FIFA World Cup 2026

[Ramshank72]

Our game was incredibly boring. If nothing else comes of this current turgid England setup, I hope it at least get recognised that Southgate got us over-achieving. But I doubt it, because our players are always overhyped.
One thing we really miss, and I don't see us developing it, is any coherence. When Spain play, all their players know where each other is, where they're going to run, who's covering them... we just look like a bunch of overrated individuals. so, SLOW.

[Ram Pant]

Our game was incredibly boring. If nothing else comes of this current turgid England setup, I hope it at least get recognised that Southgate got us over-achieving. But I doubt it, because our players are always overhyped.
One thing we really miss, and I don't see us developing it, is any coherence. When Spain play, all their players know where each other is, where they're going to run, who's covering them... we just look like a bunch of overrated individuals. so, SLOW.

I think that the slowness is TT's instructions as the likes of Gordon, Palmer, Rogers and Foden are not slow when they play for their clubs

[macstheman]

I also had the misfortune to watch both games, RP has summed it up perfectly whilst Andy's use of the word turgid is actually an understatement! Absolute shiitte nearly gets there. Tbh I can't recall any of England's matches under TT as being remotely worth the time to watch. Origami is more entertaining.

[Ram Pant]

GP please stop the endless trying to wind rA up by purposely misunderstanding what he has posted. It is incredibly childish.

[ramAnag]

GP please stop the endless trying to wind rA up by purposely misunderstanding what he has posted. It is incredibly childish.

Thanks RP, but he never winds me up despite his repeated and, as you suggest, ‘childish’ attempts.

[SithHappens]

I don't think RA post was really whataboutery, it was as he says highlighting double standards.

For me whataboutery is when someone offers an opinion / criticism against a thing or person you support and you respond with yeah but what about that thing about the thing or person you support.

I don't think RA is supporting Mills, just pointing out hes getting sacked for historical offences where the authorities have already said there is no evidence to prosecute. Where Trump HAS been proven guilty in a court of law yet has been elected and re elected.

Bit like Mason Greenwood being sacked by Man Utd for an offence not proven, yet they re signed Cristiano Ronaldo. Now personally I think Greenwood was guilty and good riddance but Ronaldo is a convicted criminal and you might say a self confessed rapist for paying her off to silence her.

[swaledale]

I don't think RA post was really whataboutery, it was as he says highlighting double standards.

For me whataboutery is when someone offers an opinion / criticism against a thing or person you support and you respond with yeah but what about that thing about the thing or person you support.

I don't think RA is supporting Mills, just pointing out hes getting sacked for historical offences where the authorities have already said there is no evidence to prosecute. Where Trump HAS been proven guilty in a court of law yet has been elected and re elected.

Bit like Mason Greenwood being sacked by Man Utd for an offence not proven, yet they re signed Cristiano Ronaldo. Now personally I think Greenwood was guilty and good riddance but Ronaldo is a convicted criminal and you might say a self confessed rapist for paying her off to silence her.

I think you mean historical allegations, Mills wasn't convicted of anything and therefore hasn't committed any offences according to the law. Greenwood's case collapsed due to the allegations beng dropped, I agree it seems very iffy and one can belive he is guilty, but legally he isn't of course.

Obviously there is much we don't know about Mill's case, however when dealng with an employee, an employer can legally sack someone on the basis their conduct has brought the company into disrepute where its pertinent to thier role and of course they do not have to prove beyond doubt what has happened or need a conviction, but can dismiss on the lower civil bar of probability.

I suspect Mills was offered a deal and took it, otherwise the BBC would have suspended him pending the outcome of an investigation.

[Ram Pant]

According to BBC brekkie this morning, the Mills accusations are over 30 years old and there were no charges as "the evidence threshold wasn't reached". They went on to add that they have received more information recently which is that the accuser was under 16.That does put a different light on it but is the new light sufficient to justify the sacking as there were never any charges, never mind a conviction?