Ollie Watkins has praised Aston Villa head coach Unai Emery for helping him get back in the England squad. The striker returned to the international scene for the first time since March 2022 and hit the only goal of the game as England beat Australia 1-0 in a Wembley friendly on Friday night. Watkins, 27, has scored four goals and provided four assists in the first eight Premier League games of the new season – including a memorable hat-trick against Brighton. He had scored just twice last campaign before Emery was appointed as Steven Gerrard’s successor in November but then hit 14 in 26 matches following the Spaniard’s arrival at Villa Park. Asked how it felt to return to the England set-up following time out of the squad, Watkins said: “I think my mindset has changed since the boss has come in, Unai Emery at Villa. “He’s filled me with a lot of confidence. I’ve definitely improved in these last 18 months since I was last in the England camp. I think my mindset has changed since the boss has come in...he's filled me with a lot of confidence Ollie Watkins on Unai Emery “I think it shows in my form and my performance here so I’m really happy and I’m delighted to be back in the squad and putting on an England shirt. “I envisioned it all (playing and scoring against Australia). I was itching to get on the pitch so I’m delighted I got my goal and it helped the team to win.” Realistically, Watkins is one of a number of forward options who will be vying to be the back-up to England captain and all-time record goalscorer Harry Kane at Euro 2024. Callum Wilson, Ivan Toney, Dominic Calvert-Lewin and newly-capped Eddie Nketiah are other strikers in Gareth Southgate’s pool but Watkins believes he is not a like-for-like replacement for Kane when he is given the nod. “I think I’ve got a completely different playing style to Harry, he can drop deep and play some unbelievable long passes – that’s not my game. I can’t do that,” he added. “My strengths are running in behind and stretching them so I can only do what I can do. When I put on the shirt I’ll try and do the best I can for my country and then it is the manager’s decision.” Read More Talking points as England face Fiji in World Cup quarter-finals Daniel James insists Wales can still qualify for Euro 2024 I feel sorry for the manager – Chiedozie Ogbene sympathises with Stephen Kenny Gareth Southgate questions why England fans booed Jordan Henderson Stephen Kenny admits Republic of Ireland ‘needed to win’ against Greece Ben Davies: Wales go into Croatia clash believing anything’s possible

By Maayan Lubell and Nidal al-Mughrabi JERUSALEM/GAZA (Reuters) -Israel battered Gaza on Sunday after suffering its bloodiest attack in decades,

Check out the latest Taylor Swift updates of the day

“Intense internal deliberation,” Manchester United called it in something of a holding statement. Mason Greenwood’s future is the subject of rather more than that; it is a situation with considerable and potentially colossal implications, on and off the pitch. It will affect, and probably damage, United’s reputation. It will probably give their various sponsors a question of whether to terminate their relationship with the club. It certainly could bring a backlash against entirely blameless players in their women’s team. At some stage, an announcement will come whether Greenwood’s contract is terminated or whether he will play for United again. The club said the “fact-finding” stage of their investigation into his conduct is complete and that chief executive Richard Arnold will make the final decision; and yet the belief is that the decision is made and that Greenwood will stay. This is a moral, commercial and footballing issue: even perhaps the world’s biggest club have seemed ill-equipped to deal with an issue of its magnitude and sensitivity. The bare facts are that in January 2022, disturbing audio emerged of a voice, assumed to be Greenwood’s, as a man tried to force himself upon a woman. Greenwood was subsequently arrested and later charged with attempted rape, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and controlling and coercive behaviour. The charges were dropped in February 2023 by the Crown Prosecution Service when new material emerged and key witnesses withdrew their involvement. United then opened their internal investigation. Since then, Greenwood has remained suspended by the club, unable to play or train. United can argue a six-month investigation is a sign of how thorough it has been: they say they have spoken to plenty of people and considered evidence that is not in the public domain. Yet concluding it was always likely to be a problematic part: perhaps it would have been easier if it was done in June, in the off-season. Instead, it has been mishandled. United had communicated privately that they would reveal their decision before the start of their campaign. It kept being put back: originally slated for 4 August, it was later said it would not be made on last Wednesday or Thursday, then not on Friday, either. But part of the process was that United needed to communicate with what they termed key stakeholders: they include sponsors and commercial partners, fans’ groups and their women’s team. And the fact that some of the players are in Australia, trying to win the World Cup, seemed to have passed United by and led to suggestions the decision was in their hands and the sadly inevitable social medial abuse. With the Women’s World Cup final on Sunday and the prospect of the players having time off before returning to United, it means an announcement may not come until September. But, with each step, it seems ever more likely that they are trying to find a way to explain that Greenwood will return to the club. There is little doubt that keeping Greenwood would bring outrage, and not merely outside Old Trafford; certainly some staff would be unhappy and it would be entirely understandable if members of the Women’s side were too (that United only formed a Women’s team in 2018 showed a lesser commitment than many of their rivals displayed). Eight of the men’s squad have joined since Greenwood last played but he is not thought to have been universally popular in the dressing room when he was involved. Meanwhile, there are other aspects to consider. The alleged victim cannot be named for legal reasons; her anonymity is important, though it also means the picture visible to the wider world is incomplete. United are yet to divulge the findings of their investigation. One finding, in particular, should be key in a society where there ought to be some scope for rehabilitation of the repentant: is Greenwood sorry or just sorry he got caught? He and United can argue that he was not convicted of any criminal offence, though that does not automatically render him an innocent man. They can say he has suffered a punishment by already losing 18 months of a relatively short career. They would probably be right if they concluded that virtually any other club would keep Greenwood; unpleasant as that suggestion will be, it is a reality of football. Even for a club of United’s wealth – with an annual turnover of around £600m and having spent about £170m on signings this summer – would be reluctant to let a footballer with the talent to be worth £100m go. Their owners, the Glazer family, have rarely seemed aligned with what fans desire. The manager, Erik ten Hag, has a team who scored too few league goals last season. Meanwhile, Greenwood, still only 21, is United’s youngest goalscorer in Europe; only Norman Whiteside and George Best scored more for United as teenagers. Does any of that matter? Many would say no. In an assessment of his character, it certainly does not. But there is a double standard in football. Were a steward, a kitman or a press officer to have behaved as Greenwood did, it would be a simple decision to dismiss them for gross misconduct. But footballers are treated differently and United are wrestling with the question of how to justify that. Read More Man Utd confirm Greenwood investigation is over - but no decision on future made Manchester United delay decision over Mason Greenwood’s return Michael Olise signs bumper new deal as Crystal Palace fend off Chelsea interest Michael Olise signs bumper new deal as Crystal Palace fend off Chelsea interest US will not poach ‘special’ World Cup manager Sarina Wiegman, FA insists Premier League clubs interested as race for Jeremy Doku’s signature heats up

