I am not sure that we ever came together. It took 119 minutes to scrape by Belgium in a tedious game and then had a 38 year old running rings around us in the quarter finals and needed extra time and two penalties to get by.

We only won one game out of six in 90 minutes and that was a 1-0 against Egypt.

Of course. Especially when the same issues rear their head again and again with no sign of changes.

If you look back through my post history (goodness knows why you would but... ) you'd see I was quite positive after the Russia game - thought it was typical England to throw it away in the 90th but thought we played well overall deserved the win. So I don't criticise all the time.

I guess in truth all three group matches resulted in the same issue - some nice possession play but lack of cutting edge. And this is despite us having a squad full of supposedly excellent strikers and exciting talent in midfield.

Peter Shilton was interviewed about it on Sky Sports and was very blunt about how poorly England performed until the semi when we went out.

Supposedly excellent attackers who have not played a minute of tournament international football or Champions League matches. They are all good players but maybe Vardy, Kane, Alli, Sturbridge, Rashford, Lallana and Barkley who have barely a minute of that behind them are not quite there yet. They will be, but you could easily reel of 20 attackers, in this tournament, currently better and much more proven than them.

I thought we were pretty poor in that tournament and peoole thought we should have won the World Cup. I remember we faced Camerroon in the Quarter finals and although we took the lead, we were second best to a team we should have beaten comfortably, and we only won by scoring two penalties. I think our best performance was against West Germany in the semi finals when we finally had a team that could go all the way but we came up short in a match we should have won

That is true and they were talking about that on BBC One earlier - Lewandowski, Ronaldo and Ibrahimovic haven't scored a goal between them at this tournament so far; obviously all three have time to change that but so have the English strikers.

Last night just felt very flat in general though and that's why I said it simply wasn't good enough. It felt as though we were content with a draw rather than really going for it. Maybe we feared dropping to third, which we could have done with a defeat, but if so we should have played a full strength team.

A normal manager would have kept with the team we had VS Wales (half time one) gone for a win, got a minimum 1 goal lead THEN start making the changes. Momentum is soo important in these tournaments. What Roy did I will simply never understand. He basically treated the game like a friendly and forgot he is in a major tournament. He is suffering just as much nerves as the players.

The fact he went on to say in the interview after that "someone is gonna pay" simply says it all. He was frustrated by his GAMBLE and thats what it was you know even if we did win the momentum was lost totally, Its a nice gesture to want to give everyone a chance to play but I honestly think that last minute Wales comeback could have been an amazing catalyst for something we have not seen in many, many years.

This might work out to our advantage as our first choice full backs have had a rest, also giving Rooney and Kane a rest was the right thing to do as Kane did look jaded. I think this was the match to try out some players who have not played yet and what we saw was that Clyne is a very good backup to Walker and Henderson could do a good job if Dier ever got injured, also Sturridge and Vardy deserved to start after the Wales game and played well. So playing a different team could work out for the best in the long run

I wouldn't be surprised if we see an improvement in the next game.
Going for a win, not for points. Not just us but also the opposition.

Our best work came from Walker and then Clyne. Speedy breaks down the flanks created a few decent chances. Unfortunately they were not taken.

When we were "comfortable" in possession, in a way just as frustrating as United under Van Gaal last season, we were unable to play through a narrow and packed defence.

We can't unlock a compact defence with the players we have. Just look at the ridiculous back heels and flicks from the likes of Wilshere and Rooney. Not to mention the appalling Sterling.

This slowly slowly possession approach completely negates any threat from Vardy. He needs to run on to the ball. He's a fantastic goal scorer but his passing isn't the best.

So, if a team is coming on to us, there's every chance we can quickly turn defence into attack, allowing the likes of Walker or Dier to play that killer ball.

The downside of playing a better quality team is our defence and the pressing on our midfield. Less time on the ball may well show that Rooney is by no means a midfield maestro. It's all well and good hitting a 30 yard pass when you've got plenty of time to do it. A decent side won't allow Rooney to do this. He misses a fair percentage of long range passes when he's under no pressure.

Then there's Smalling. He can tackle but he can't pass. He is also prone to making mistakes. A quality player could make him look like a right mug.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a misplaced pass by Rooney, leading to a cock up by Smalling and a shocking attempt at a save by Hart.

That being said, I think we have the quality to beat anyone on our day.

I like the way people in the England camp say it will be better when teams have a go at us. Really? You nearly managed to gift Slovakia a goal and they "parked the bus". Be very careful what you wish for!

I suppose you're right. It was the semi final when we actually looked a very good team.

Anyone can make a mistake. We dominated that match, and if we get more space to attack, we will get more chances.

I'm sure many of the other teams that have struggled to break down opponents will feel the same.

Those "unnamed sources" at the FA and the media befuddle me.

Do they truly believe any combination of our squad would have made a massive (positive) difference to Monday's result? They cite emphasize changes to make it sound drastic but in reality two of those changes were pretty much universally demanded (Kane & Sterling) and two were the fullbacks - the most attacking one of those (Walker) being replaced by a player who put in a MOTM performance. Would Rose have made a huge attacking difference? I don't believe so.

So that leaves Rooney & Alli - both poor-to-average when they came on anyway. Both are questionable discipline-wise (mentally and positionally) so you could argue they'd have not kept Hamsik as quiet.

From what I saw, the only truly regrettable decision (partly in retrospect but it was always a gamble) was Wilshere. I'd still have rested Alli & Rooney so for me it was a case of whether Milner/Barkley could have been accommodated. I don't like Wilshere in a central role anyway - behind the striker somewhere and we may have got more joy out of him.

So the usual media backlash and hysteria - there's room for criticism but it's OTT as usual and will only serve to aggrevate. We are actually looking quite assured and positive in relation to other recent tournaments albeit a bit predictable and one-dimensional. The FA should already know they were never going to get any revolutionary out of Hodgson.

We have a squad that is far better than the last two, and they are playing better than then. That's progress. The fact we are not the best team in the world should not be held against them.

We make the quarters I think most will be happy that was the target.

Beyond the quarters was never likely however if you get there Roy stays

But it was likely if you had just won the bloody group!!! Look at the ridiculous draw Wales got

That was certainly my expectation. If we are realistic, we wont have all the nonsense that surrounds us at every tournament.

If only the players had thought it would be better to win a game.

So Roy out and who to replace him??

Big Sam?? Pardew??? Eddie Howe?? Captain Bruce??

If we are to say goodbye to Roy after this tournament, and hello to someone new, and if we are sticking with someone who is English, then the pickings are not exactly plentiful at the moment.

He'd have the group stage wrapped up

Yeah and Neil Webb can be his assistant to delivery them.

God damn spell check!

Martin Samuel in the DM today has plagiarised my earlier line about Hodgson being the Stuart Lancaster of English football, when we needed Eddie Jones.

He must be watching us carefully.

The most accurate description of the situation I have read!

Big Sam, Captain Bruce,

Should be Big Bruce surely. Sam is a mere slip of a thing in comparison.
Sam would be a far better idea than Hodgson. He was when Hodgson got the shout I believe.

The FA didn't want putting under pressure, and they rejected Sam in the same way they rejected Cloughie. Hodgson was the Mike Bassett choice.