And TBH that team was Croatia, not Slovakia lol. MUCH MUCH BETTER TEAM.

He has no doubt made some peculiar decisions but dont write us off yet!!

So, apart from Sir Alf, who has been a good enough manager for yo for England.

Every manager I can remember has taken exactly the same flak Roy is getting, and some even worse, including Bobby Robson, who is so lovingly remembered now, but at the time was hated by many.

It's national passtime to slag off the manager, and people just dive in as a matter of routine.

Roy had poor teams for two tournaments, and people actually knew we wouldn't do any good. He has developed a good squad over the past year or so, but it is still early in their development for them to reach the highs many of you seem to expect.

So who are all these superstars he hasn't picked that will terrorise the best defences in the world, and stroll through to winning the tournament?

And Croatia made five changes, and won with a late goal. The lines are that fine.

The two first choice full backs were given a rest, as they were for Spurs every other game most of the season. They play with such a high intensity that it can be worthwhile.

Those that came in had good games, and did nothing wrong. Most have Clyne as man of the match.

The consequences of not beating Russia or Slovakia are quite catastrophic in terms of tournament progression. England have just made their path at least a million times tougher! France, Germany, Spain, Italy is scary company to be in!

And Spain made their route tougher by losing to Croatia. That's football.

Yes, Spain were morons and thought Croatia were happy to settle for second place, so were playing for a draw. But this is Spain - they're quite strong and won 3 of the last 4 major tournaments an then you have England - not been in a semi-final in 20 years. Hmmm...

But it's not like they have to play them all anyway. If you're in the tournament to win, you shouldn't be afraid of a couple of big matches.

But any one of them could easily knock England out.

At least we cant face both Germany and Spain in the tournament and probably not Italy. .....Which is a silver lining.

Any team in the knockout stages could knock any other side out really, once you're at that point you can't really hold out much hope for 'easy'.

And if we make it past France and Germany/Spain/Italy the final will be a breeze!

So what? We support our teams, because we support them, not because of what they win (although that maybe doesn't apply to all of us).

Anyone can knock out anyone else. That's football again.

Easily? Let's hope all the teams you mention think that.

Ok, I get all the faux outrage, but if I were a player I would rather have Wales' path to the final than England's! Just saying

not that I care either way, but there really was no need to make that many changes when qualification itself wasn't assured, nevermind top spot.

Shhhh, you will anger the beast of Hodgson supporters

Sadly we don't really have any true superstars Like Becks or Scholes, to call upon anymore, but that doesn't mean that the squad as it is could not be improved upon.

For a start the balance of it is all wrong, why bring only one DM (Dier), that forces him to have to play every minute of every match, as there is no replacement for him, bad move.

Why use wide players, and then bring a horribly out if form player? (Sterling)

Why bring someone who has barely played for two years (Whilshire)??

Do you see what I am getting at here, it is no so much the fact that superstars have been left out, it is more to do with the actual make up of the squad itself, if it were to be balanced better, then I think that we could become a better more balanced team.

Why dont you talk about whoever you support. The moaners complain about every England manager, and Roy is no exception. Those with more realistic views support the team they support, and are happy if they see some progress, and decent play. We've had that so far.

We haven't got anyone else that plays like Dier, therefore whoever replaces him is different.

I do agree about Sterling, and I would have preferred Townsend, but most people dont like him either.

We have plenty of play wide, because of who the full backs are. They are better than most wingers.

Wilshire is not first choice, so isn't making a huge impact on what's happening.

Club loyalties, and prejudices cloud too many peoples views, and most of the moaners are not really fans of the national side, they just jump out of the woodwork at tournaments.

Thankfully there are plenty of proper England fans who support the team as they would their clubs.

I want England to do well, that's the problem, but I also have eyes and a slight understanding of good and bad football, which makes England games a tad frustrating.

I have never complained about Eriksson as manager because that was the last time England played some decent-looking football. Everything that followed was awful. Now England have the players to actually go slightly further in this tournament, but the manager is completely destroying any chance of that.

Who I would get instead of Hodgson? Definitely not an English manager because there are no good ones. I would get Low or Wenger. There I said it.

I just wanted a squad irrespective of who the players played for, which was balanced, included players with confidence and who were in form (as so much of this game is in the mind as well as in the feet), surely that was not too much to ask for was it??

Instead we get this horribly mixed up squad, which has unsurprisingly performed well below par so far.