inckley fox

Well they've all taken your stance, without exception, and paid quite the price for it. It may be old-fashioned of me, but I prefer to judge players by their performances (and his have been suspect in many, many games in the three relegations he's featured in) and actions (e.g. wanting to leave as early as his first pre-season with us, cupping his ears etc.) than by what managers with questionable track records who have spent five minutes at the club say about how great he is. On the one hand is a huge amount of evidence that he's not very good and isn't a particularly great bloke to have hanging around the place, and on the other is an extremely dubious opinion which we've heard several times in the past, and seen with our own eyes, over years, to be misguided every time.

Well, it's as if they all start from scratch with no knowledge of what went before. And if you get through 1-3 managers per year that's always going to be a problem. Like Ruud being entirely unaware of Danny Ward's history at the club, or every new boss giving Winks / Faes / Soumare their chance. You can't change managers with such frequency if the incoming bosses consistently refuse to learn from what happened to their predecessors. You create a situation wherein many fans have a better handle on the issues at the club than the managers they bring in. Clearly, if you're mounting any kind of coherent response to what's happened to this club over the past four years, then naming Wout Faes as your captain is about as clear an indication as you'll get that someone is looking for the wrong solutions in the wrong places. For the fifth or sixth time on the trot.

I think it was petulant. Yes contrasting views are normal in a dressing room, and it's tough to say the right things in the heat of the moment, but the fact that we're talking about it so much is proof in itself that this isn't merely a case of a mountain being crafted from a molehill by the blood-hungry media. And of course a reporter is going to ask those questions. It's his job to get the juiciest possible answers rather than bland platitudes, so let's not make out that it's in some way his wonky moral compass which has caused this. I actually thought the pundits in the studio played it down more than they might have. It's being widely talked over by the press across Europe, with the Spanish press divided between the pro-Real contingent who have always felt that Tuchel has it in for their players, and the others who feel that Bellingham needs to grow up and take on criticism if he's going to make the most of his career. I've seen one headline - in Spain again I think - which talked it up as a 'civil war' in the England camp. So yes, it is a fairly big story, and I can understand why too. As for the comments, well, Tuchel is clearly right. We haven't particularly clicked with any consistency in the tournament, have ridden our luck at times, and will have to improve considerably on that, or it'll be the same-old same-old come the back end of the week, and we'll be out. If that simple truth is really so hard for England players to take on, if they've got so carried away by this point that nothing and nobody can ground them, then not only will they go home empty-handed this year, but it'll go a long way towards explaining why they go home empty-handed every year. They were celebrating that win like it was the final itself and the manager wisely wants to throw some cold water on it. I hope the players take heed, including Bellingham, who has only truly achieved one thing with his comments: if we put in a vastly superior performance and beat the Argentinians, everyone will point to the importance of having a manager who demands more. Tuchel will be totally vindicated. But if it goes wrong - and we know how short a turnaround there is in England from hero worship to nationwide vilification - then people are going to question whether the real problem with England was apparent in that interview this morning, and the players' unwillingness to accept that maybe, just maybe, they need to do a little better sometimes. If there is a civil war going on in the dressing room (and I highly doubt it's that bad), or - let's say - a tug-of-war between those who think we've been heroic and wonderful, and those who think we need to do much more and have nothing to celebrate yet, then I know which camp needs to win that particular debate in order for England to be successful.

I'd absolutely blame Embolo too, but I'm also trying to remember how many other yellows have been given for simulation this tournament. I'm sure I've missed a few, but it's seemed a largely overlooked offence. While I get the 'mistaken identity' element, I still think people might ask whether it's a tad convenient that an erstwhile dormant rule has suddenly proven so decisive.

Yes, the sum total of nothing as per usual, and - as per usual - it arrives at the precise moment when something very substantial is needed.

There's a very straightforward question that Infantino's actions, past and present, have made absolutely imperative for him to answer: Is the US President misrepresenting his communication with you and, in doing so, undermining the principles on which any competitive sport has to be founded, and in a way which Fifa would clearly deem deeply offensive and reprehensible; or, is he telling the truth? It really is one or the other. If it's the former, condemn his claims. If you can't condemn his claims, then it's the latter and you have undermined sporting integrity in football in a way that even Sepp Blatter couldn't manage to.

And was that a booking?! I'm unashamedly pro-Morocco, but they've not been a very nice team and the refereeing has been pretty substandard, which hasn't helped Canada at all. It feels a bit harsh on them.

That chap looked onside there, didn't he?

I thought he could have avoided showing the two yellows if he'd been quicker and more decisive with the Hakimi incident. And Morocco have struggled to put passes together and had a tendency to fling themselves over under any sort of pressure. He and the other officials have fallen for it too often, and as a result the Canadians are getting frustrated with some of the officiating. Oliver also looks a bit rattled. I think he knows it's a tough game to arbitrate, and that he hasn't fully got a handle on things.

I think the ref has lost control a bit here.

Of course it is! I think historically that sort of system is very chaotic, but it doesn't mean that what was right in the past is right now.

It's very normal though. We have a representational democracy rather than a direct one. That applied when Thatcher brought in the poll tax, when Blair gave independence to the Bank of England and when he brought in tuition fees. It also applied when Cameron legalised same-sex marriages. In fact, when you get a coalition government like that particular one, it can only work if you accept that the manifesto isn't set in stone. It helps political legitimacy to secure a mandate, but sometimes it's just impractical. Things arise, circumstances change, and we've effectively entrusted a majority of MPs to make the best judgement on the big decisions without seeking individual mandates. In fact, that's also, in principle, why the Lords exist. They aren't supposed to vote down manifesto commitments but have more freedom to apply the brakes on other major legislation. There's a name for this, but I can't remember what it is. We haven't had a single parliament in which an elected PM survived to the end, with his/her party's manifesto intact, since Blair was re-elected for the first time. Since then there has been a change of PM or a coalition government which automatically compromises manifesto commitments in every single parliament. On the occasions when those governments have consulted the public via referendum, you could argue that it tended to get a little messy and served to remind us that direct democracy has plenty of its own flaws too.

All true. And with that in mind the obvious conclusion I'd draw is to get behind it, because 'this is the hand we've been dealt'. And I totally accept that in the short-term the job may get done. We might go up. But in the long-term I also see that the only way things will ever work out with Top and friends at the helm is for them to fundamentally rethink their ideas. Agreed, it's highly unlikely that will ever happen, but it's still the only hope. So I might well say 'let's get behind it, give it a chance and hope things work themselves out down the line', but someone else might say 'no, if it's never going to work, let that become as abundantly clear as soon as possible so we can correct course'. I understand both ways of looking at it, even though it's highly unlikely that Top will ever see short-term (but unsustainable) success under Martin for what it is. Or, alternatively, to look at short-term failure under Martin, and make the right decisions to address these fundamental issues. In spite of this catch-22 sort of situation, the only way of looking at it which still makes zero sense to me is the 'perhaps this time they're actually going to get it right' brand of blind optimism which some still seem to prefer.

Very best of luck to her in her new chapter.

That was very, very tongue-in-cheek. I literally spent three hours last week explaining why this was wrong!