Alf Bentley

I wonder if Kane was just physically unable to be as mobile as usual, due to the heat and humidity? Against Norway, he certainly seemed to drop deep a lot less than usual - which takes away a big part of his game, if he's just a striker sitting on defender's shoulders and trying to make moves in the box. Hopefully conditions will be more helpful in Atlanta....

I'll feel more confident if..... - Rice is fit and starts - Likewise, Reece James at RB - We start Saka, not Madueke I think our struggles v. Norway were strongly linked to the absence of a fit Rice (unfit in 1st half, subbed for 2nd). He really does help us exercise some control over possession and reads the game well. In possession, he also links defence, wings and attack. I gather he was ill, rather than injured, so hopefully more chance of him being fit? Would also be good if we have a specialist RB, namely James, rather than a converted CB - and someone comfortable joining possession in midfield as we move forward. The stated explanation for starting Madueke, not Saka v. Norway made sense - namely that Madueke is a more mobile, athletic player better able to track back and assist a non-specialist RB. They've also clearly been managing Saka's return to full fitness. But we saw what we were missing when Saka came on v. Norway - much more accurate and dangerous crossing and greater goal threat. Here's hoping Gordon also continues his current good run of form, after a slow start struggling to penetrate deep-lying defences in the group stage.

I'm seeing Rachel Reeves in a completely new light. She'll clearly need a new job, once Burnham boots her out of No. 11 - but I certainly hadn't previously imagined her having a future in stand-up comedy....

This must be the greatest moment for the Fery family since great-uncle Brian led his glam-art rock combo Roxy Music to glory with songs like Virginia Plain, Love is the Drug and In Every Dream Home a Heartache.

If there's an England v Argentina semi-final and FIFA conspires to ensure a win for the Argies, maybe Infantino will be overcome to the extent that he drops his trousers and reveals his tattoo live on TV?

Is this the sort of scenario you envisage?

Qualified for Last 16 from Last 32 Europe 7/13 South America 4/5 North America 3/3 (3 x hosts) Africa 2/9 Asia 0/2

I thought I'd look at how the different continental confederations have performed so far.... W/D/L & Points per Game South America P18 W9 D6 L3 Pts 33 PPG 1.83 Europe P48 W24 D12 L12 Pts 84 PPG 1.75 Africa P30 W10 D10 L10 Pts 40 PPG 1.33 N/C. America P18 W6 D2 L10 Pts 20 PPG 1.11 Asia* P27 W3 D9 L15 Pts 18 PPG 0.66 Oceania P3 W0 D1 L2 Pts 1 PPG 0.33 (* Asia includes Australia as they play in that confederation) Qualified for Group Stages Africa 9/10 (90%) South America 5/6 (83.3%) Europe 13/16 (81.25%) N/C. America 3/6 (50%) Asia* 2/9 (22.2%) Oceania 0/1 (0%) (* Asia includes Australia as they play in that confederation) An extraordinary achievement for so many African sides to make the knock-outs - though a lot fewer seem likely to make the last 16 or quarter-finals. Africa now has a lot of tier 2 sides, but not many tier 1 yet - but much better placed in 2026 than Asian sides and N/C. American sides, especially allowing for host nation status for US/Can/Mex. I wonder if it would benefit the likes of New Zealand if the Asian and Oceanian confederations merged? The Aussies seem to have thrived by playing Asian sides, rather than Pacific island nations. Teams winning all their group matches: Argentina, France & Mexico Teams losing all their group matches: Haiti, Panama, Tunisia, Iraq, Jordan & Uzbekistan Teams failing to score a goal: Panama Teams yet to concede a goal: Spain & Mexico Thanks for your appreciation, Statto Alf

Should be fun when Iran win the World Cup....

Conçeiçao goes straight to the top of my annoying World Cup footballers list. Almost every single time he got the ball in advanced positions down the wing, he turned back and played it back into midfield or dribbled it backwards - allowing a poor Uzbek defence to regroup. I can understand him mixing it up, sometimes playing it back to move defenders around and create space or because no cross is on.....but all the time? Sign him up, Russell!

I strongly agree with the OP. So far, the refereeing has been very good indeed, with very rare exceptions. I've seen quite a few full matches, as well as highlights, and can confirm a definite trend for refs to ignore players who go down needlessly after a bit of contact. Glad to hear that's due to a FIFA directive. Several other FIFA directives seem to be working well: - The rule saying throw-ins will be handed to the other side if the delay lasts more than 10 (?) seconds is meaning fewer delays and more continuous action. - The rule that players leaving the pitch or receiving treatment due to injuries have to stay off for a minute is meaning fewer faked injuries - and fewer needless delays, again - There also seems to be less diving, though whether that relates to rule adjustments, I don't know - There have only been a handful of over-long delays due to VAR decisions. Most decisions seem to be happening quickly and accurately I know people have gripes about the hydration breaks. They might have a point, but slightly overstated IMHO. Even if this one is a negative, it is outweighed by the positives of the other adjustments, in my view.

Yep. Based on current polling, I'd expect the 11 MPs elected for Leics/Rutland under a hypothetical STV/MMC system to include Lab, Con, LD, Greens and Reform.

I'm a longstanding PR supporter. In 2000, I went to ask my Labour MP why the Blair Govt wasn't keeping its manifesto promise to hold a referendum on electoral reform. He told me that FPTP delivered strong government.....I wonder if he still thinks so, after Iraq, austerity, Brexit, Boris, Truss, 7 PMs in 10 years etc? I ended up voting LD as a protest in 2001. Mind you, I do think we'd have to be careful what PR system we choose, if it ever happens. The national list system is about the most strictly proportional, but comes with the serious downside that a party or individual with 1% of the vote or less can hold a govt to ransom. This isn't just theory. It's happened in Israel. Netanyahu is a nasty piece of work, anyway, but it doesn't help that the survival of his govt (and potentially his avoidance of prison) depends on a tiny minority of ultra-Orthodox extremists. Also, however, ridiculous our system of local MPs might seem, I suspect that the PR campaign would lose a lot of public support if that local link is eliminated - it could even sink the whole campaign. The only circumstances in which I could imagine it being a good idea to lose the local constituency link for MPs would be if much, much more power was devolved to local and/or regional councils in England, reducing the perceived importance of the Westminster constituency link. That should happen regardless, after 45+ years during which successive governments (mainly the Tories, but Labour haven't been much better) have stripped English local government of power and money. However, it's not a process that could be achieved quickly - it would take years, if not decades. I prefer the idea of Single Transferable Voting (STV) in Multi-Member Constituencies. This would operate a bit like EU elections did latterly. Instead of having 11 MPs elected for 11 individual constituencies in Leicestershire & Rutland, you could have 11 MPs elected for the whole of Leics/Rutland by STV. This wouldn't produce quite as proportional an outcome as the national list system, but a much more proportional one than FPTP - and it would retain a constituency link, albeit a larger constituency. Votes would be transferred between candidates/parties (voting 1-2-3, not "X"). Any party getting close to 10% of the vote would get at least 1 MP, offering constituents more varied representatives - and perhaps MPs closer to their thinking, if not a main party supporter. But second and third choices would also matter, potentially limiting the chances of a party popular with a minority but deeply unpopular with the majority getting many MPs. Other countries use different roughly proportional systems. I believe Germany has a mixed system: some MPs are directly elected for constituencies, others elected from a system of regional lists - but with the proviso that a party will only get any list MPs if it secures at least 5% of the vote.

Perhaps he should announce an upgrade - a solid gold statue of Narcissus on the bank, gazing into the pool?