Do you get separation anxiety when you see your dog run off? Or perhaps your

Former President Donald Trump is making plans to appear in person for his civil fraud trial in New York on Monday, multiple sources familiar with the planning told CNN.

Peyton Manning's gold chain at the NBA Finals.

Mikel Arteta has challenged big-spending Arsenal to deliver a statement of intent ahead of the Premier League season when they face treble winners Manchester City...

Erik ten Hag said Manchester United must strive for more even though his team look set to clinch a place...

About 50% of Spirit Airlines flights were delayed Thursday, according to FlightAware, after technical issues with the airline's website, app and airport kiosks, but the airline says the technical issues have been resolved.

Luis Diaz’s goal for Liverpool at Tottenham was incorrectly ruled out for offside because the VAR checking the decision mistakenly thought that the on-field decision was onside. The referees’ body, PGMOL, admitted after the match that a “significant human error” was made when checking Diaz’s goal, which came in the first half of Liverpool’s 2-1 defeat to Spurs. The Independent also understands Howard Webb spoke to Liverpool after the match and there was an apology from the referees’ chief. It has now been revealed, however, that VAR official Darren England drew the lines to check for offside and followed the process correctly to determine Diaz was onside for the goal. But in reaching their decision, the VAR team failed to realise that on-field referee Simon Hooper and his assistant officials had initially ruled the goal out for offside. Therefore, when the VAR relayed a message of “check complete” to the on-field referee, Hooper and his team disallowed Diaz’s goal and awarded a free-kick to Tottenham. What is not clear is when the VAR officials realised that they had failed to intervene. Under the rules of the game, when Tottenham took the free-kick to restart the match, the officials would have been unable to go back and award Diaz’s goal. Liverpool went on to finish the match with nine men and suffered stoppage-time heartbreak when Joel Matip deflected Pedro Porro’s cross into his own net in the sixth minute of stoppage time, but the post-match discussions focused on the crucial first-half error. "Who does that help now? We had that situation in the Wolves-Man United game. Did Wolves get the points? No," Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp reflected when informed of the PGMOL statement. "We will not get points for it so it doesn’t help. Nobody expects 100 per cent right decisions on field but we all thought when VAR comes in that it might make things easier. "I don’t know why the people...are they that much under pressure? Today the decision was made really quick I would say for that goal. It changed the momentum of the game, so that’s how it is." Former Liverpool defender Jamie Carragher reacted to the decision on Twitter/X and said: "It’s an horrendous mistake no matter how they did it. But if they knew just after the Spurs free-kick was taken that they’d made a huge mistake, it’s nonsense they can’t bring it back just because a free-kick has been taken." Includes reporting from PA Read More VAR officials who missed Liverpool’s ‘onside’ goal to be replaced PGMOL admit Liverpool offside goal should have stood after ‘significant human error’ Tottenham take their moment of fortune as Liverpool are left with only fury and frustration

Despite the chaos caused by the storm's aftermath, viral photos show Disney World-goers sporting ponchos and braving the rain to experience the park's enchantment