Rashford should have been used far more than he was, the way he was used by Roy was just terrible, almost as if he was an after thought, rather than the most in form striker in the while squad!

No. Again, no. Being upset in losing is natural. But being let down would mean you were expecting more than what you got. You can't be let down if you weren't expecting a better result.

Do San Marino fans feel let down whenever they lose 6-0? Did Ireland fans feel let down when France knocked them out? Were they expecting to beat France? Would San Marino expect to beat England? No, they don't expect to win, so while they aren't happy about losing they don't go home feeling like they achieved less than they thought they would.

If someone lets you down it's because they didn't do what they were meant to, what you were expecting them to do. If, in your world, England are tournament minnows, and Iceland were favourites, then you weren't expecting England to win. England must have got the result you were expecting. Therefore, you'll be upset about it, but you can't be let down by something that you thought was going to happen.

If Liverpool came up against Barcelona in a competitive game right now you won't find many Liverpool fans expecting to win. So if we lose we wouldn't be surprised, we weren't favourites, nobody would have given us a chance. So we'd be going home disappointed to have lost but not while thinking we could've done better.

Ah, I'm missing the point? I see. My apologies. Its just that to the untrained eye it looked very much like you were complaining about England being made favourites in another thread and arguing that point with many of the other posters who were explaining that it didn't matter. It looked as though you might have been saying that England should never be favourites again and suggesting that they weren't actually favourites at all against Iceland because of their past record. It seemed to everyone else as well as myself who all missed the point that that was what you said initially and continued to argue in that thread.

It also looks, and of course I may well have missed the point again, that you are saying here that being favourites for a game actually doesn't matter at all, which is pretty much what everyone was saying to you in the other thread. Not only does it look like that what you are saying here, even in the post where you are telling me I'm missing the point you have posted "so being favourites or not for the match is totally irrelevant". So whilst I am clearly prone to missing the point, it does rather look like you might be saying that being made favourites is irrelevant. Apologies if I've misunderstood, perhaps saying something is totally irrelevant doesn't actually mean that its totally irrelevant and I've just missed the point again.

Hindsight.

Rashford was certainly not 'the most in-form striker in the whole squad', unless you're only talking about the last 5 minutes against Iceland.

Kane and Vardy were clearly the leading England strikers, coming into the tournament.

Come on do I really, really have to explain the basics of supporting a team??

All right then I guess it looks like that I do say enough.

Person A for example, supports Team A, person A really, really, wants team A to win, now Team A are an okay side, but still person A gets enjoyment and really wants them to win, Team A gets beat in a match, person A feels let down by the side, as he really wanted them to win.

See this has got nothing to do with a team being favourites or not, and far more to do with the individual who is supporting that team, I don't quite know how much more basic I can put it, or try to interpret it for you.





Where did I say that England should never be favourites again, if you go back and actually read what I said, I was clearly talking about knock-out football in the finals of a major tournament (so either the World Cup or the European Championships).

Our record in these matches just does not merit us being favourites, or whatever terminology one cares to use, as we have lost time after time after time.

Six wins (one of them being a penalty shoot-out v Spain), in the last fifty years in knock-out football, does not give us any right whatsoever to think of ourselves as a giant of the international world.

The sooner that is recognised the better.


Rashford was the most inform striker, Kane had a lacklustre end to the season, Vardy from memory didn't score too many in the final games for Leicester, where as Rashford scored within what was two minutes of his international debut.

Oh and Kane must have been low in confidence looking at how he took that penalty in the warm up match.

This is not me being biased over Rashford, I would much rather have had an experienced striker in form that we could have called upon, rather than a very young player like Rashford (of for someone like Shearer, or heck even a Sir Les Ferdinand!), but the facts are that he was our most in-form and probably most confident striker, yet he was used as an after thought, only used when the manager thought it was a desperate enough situation that he should be brought on.

That is no way to use him, and once more reflects poorly on Roy.

No, he wasn't. You're being ridiculous.

A few quiet games at the end of a long season doesn't negate the fact that Vardy and Kane were clearly the leading strikers in the country. If Hodgson had dropped Kane in favour of Rashford, he'd have been sectioned.


Is this really the way that you think? Ronaldo missed a penalty in the group stage, so I guess that his confidence must have been on the floor, when he scored those two cracking goals against Hungary.


Those aren't 'facts' at all.

Just because you want something to happen doesn't make it more or less likely to happen and anyone who feels let down by something that wasn't all that likely to happen is frankly stupid no matter how much they want it.





If you cant be favourites against a team like Iceland what exactly are you looking for? England being favourites or not had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome and tbh it was Iceland, not Italy, it was hardly out of order to look for a win.



You are the ultimate "wise after the event" merchant. You didn't want Rashford picked in the bloody squad in the first place and you were demanding Kane and Vardy play so don't pretend otherwise.

Can you be anymore patronising?

My whole point wasn't to do with supporting a team or being disappointed in losing. It was being "let down", there's a difference. Being disappointed in losing is natural, being let down is getting a different result than what you expected. That was my whole point. You seem to be arguing something different. It's you who seems to be misinterpreting what I'm talking about.

But for that overly-patronising response you can go to Hell. I'm done with you.


Oh, and it's Les Ferdinand, not "Sir" Les Ferdinand. You've called him that before. People with an MBE don't get that title. Otherwise I'd be expecting you to be saying Sir Steven Gerrard from now on.

