work in Myanmar at the moment, let alone who are able to relocate there at a moment's notice from a neighbouring country. (In fact, it's even worse than that: four quickfire spurnings for Myanmar jobs!! One of those employers actually invited me to reapply, and then blew me off again...)  And, my oh my, I've lost count of the number of women over the years who've told me something like, "Oh, I wish you'd asked me out sooner - but I've just started seeing someone else."

So,.... the spurned and I have... an affinity.

Here, then, a quick review of Herr Tuchel's latest spurnings (and non-spurnings)....

Goalkeepers

Unexpected inclusions: Aaron Ramsdale, Jason Steele

Obviously the three for the actual World Cup squad does 'pick itself' in this position: Jordan Pickford is an unassailable first choice, Dean Henderson is by some margin the 'best of the rest', and Jamie Trafford is the promising young pretender. I have no gripe with these additional two per se. In fact, I'm really pleased to see Steele getting some recognition at last (there is talk that he's being lined up to go to America as a member of the coaching staff or practice partner on the goalkeeping team, rather than a member of the playing squad); he's a player I've long admired; but, you know, he hasn't really been a regular first team starter in a dozen years or so! And Ramsdale, for me, is a nearly-not-quite kind of player: many excellent qualities, but somehow seems to lack the 'star power' to make that final step up in rank; and, given that he has only very recently - and perhaps temporarily - displaced Nick Pope as the starter at Newcastle, he's not bringing a lot of top-flight experience with him. I would have preferred to give a vote of confidence to Pope, or to give a first taste of senior squad involvement to one of the young up-and-comers like Matthew Young or James Beadle.

Unexpected spurnings:  Nich Pope

He has had a number of injury problems over the past few years. And he had made a few bad mistakes in recent games. But I suspect there's some other issue going on behind the scenes at St James's, some deeper injury issue or perhaps some kind of personal problem, because his performance level really didn't seem problematic enough to warrant dropping him - on the eve of a penultimate World Cup training camp. And Tuchel has included plenty of other players who are not current starters; so, that can't be the only reason poor Pepe didn't make the cut here. On ability and past experience, I feel Pepe deserved to remain a part of our squad - if only as a fringe selection who's never likely to get near a start (nor, with the rise of Trafford, even to make the final squad, in all probability); I fear there must be some other factor behind his exclusion.

Defenders

Unexpected inclusions: Harry Maguire, John Stones, Fikayo Tomori, Jarrell Quansah,... and Ben White!

I wouldn't dispute Maguire's inclusion on simple merit: he has been a giant of the England team for several years now; and he finally seems to be rediscovering something like his best form with Carrick's suddenly rejuvenated Manchester United. However,... I feel his time with England is past. Guehi and Konsa are now clearly, rightly, our default starting pair in central defence. And, after so many years of being the 'main man', I can't see Harry adapting to a peripheral 'cheerleader' role in the dressing room, in the manner of the extraordinarily selfless Conor Coady. Maybe it can be useful to have him involved at this training and preparation stage; and maybe it's a smart idea to keep him sweet, to keep him onboard, just in case we might need him as a starter in America because of injuries elsewhere. But I really can't see taking Maguire to the World Cup.... 

Similar qualms might apply to John Stones. But I'd be happier taking him along in the summer, because of his versatility as an all-around 'utility player', able to fill in at full-back or even as a holding midfield player, if we get hit by some awkward injuries. Moreover, I don't think he's such a 'big personality' in the dressing-room as Maguire, and after being on the sidelines so much at City in recent years, he's more likely to be able to accept a peripheral role in the squad with quiet good grace, and even perhaps with gratitude. It's just a pity that he's had so few first-team minutes this season.

