I would say play the team against Wales with Sturridge down

Having had a good look at England players over the three games, I think the team picks itself. The only contention is Kane or Vardy but Kane is the better option when there opposition leave no space to run into in the last third:

Hart

Walker Cahill Smalling Rose

Dier Rooney

Lallana Alli Sturridge

Kane

Banks Cohen Wilson. Stiles Charlton Moore ball greaves Peters Hurst Charlton.
Sorry. Roger.

Criminal that greaves didn't play. Every time I try to type greaves the spell checker puts greatest. Nuff said.

Leicester prolly lol

I'd go with that too.

As good as Lallana has been playing he needs to get his shooting boots on. He's had clear cut chances in each of the group games and hasn't buried any of them.

Based on what he's picked so far and how they've played.

* GK - Hart. Definite.
* RB - Walker. Clyne was good the last game too though.
* RCB - Smalling.
* LCB - Cahill
* LB - Rose
* DM - Dier
* CM - Rooney
CM - Alli. Probably although I think he can improve.
RW - Sturridge. With two wingers in the squad and one out of form then it has to be whoever else can play wide.
STR - Vardy
* LW - Lallana

(* I think these players are definites.)

And if he needs a change it will probably be Henderson if legs are tiring in midfield, Kane for Vardy around the 60 min - 70 min mark if he's not threatening, or Rashford out wide.

I don't think we'll see Wilshere again this tournament. Milner has been unlucky not to get a game after a good season but I can't see him or Barkley being involved now either unless injuries force it. Ditto Stones and probably Bertrand too. I'm not sure who is left.

The team that played the second half against Wales

My comments added.

There seems a broad consensus about the best starting line up for England with which I concur. The main dilemma centres on Kane and Vardy. The way England plays obviously does not suit Vardy, so he effectively goes missing/is ignored/is by-passed for most of the time he is on the pitch - perhaps if Drinkwater had been in the team things would be different, but he isn't. OTOH Kane, to me, looks as though he is lacking the crucial bit of edge that makes all the difference to a striker; I think he is drained/exhausted from his efforts for Spurs this season.

IOW, I doubt whether either Kane or Vardy can deliver for England, the former because he is not physically where he needs to be, the latter because England's style of play simply does not suit him. I wonder, and this really is not something I expected to be coming out with at this point in the tournament, but I wonder if we should be giving Marcus Rashford his chance - he has certainly shown he can deliver when he was unexpectedly asked to do so by United., Rashford has pace, has an eye for a goal, has shown he has the temperament and presumably he is in the squad because he is thought good enough to play for the team.

I think you maybe right in this analysis.

I do think it will be a mistake to omit Vardy though. Without Vardy, we would have lost to Wales, and been out with 2 points. With Vardy, we still have a chance. He would walk into any other team at these Euros.

No he wouldn't. Can't emphasise that enough.

I would have Vardy in the starting line up. He's a bigger threat than sturridge at the moment...

Not with the way we are playing. Vardy was useless against Slovakia because we weren't playing to his strengths, and take his goal away against Wales, he was anonymous, again because we were not playing to his strengths.

I don't think we are playing to the strengths of any of our strikers, but Sturridge is naturally someone who actively gets more involved, as is Kane. If they aren't seeing much of the ball, they will drop deeper to pick it up and to get involved in the play, whereas Vardy is naturally the type who waits for the ball to be played to him. That's not a knock on Vardy, that's just the type of striker he is. For that reason, I think Kane and Sturridge are currently bigger threats for us than Vardy is.

As my earlier post shows, I am genuinely conflicted about our strikers. I think I would start with Sturridge and Vardy, but if Vardy is by-passed for the first 45 minutes and hardly touches the ball, making no significant contribution, then I would be prepared to bring on Rashford ahead of Kane.

I think Kane is a cracking player, I wouldn't want anything I am saying to give any other impression, but I just don't feel he is in the right shape to give of his best. And it is only his best that is good enough for England.

Credit to Vardy for scoring but he hasn't been all that amazing in the games he has played. I don't really think there is an obvious choice regarding strikers, both Kane and Vardy are good enough to score if they get a decent chance in front of goal, there just haven't been too many of them so far. Ultimately I think Kane has more to his game so would prefer to see him start with Vardy coming on as a sub to use his pace against tiring defenders.

Henderson played a great ball to Vardy, who hit it well but straight at the keeper in that game.. He also flicked a header on to sturridge very early on and sturridge just couldn't get to the ball properly... Sturridge drops too deep and doesn't have his head up enough to spot runs of others if he is gokng to do that. He actually slowed the play a lot by getting the ball well outside a danger area and having to move it on to his left side and allowed defenders to get organised

If straight 442, then have Kane and sturridge, otherwise I'd have vardy