I didn't say England performed the same way as in the previous tournament, however similarities with rotation and disruption could be drawn, especially if England do not beat Colombia because then people will say we may as well have played a full-strength team against Belgium.
Why would you prefer Rashford to Sterling and do you think we can cope without a defensive midfielder?
I think Rashford deserves a proper go in a full side and Henderson is the defensive midfielder, best of a bad bunch though.
I disagree. I think Henderson is a playmaker but does not defensive duty, although perhaps with a back three we do not need one, however we may need someone in the pocket between defence and midfield to stop long range Colombian shots. I also prefer Rashford as an impact sub, however I guess it is all opinion .
The rotation only happened because we had qualified. Forgetting about the next round, I still have no problem with players being rested having one two games. You have to plan to be playing a lot of games. People will moan whatever way he goes, it’s what the English do. I dont think the changes were made because of the alleged easier route, but solely because he had an opportunity to give players a rest.
I think it was a bit of both tbh but we'll never know. We'll only know if it's had a negative impact by the first 20/30 minutes on Tuesday.
Only one team will win the Cup. It feels better if you progress....a quarter final or semi-final sounds better in the future than going out in the first knockout phase, but at the time going out will still feel crap. Things happen....how do we know that we wouldn't have gone out to Japan on penalties after a 0-0 draw. Remember Iceland. We may have increased our chances of going out in the next round...at the same time as increasing our chances of making the final. Either could happen. This will only be understood in retrospect...just want England to play well and then stick with Southgate.
I’m not sure we’ll learn anything anyway on tuesday. We could win and it might be nothing to do with what he did or we could lose and the same thing. It’s really just mostly discussion on what people think or would have done themselves. There is no right or wrong way here. Take me, I’m debating with people saying Southgate didn’t do anything wrong, but my preference before the game against Belgium was to play our strongest side with maybe 1 or 2 changes max. We didn’t but I fully accept and see why he did what he did. Japan is probably and easier game than Colombia, but eve then we can’t be sure. Then the counter argument is Brazil or Sweden/Switzerland and although it seems obvious, we just don’t know even then. He’s made his decision, the result has happened and we move on. It’s tough to do well in a World Cup whatever you do. COME ON ENGLAND!
Do you find people are avoiding you? As you say, it's a sterile argument. One of the things I have realised after a decade or 6 of being a football fan is that most of us fans talk bollocks. By which I mean we try to apply an everyday logic. So now it's "Ah. We've upset the rhythm of the team". Interesting that no-one seems to suggest that Martinez is the manager with a problem. His "B" team have just beaten England. Does he stay loyal to them or revert to his first choice players against Japan? I think we all know the answer. All we can predict about next Tuesday is that either Colombia or England will win, and the other will go home. There might be a crap VAR decision; a goalkeeper might let in a soft shot; some poor sod could miss a penalty. One thing that is for sure. The game against Belgium will not be a factor.
And what if we played our strongest team against Belgium and won....but players got injured, tired or collected cards and missed the next game. Giving players a chance to play in the World Cup in a dead rubber....where either outcome had advantages...is fine by me.