It's nice to see Quansah and Tomori getting a look-in; proof that going to play on the continent, although it might remove you from the consciousness of the English sporting press and the public, need not exclude you from the England manager's thoughts (although Tomori hasn't got much of a look-in since he moved to Milan five years ago...). Quansah, in particular; I've always felt that he showed a lot of promise; and I think Slot's abrupt rejection of him may prove to have been one of his biggest blunders (along with spurning Harvey Elltiott, and pissing Mo Salah off; and buying Isak straight after buying Ekitike; and buying Frimpong and Kerkez when there was no obvious place for them in the squad or the style of play; and...); it's been great to see him blossoming since his move to Leverkusen this year. However, you suspect they might only be getting this chance because of the recent injuries to Reece James and Trevoh Chalobah; and probably neither will actually go to the World Cup. [And poor Quansah has apprently been denied his chance now, owing to a thigh-strain.]

I'm glad to see Ben White involved again at last - even if it is only after a long list of injury withdrwals. After such a long, self-imposed exile, it may be impossible for him to fully integrate himself again and regain the trust of teammates and fans. But, frankly. if Reece James isn't fit, he'd be starting for me! Diminiutive, injury-prone Livramento doesn't yet quite have the experience for the biggest stage, I don't think; Djed Spence neither; and we're short of other options in that position.

Justified spurning: Trent Alexander-Arnold

I went into some detail around 18 months ago why I felt Trent was not enough of an all-round player to fit in most teams, including the England one. Unfortunately, my view still hasn't changed. And a difficult first season at Real Madrid hasn't been the best platform to recommend himself to Tuchel. This is the decision which is going to most inflame the punditry, no doubt; but I think our manager is spot on. Not all great players have a place in the national team; they need to be a good tactical fit with the rest of the talents around them - and I don't think Trent can be that.

Unfortunate spurnings: Jarrad Branthwaite, Myles Lewis-Skelly

Branthwaite, I suppose, just hasn't had many minutes so far this season. But unless he's actually got a current injury problem, I would have included him here. He is the most promising young left-sided centre-back in the country (the best, really; since Guehi isn't naturally left-sided, has just fashioned himself a quirky niche role playing in that position off his wrong foot), and so needs to be developed as a potential starter, regular first-back up in that position. Lewis-Skelly just hasn't been given any minutes by Arteta this season; but he made such a promising start to his England career last year, I think there should be a case for keeping him involved as much as possible - even if he's doubtful for inclusion in the final squad.

Midfielders

Unexpected inclusions: Jordan Henderson, Phil Foden, Anthony Gordon

Henderson, I suppose, is still useful to have around as an elder statesman, involved for his experience and leadership presence, in this expanded, 'training camp' squad; but it would be a bit of a travesty if he went to the World Cup as well, when he clearly seems to be incapable of playing regular top-level football in closely back-to-back games any more.

I suppose I'm glad enough to see some loyalty being shown to Foden and Gordon, despite their thus-far very underwhelming seasons. However, I do worry that there is some serious underlying problem with Foden that causes Pep to keep dropping him; and, if there isn't, I fear this lack of confidence from his manager may have broken him. He has consistently failed to make an impact on the international stage for some years; and I can't see him deserving another chance now, in a World Cup, when he's obviously not likely to get near a start ahead of Palmer and Bellingham and Eze. Although I like Gordon's pace and attitude, he's had such a lacklustre season so far that he probably ought to lose out to Madueke, and even perhaps his clubmate Harvey Barnes, in the final squad - unless he finishes really hot over the remaining seven games.

Unfortunate spurnings:  Alex Scott, Rico Lewis, Lewis Miley

I'm glad, at least, to see Adam Wharton get another call-up - although I rather fear that he'll be cut from the final 26-man squad. However, I think Alex Scott has been playing more than well enough for Bournemouth to merit inclusion again as well (he acquitted himself well enough in November's squad). Miley and Lewis, I suppose, haven't been getting enough first-team football with their clubs this year; but they are such outstanding talents that I would have liked to see them included in an expanded squad like this, to encourage their development for the future. If they can find a manager who will play them regularly, they should be in contention for the 2028 Euros, both terrific young players.