Zlatan will bring in far more in commercial revenue than his wages and bonuses, he's (still) almost in the Ronaldo/Messi bracket for that. If played in a way that doesn't disrupt the team or important player development, and supports and helps develop players, he'll be a bargain at almost any price.


Well that's the club's total value most of which is yes in US dollars but the Deloitte Rich List is based on total revenues and most of United's will be in sterling - which has dropped a lot compared to the Euro as well since Brexit and may stay there. I can't see us regaining top spot now in spite of the new PL TV deal, but I haven't tried to work it out in detail as I don't know what dates they use, and it probably depends on that.

I wonder who will leave first, Giggs from us, or Corbyn from Labour??!

Both seem entrenched where they are at the moment!

Vardy and Kane had tremendous, fantastic seasons, and fully deserved their place in the squad (unlike say Sturridge who did not merit or earn his place amongst the strikers chosen), I certainly have no quarrel with them being picked.

However there is no denying that Rashford was on a bit of a roll, and Roy's handling of him, was terrible, just chucking him on with a few mins to go, when what could he really be expected to do in that time frame??



I am not pretending otherwise, did I want Rashford in the squad, no I didn't, but once he was there, and picked in it, well then I can only talk about the squad that was picked, and how that was handled.

Would I have liked a somewhat different squad, yes I would, but then I think if you asked 100 people to pick a squad, you might get a very large number of different squads.



I am sorry if you felt that was overly-patronising, that was not meant to be the case, I was on trying to put forth my opinion in as clear a way as possible, it came across to you like you say it did, then I do honestly apologise for that.

Getting back to club matters, I wonder if we do end up signing Mikataryan, if his first match for us will be on the tour against Dortmund?

If so, that would be some way for him to make his debut!

What you have said is that you didnt want Rashford in the squad but you wanted him to play ahead of two strikers that you did want in the squad.

I'm very much back to my "you don't really know what you're talking about" opinion because that makes less than no sense.

Reports of man united opening talks with juventus about Pogba.

Would be an excellent signing as long as everyone was aware that there will be a Ronaldo style battle in 3 years time when Real want him.

looks the complete midfielder if he can keep his attitude right.

I'd be surprised if they don't want him now, to be honest.

Cynicism might well be getting the better of me, but I wouldn't be surprised if we're being used to prompt the Spanish clubs into making their moves.

We have added an extra pre-season game on the 30th of July against Galatasaray, in Sweden, if that doesn't tell you we have done a deal for Ibra, then I guess nothing will!

Well the last time Real wanted one of our players they failed, so if he comes here, then that will be fine by me, although of course by the looks of things the price will be huge.

They failed because of an administration error. I don't know how many times you have to be told this. They didn't fail because the player wanted to stay. You really aren't immune to Real Madrid.

However or whatever the reason for the failure, it still meant that they failed to get the player.

If he didn't want to stay, why did he sign a new long term deal?? That to me showed that he wanted to stay, unless you think signing new deals is not a sign players wish to stay at their clubs???

(so much for that rumour that there was a release clause in that contract, which I always said was highly doubtful, and Real were just waiting until this summer to activate it, that seems to have died a death as well doesn't it??)

He wanted to stay, hence the new long-term deal, and hence why there are no links or rumours about him leaving this summer.

At the time he signed he didn't want to stay, that was demonstrated by him coming within minutes of signing for Real. That's pretty simple to understand.

For the billionth time, he signed a contract in order to play.

I have to say, the tone of some of your responses, to The Munch in particular, is unbecoming.

The fact is he WANTED TO GO. He was minutes away from leaving because HE WANTED TO GO. He only stayed because of an admin error. That's it. We've been over this many times. Him staying because of a cockup doesn't mean anything, it doesn't make you immune to them. It doesn't mean if you sign Pogba then you won't have to worry about Real Madrid coming for him because they failed to sign De Gea. They failed because of an admin error, not because he wanted to stay. He wanted to go.


People have been over this with you many times before. Nobody really knows why. If Maybe to ensure he doesn't get benched all season? If he refused to sign a contract and waited it out it could affect any future movement. I don't know. Contracts don't mean all that much anymore. Loads of players sign contracts then move on a few months later. A few probably sign contracts knowing they'll be gone in the next transfer window. It was mainly for the club's benefit to protect his value.

He didn't want to stay. He wanted to go. It was clear because he never declared his interest to stay, and was minutes away from leaving. He never denied rumours, he never denied wanting to go to the one club that were minutes away from signing him.

The fact that he was minutes away from signing for Real Madrid suggests he wanted to go. The fact that he was minutes away from signing for Real Madrid shows that you aren't immune to them, it doesn't mean you don't have to worry about them. The reason he didn't actually leave DOES matter, because he didn't stay out of loyalty or wanting to stay, but because someone made a mistake.


De Gea wanted to go. They were about to sign him. Give Real Madrid five more minutes and he'd have been a Real Madrid player. You can fantasise about him wanting to stay all you want but it doesn't make it true.

Is it also pretty simple to understand that he signed a new deal because he wanted to stay here?


Yes he signed a new deal because he wanted to play for us, that is what I am saying.
If he didn't want to play for us, he would not have signed the long-term deal.

Are my responses unbecoming? I am sorry if you feel that way, how so? They are certainly not meant to come across like that from my end.