...the FA is going to look even more silly backing Hodgson for Euro 2016.

Greg Dyke:

No they won't. They didn't sack Capello after the disaster that was 2010, and this campaign has been better than that performance wise. No reason to sack Hodgson.

Its gona be a cricket score, they walloped Uruguay, then beat Italy, who both beat us, so we've no chance, goal fest a coming!

There's no "if", they will.

This could be a terrible game for Hogdson - make wholesale changes and play well (maybe even sneak a win!) and everyone will be on his back, don't make changes and lose - everyone will be on his back, don't make changes and win - "sure it was a dead rubber" will be the attitude.

So the best thing he can hope for is a younger 11 and lose. Oh wait.

Hope the England fans don't stop booing!

Where I work I got to see Dyke just before the tournament. If I see him again, I'll have a word.

Hodgson is the best man for the job. They have lost to two teams ranked above them so far and in one of those games they played very well, although granted they were poor against Uruguay. No need for knee-jerk reaction but this is Digital Spy where the words 'logic' and 'patience' don't exist.

Its not Hodgsons fault but the English national team is slowly going into decline. Football as a sport might be going into decline in this country. The 'golden generation' provided the nation with quarter finals but the expectations of the next generation might be 'delighted to qualify' 'delighted to get out the group'. Quarter finals in WC's might be a rarity, rather than the norm they used to be.

I think the English should consider pouring their resources into Rugby, Cricket, Cycling etc, they're far better at those sports if truth be told.

England Under 20s just won the Under 20s Euros so that is who to work with and spend resources on.

Costa Rica will probably rest their better players for the next round, but just how motivated will England be?

Do you mean the England under 17s? I typed in the England under 20s and immediately got stuff about the Rugby team winning their championship yesturday.

England under 17s also won that tournament 4 years ago so its not the first time its been done and the skeptical side of me suggests that England are better at very very young level because they've often picked bigger players or players with more development, of course that could be a stereotype but we'll see where it leads.

Think he must do; the England Under-20 Association Football side finished bottom of their group in last year's World Cup.

Chile, Egypt and Iraq comprised the rest of the group.

theyre already out, cant they just go home now without further embarrassment? heheh

I do actually yes. My bad

No they won't. 2 reasons

1 you don't changer a winning side, you want to keep that winning mentality
2 they want to win the group and get a 'supposed' easier route

Yeah but those sports are shit

I don't see why. For England it's a match of no importance. For Costa Rica they'll want to win to top the group. So one team will be going for it.. the other will be out there treating it as a friendly. Yes it would be nice if England did win but frankly if they don't it will be of no significance and certainly won't be an issue for the FA or Hodgson to be concerned about.

I'd be pretty worried if we weren't better at cricket and rugby which has about 5/10 top countries in which we compete against compared to the rather greater number of International football teams (most of whom we'd probably beat)

Anyway we've not won a One Day World Cup in cricket (only Twenty20) and if people think having one or two world class tennis player over the past 60 years for the money the LTA get is good enough then so be it but I think that is pretty disappointing.

The Olympics has so many sports that you're bound to excel in some which is great of course but that's down to public money being invested into the right places.

That doesn't happen in football sadly - also international teams are most important in those sports. Not the same for football.