Culpable omission:  Morgan Gibbs-White

OK, this is the one selection in this super-sized squad that really gets my blood boiling. There is a strong case that Gibbs-White should be the first back-up to Palmer in the No. 10 role for us - ahead of Morgan Rogers or Phil Foden. He certainly deserves to be given the chance to make that case in this squad.

Forwards

Unexpected inclusions: Dominic Calvert-Lewin, Dominic Solanke, Marcus Rashford

Solanke I can see: I like his pace, workrate, and versatility. Even though he's only just back from a long injury, and is having a torrid time with Championship-bound Spurs,... I think he is a profile of player we probably need in the squad. And I suppose it's again nice to show some loyalty to Marcus Rashford, after good service to England over a number of years. But, after a promising start at Barca, things seem to have slowed down for him rather; and he really hasn't been scoring many goals for them. And for me, I'm afraid, he's always going to fall uncomfortably between two stools: he has many of the elements of a great winger and of a great centre-forward... without actually being either one. Calvert-Lewin I just don't get; yes, he's probably having his best season ever - but it's still not quite good enough: he's inconsitent, injury-prone, and just not 'international class'.

Unfortunate spurnings: Ollie Watkins, Danny Welbeck

These two very nearly earned the 'culpable' tag as well! I think the omission of these two - in favour of the far less impressive Dominics - could prove costly to our World Cup campaign. Watkins has had a very subdued season; but I think that's been mainly down to Villa's patchy form and lack of regular service to him. He's still been working hard for the team, and looking sharp on the rare occasions when  a decent chance has presented itself. He's a better complement to Harry Kane as a back-up option than any of the other contenders, I think; and he has a very promising rapport with Morgan Rogers, which could make the pair of them a dangerous substitution option in games where we're struggling to find a breakthrough. Welbeck has had a terrible injury record through the years, and, yes, he's getting a bit long in the tooth for international football now; but he's always been an outstanding striker, and he is having one of the best seasons of his career - he certainly deserved a chance here, over the perennially flakey Calvert-Lewin... or, probably, Rashford too.

So, not a terrible squad, by any means: very solid, and overall much as expected. But there are just a few rather dodgy choices - decisions that fill me with a slight unease about what might happen when it comes to naming the final World Cup squad.

One can't help a little snigger

 

I am English; and thus I inevitably feel a certain sentimental attachment towards English football clubs, and hope for them to do well in the continental competitions. But that's all it is: a weak impulse of sentiment. I have absolutely no time for blind nationalism, and in fact tend to react against any suggestion of it. Ultimately, I love good football more than anything else, and will always celebrate a deserved victory, even when it goes against the team I was at least somewhat rooting for. I won't be obstinately braying for English success at any price in the World Cup this summer; I'll quite happily accept it if - when - we get eliminated by a better team; and, ultimately, I'll probably be investing as much or more hope in the team playing the most attractive game during the tournament, and that's quite likely to be Spain or France or Brazil.

And hence.... while many of my countrymen are dismayed and despondent at this week's results in the First Leg ties of the Chamipions League 'Round of 16', I can't resist a little chortle. The 'junior' European competitions have been so diluted as to become a bit of joke, really - easily dominated even by bottom-of-the-table Premier League sides. But this year, the Champions League has seemed to be going the same way, with the usually major European powers mostly looking well below their best (only Bayern still giving cause for concern...) in the league phase. Even misfiring Liverpool had been able to look fairly dominant in Europe so far; even stuttering Newcastle and increasingy abysmal Spurs had qualified through the first phase with relative ease. It was starting to feel as though we'd surely be guaranteed two or three of the semi-final berths. But, oh boy, did things just change quickly!!

Admittedly, only Newcastle were playing at home in this first batch of games. And our boys did get the rough end of the draw, with opponents of the status of Real, Barca, PSG, and Atleti being pitched against us so early in the knockout phase. (Though at least we were spared Bayern! And, frankly, on these performances, I'm not sure any of our teams would have fared that much better against Bodø/Glimt, Sporting, or Atalanta...)  But three of our six contenders were not just beaten but absolutely spanked, while Liverpool went down to the not-that-daunting Galatasaray, and even the mighty Arsenal barely scraped a draw against Leverkusen (and that only because they were the late beneficiaries of probably the worst penalty decision we've seen in the competition this season!). That is surely one of the worst nights for English football in Europe ever!!

