MotoMkali

Disagree. It looks way cleaner and better on kits. As much as I hate Liverpool their kits look way better for stripping the badge down to just the red whatever it is (Phoenix? Dragon?) we keep the current badge for non kits. But then we can put on a badge that actually fits the kits colour scheme rather than let's face it clach awfully half the time.

Artfulness

Doesn't matter because we are entertaining. As long as it doesn't come at the cost of relegation and therefore potentially destroying the club I'd prefer us to play entertaining football than get European football. But again it doesn't matter because we do play entertaining attacking football. But I'm much more pliable with it in regards to villa. I don't feel any particular affinity towards the English national team. Especially since every game we play is boring as hell. It's either against terrible teams with no tension or it is against a competent opponent it's a snoozefest. The one time we actually attacked consistently this tournament it was a 4-0 battering. Maybe if we played like that more consistently. Although 2 goals from set pieces and another the keeper should have saved came down to luck.

I think a lot of us have made it clear we aren't fans though. We are villa fans first and foremost and would rather watch entertaining football than win.

First why does it matter. 2nd I'm not telling anyone on here my age 3rd I'm not a 12 year old if that is what you are asking.

Yes I'm English. I don't care about the Euros or World Cup except for Villa players. I'll support the Olympic team but thats because the competitions are actually entertaining normallybas opposed to the English National side. I'll watch but I don't care unless we actually have skin in the game.

No, but I don't support England, I support villa players. So I agree with his initial statement.

Old enough to understand the basic concept that performance is more indicative of future results than current and past results. And we perform awfully.

Good results =/= Good Performances. Ukraine was a good performance although helped by awful keeping and the team giving up after the 2nd goal. The others were pretty poor imo.

No because football is luck. If we dominated the game then maybe I'd consider myself wrong. But we are sturdy enough that a good team will struggle to break us down even if they dominate the ball. Football is entertainment that is where all the money comes from, I'm very disappointed with how we play because it isn't entertaining. I'm even more disappointed at how Southgate treats Jack, and the double standard he requires of jack compared to everyone else.

Just because one team beats another doesn't mean you'd beat the side that was beaten. 2nd they completely changed up their DM pairing after that game which made them way better. I also said to a lesser extent. I mostly meant Spain, Italy and Belgium as the teams we'd get schooled by.

I'd be unhappy. Boring football is boring football. It's entertainment and that is what should come first

No set a different standard for Jack than he had for everyone else. Foden has been poor for England. He was justified in not playing him.

They'd be saying they had a lucky route. Whilst getting to the finals is an accomplishment. Had we played any team with both a good squad and a competent manager ala Spain, Italy, Belgium, and Arguably Portugal and France we'd be talking about how the finals were completely different. Vindication isn't earned through results, it's earned through respect and performance. As soon as a Premier league club tries to poach Southgate maybe ill think he was semi-competent. Until that day though, I will think he got handed the most talented squad in the world, had the easiest routes to the finals, whilst all the other top teams were historically bad and he still bottles it.

How was he to know they were going to miss a player for the last 15. What's more for the first 10 minutes of extra time they dominated. The only reason we looked comfortable is because I the end they couldn't press. There's a difference between getting a result and being correct. And people like Southgate and Steve Bruce are the living embodiments of that.

Quickly almost as if when he plays in the centre and truly has the free role he is the most effective player in the world outside of 3 certain fellows named Robert, Cristiano and Lionel.

Grealish is a better counter attacking player than sterling as well. In fact he is the best in the prem and probably the only player comparable to him at it in world football is spinnazola.

Jack does take penalties. By all accounts he's actually very very good at them. One of 2 in the England u-23s to not miss a penalty in training. Only taken 2 for us 1 was a goal. The other was the underside of the bar. He selects who takes the pens. Normally he lets the striker take them to bump up their goal tallies but maybe he should. Because then he can force his way into the team via the layman.

In the 2 easiest paths to the finals in history. The only easier ones were Croatia in 2018 and Portugal in 2016.

Because he hasn't shown contempt for Foden time and time again.

Only because they were completely exhausted and had 10 men due to injury. And were missing their best player the entire tournament.

He's better defensively in every metric than sterling. Plus he takes pressure off the defence like no one else on football. Look at our defensive stats with and without him. We concede 0.5 more per game without him.

Has much better defensive stats than sterling.

Ridiculous, one of the few guaranteed to want to take a penalty.

I corrected myself which is why it says correction. I believe Freddie was higher percentile. But cash had slightly more per 90