Euro 2024: a selection headache for England and buildup to the last-16 ties – live news

Doug Purvis – with a mightily impressive beard in his email thumbnail – has cleared his lungs, clicked his fingers and unfurled a lengthy mail concerning England’s woes. He’s suggested a 3-4-3 as a remedy. What do you make of this?

First of all there is far too much noise. There’s a growing sense of entitlement emanating from England fans. We also see it with fans of clubs and in other spheres of society. That is, now that we’ve all been conditioned to see ourselves as consumers we’ve also come to feel we have a right to shout and demand and throw things if we feel the product we’re being sold is sub-standard. “I’ve paid good money to watch this rubbish!” This goes hand in hand with confusion surrounding a loss of community cohesion and a meaningful sense of identity that the neoliberal right, having created this cultural vacuum in the first place, is happy to exploit.

Having said that, beneath the noise, the criticisms of Southgate’s culture of caution is certainly justified, to some extent, and ignoring all the noise runs the risk of ignoring some reasoned analysis and some stark truths. I believe there’s a very straightforward way to restore balance to this team.

Firstly, there are there are other formations than 4-2-3-1, and that shape, with it’s dual pivot, is clearly not the one for this England team, especially when trying to break down ‘inferior’ opposition sitting in a low block. Secondly, if we don’t have a specialist left back, then why not employ a different formation that doesn’t require a left back? Thirdly, if we clearly need width in order to stretch massed defences, then play a left footed player on the left, rather than wasting Foden’s talents there. And, fourthly, don’t expect Alexander-Arnold, one of the best passers of a ball in world football, to magically morph into a player who can play as a defensive midfielder when he’s never done it, and it clearly doesn’t suit his skill-set.

Finally, find a way to get the best player in the Premier League last season – that’s Cole Palmer, who posted better numbers than Foden or anyone else, in spite of playing for a far inferior team, and must have been man of the match in about two-thirds of games he played – into the starting line-up.

With all that in mind, let’s just remember that Bukayo Saka is predominantly left-footed even though he plays as an inverted left-winger for Arsenal, so it should be no kind of stretch to play him on the left in order to free up space for Palmer and Alexander-Arnold on the right.

So how about 3-4-3 as a much better, more innovative, more coherent shape for this team? Like this: Pickford; Walker, Stones, Gomez; Alexander-Arnold, Rice, Bellingham/Mainoo, Saka/Gordon; Palmer, Kane/Watkins, Foden. (I’ve been advocating this since early-May, by the way.)

This formation gives us a proper left side, allowing Foden to play further inside in the spaces where he thrives, and it also gets Palmer and Alexander-Arnold into the positions on the right where they can thrive (with Palmer creating space for Trent to get on the ball and pick his killer passes). It even allows scope for Walker to get forward, with his pace, and create overloads on the right.

To me, that all looks so much better balanced, with genuine width on both flanks and greater strength in the middle to boot. The unlucky one, of course, would be Guehi, who’s been great, but who’d be sacrificed in order to get Gomez in as a genuine left-sided centre back (he’s done it many times at club level).

The alternative names offered here in three key positions are in recognition of the fact that they all offer something different, and that Bellingham, Kane and Saka all look like a break might do them some good, even though they’re all first choices. Eze, Bowen and others also have claims, but all might be better from the bench at this point.

“Nick Ames is absolutely correct”, says Kári Tulinius.

“The international game is now preferable to the club side of the sport. Don’t get me wrong, I still watch an inordinate amount of club football, but the romance has been ebbing away. The other day, prompted by discussion of the great Dinamo Tbilisi team, I looked at the clubs who won the Cup Winners Cup in the decade after them, and with the exception of Barcelona, Ajax and Juventus, each and every winner would today be considered a fairytale winner of the Europa League: Aberdeen, Everton, Dynamo Kyiv, Mechelen, and Sampdoria. During the same period the European Cup saw winners like Steuea Bucharest, PSV Eindhoven, Hamburg, and Aston Villa.

“It’s bad enough that the riches of the sport have been hoovered up by a handful of clubs, but now only the fans of a limited set of clubs from just a few nations can allow themselves to dream of glory. For the next few days, even though more likely than not a captain from one of the traditional powers will lift the cup at the end of the tournament, people from Georgia to Romania to Slovakia to Austria, and twelve other nations, can hope that their team will bring the trophy home.”

There’s a podcast war raging in the background with two mighty empires locked is a bitter contest for your ears.

But this has spilled over into the more traditional battle ground on the telly.

In one corner you have the BBC’s team, led by Gary Linekar and his Rest is Football crew.

Fighting them for supremacy is ITV with a clutch of big guns that regularly feature on the Overlap with Gary Neville, Roy Keane and Ian Wright forming a formidable triumvirate.

All of the above is grandiose and shouldn’t be taken seriously. But you should take this cracking piece by John Brewin seriously.

In it he unpacks a fascinating subplot that has developed on the fringe of the on-field action:

“Playing with John is a dream”

So says Marc Guéhi who has grabbed his opportunity and formed a formidable partnership at the heart of England’s defence with John Stones.