But I am accepting this dreadful set of results calmly, stoically. I actually welcome them as a deserved corrective, a useful rebuke to incipient hubris. It can really do no harm to our clubs, or to the national game, or to English football fans in general.... to be brought back down to earth, to be shocked out of the arrogance and complacency that were starting to grow in us in regard to the European competitions.

And all is not yet lost. I'd still fancy Liverpool and Arsenal, and perhaps Newastle too to be able to pull off a win over two legs. And if anyone can pull back back a three-goal deficit against a team as big as Real Madrid,.... it's probably Pep's City.

It ain't over, as they say, until the Fat Lady sings....

To dream the impossible dream...?

Every four years (well, every two years...), Englishmen have to try very hard not to get their hopes up about our chances in the next big international tournament.

But this time, not only do we have a really exceptional crop of young players to choose from, we also seem to have a manager who may know what he's doing....

Top Youtube football analyst Adam Clery puts forward this bold thesis that, quite apart from tactical insight and astute man management, Thomas Tuchel might be unique among recent England managers in having the cojones to leave out some of our starriest players in order to achieve a better balance in the side.

I find it difficult to disagree too much with any of Adam's ideas - because he's a very shrewd observer of the game, and also an irresistibly likeable, down-to-earth chap. I'm kind of 50/50 on this one, though. I approve of the general point (it's exactly what I said when Tuchel first took over, about having the courage to regard no player as a sacred cow); and I'm very excited about the stability Elliot Anderson suddenly seems to be giving our central midfield. But you have to be a little bit wary of getting over-excited about our smooth progression through a particularly puny qualifying group (even teams that have looked vaguely threatening in recent years - Serbia, Albania - suddenly weren't again!!).

And I am not completely convinced about the current personnel - or the the notion of omitting major talents for this to become our regular starting lineup. I'd probably prefer to build for the next 10 years around Palmer and Bellingham (and Saka and Eze...), rather than go with a bunch of slightly less stellar options who 'fit better with Harry Kane' (for this one tournament!). But it's certainly something to think about.

He's back!

Like many football fans, I've been feeling rather bereft over the last few weeks - since the unhappy news broke that Adam Clery was quitting the FourFourTwo Youtube channel that he'd made essential viewing over the last 18 months.

Now it's emerged that, in partnership with The Independent newspaper, he's launching his own Youtube venture, The Adam Clery Football Channel (ACFC), where we'll be getting more of the chirpy, irreverent tactical analysis videos we've come to love. (It looks like he might still be working with FourFourTwo occasionally as well - but on more 'magazine'-type pieces, mini-documentaries rather than game analysis.)

I'm pleased to see that his first posting on the new channel concurs with my own positive impressions of Thomas Tuchel's debut in charge of England....

For those who don't know.... Adam is, as we say in Britain, a top bloke: unpretentious, down-to-earth, a regular guy - but also very shrewd about his football. He's become the 'gateway drug' for tactical analysis videos. There are other guys out there who will go into more detail about particular patterns of play, or how a team seeks to morph its formation between different phases of possession and so on; but if you just want to understand why Team X is doing so well recently, or how Team W has fallen away, or why the weekend's Y-Z derby game ended as it did... Adam's your man. He's brisk, breezy, accessible - with just the right amount of silly, self-deprecating humour to help hold your attention across a discussion that will often stretch to 12 or 14 minutes or so. His videos - sometimes on teams, sometimes on individual players, but mostly breaking down particular big game outcomes - are always both entertaining and enlightening, and I cannot recommend them highly enough. Do go and check them out.

The engagingly daft little 'teaser' vid for the new channel that he posted a few days ago is a fine example of the man's unique style.