Sure, he’ll face stiffer tests as England progress through the tournament, but so far so good for a young man who many fans wouldn’t have had in their starting XI before the opening round.

David Hytner reports:

Have you ever seen someone strike the ball like this?

I missed this delicious connection. It’s now playing on repeat on another tab.

Thanks for holding the fort John.

I’m not sure about all of you, but I find it a bit odd that we’ve eliminated eight teams and still have 16 left in the competition. Would a 16 team format from the start be best? Or should we expand to 32?

Either way, and in case you’ve already forgotten about them, here’s the brief on the eight sides that stumbled at the first hurdle:

No Scotland, no party?

No Scotland, now party like the Scots, is Philipp Lahm’s suggestion. Just don’t play like them.

Ref watch. Michael Oliver given one of the bigger last-16 games. Anthony Taylor did not make himself popular with his dallying over that France v Netherlands offside decision.

So then, Slovakia. Paul MacInnes has been running the rule over them.

Tactical approach

The base formation is 4-3-3, with full-backs David Hancko and Peter Pekarik getting up the pitch in possession and outside the wide forwards Schranz and Lukas Haraslin. Slovakia are happy to play direct, with Schranz and Haraslin the main targets and the long-range distribution of defender Milan Skriniar is a distinct weapon. Off the ball the key is the coverage provided by the midfield of Duda, Stanislav Lobotka, and Juraj Kucka. This trio cut out the connection to Kevin De Bruyne against Belgium and denied the surges of Romania’s midfield trio on matchday three. Hancko and Pekarik have also proved effective in denying crosses into the box.

A wider football story from the Copa América.

PA Media report:

The United States Soccer Federation has criticised the racist comments directed at its men’s team after a shock 2-1 loss to Panama in the Copa América.

USA lost in Atlanta after Timothy Weah was sent off in the 18th minute before goals by Cesar Blackman and Jose Fajarado for Panama cancelled out Folarin Balogun’s opener for the host nation.

It has left USA in second place in Group C ahead of their final group fixture with Uruguay on Monday, but their players were targeted with racism following the narrow defeat.

“U.S. Soccer is aware of and deeply disturbed by the racist comments made online and directed at several of our men’s national team players following tonight’s match,” a statement read.

“There is absolutely no place in the game for such hateful and discriminatory behaviour. These actions are not only unacceptable but also contrary to the values of respect and inclusivity that we uphold as an organisation. U.S. Soccer stands firmly against racism in all forms and will continue to support our players.”

John Brewin

What were you doing at 16?

I hate these questions. They always make me feel terrible about myself and my lack of sporting talent. But you know what, sometimes they help put into context how stupidly good some of these elite players are.

Take Lamine Yamal, the teenager who can’t legally vote but is one of the stars of the Euros.

Sid Lowe sat down with Ferran Torres who says that the Barca prodigy’s abilities should be “illegal”.

If it makes the rest of us feel better about ourselves, then maybe there should be laws on being so good at such a young age.

England fans: Have you watched on as other teams light up the tournament, spreading the ball at pace and attacking with enthusiasm and vigour? Have you cast an envious eye towards a rival and though, ‘Why can’t Gareth do more with the highest valued team on the planet?’

You’re not alone.

Barney Ronay has taken a gander at Austria and likes what he sees. More to the point, he’s comparing Ralf Rangnick’s renegades with Southgate’s sorry sacks and found some striking differences between them.

Club versus Country: A battle as old as time.

A battle, according to Nick Ames, with a clear winner.

And I’ve got to say, I fully agree with Nick when he argues that the Euros proves that the sordid, elitist club game has lost its soul (I’m paraphrasing here).

Another thing I love about international football is how even the best teams are restricted. England don’t have a left side – on attack or defence – but that’s just too bad. They can’t go out and buy a left footed player. They simply have to make do. I love that!

So, whatdya reckon? Agree with Nick on this?

England have never lost to Slovakia in six matches, with five wins and one draw.

But apart from a 4-0 win in a friendly in 2009, they’ve been tight affairs with scores of 2-1 and 1-0 in World Cups, and 0-0, 2-1 and 2-1 in the Euros.

Does this mean anything? Not really. England are ‘miserable’ and Slovakia are targeting an upset, according to this fascinating piece by Lukas Vrablik in Zilina:

But can Slovakia actually hurt England? Paul MacInnes breaks it down:

Here are 10 stats from the group stage and number two will shock you!

Seriously, the second stat in this list compiled by Niall McVeigh sums up England’s ineptitude so far. If they can get that right I bet their entire attack will start to function as it should.

Anthony Gordan injured in turbo bike accident

Phil Foden returns

So, England are on the so-called ‘easy side of the draw’, where their path to glory is paved with gold?

Right?

Guess again, says Jacob Steinberg, who douses cold water on that hot take by taking a look at England’s murky past.

Preamble

Daniel Gallan