England find themselves in a similar position to Manchester United with pundits and the press

"No f*****g chance," was the parting shot from a Manchester United player as they stomped through the mixed zone and boarded the team bus.

That was early in the Erik ten Hag era when baby steps had been taken to cultivate a more communicative rapport between the players and the press. This was a step backwards.

In fairness to the player, he stepped back off the coach to have it out with the journalist and what threatened to become a heated row ended diplomatically. "You actually seem like a nice guy," the player told the reporter, before retreating behind the blacked-out windows.

This is a window into the modern footballer. There has been a mentality shift in workplaces with millennials and Gen Zers, many of whom find criticism anathema. They want good vibes only.

EXCLUSIVE: United get pre-season tour squad boost with player's availability

READ MORE: There is an ideal swap deal for United to do after the Euros

A former teammate of Marcus Rashford's noted he does not like criticism. Rashford's brother and agent, Dwaine Maynard, piped up to question his omission from the England squad after their putrid performance against Denmark. Maynard publicly barracked Gary Neville and Rio Ferdinand earlier this year.

Playing for the United AD (after dominance) requires a thick skin and there are parallels with the England squad. Harry Kane's demand for former England internationals to be "as helpful as they can and building the lads up with confidence" typifies the post-millennial footballer.

Kane, 30, falls into the millennial bracket but is seen as comparatively old school. He made his career debut in 2011 and has been around the block. But, as England captain, he reflected the dressing room sentiment and the majority of his teammates are in their early-mid 20s.

The England national team communications is one of the slickest in the country and managed expertly by Andy Walker. Wayne Rooney touched upon the importance of fostering a collegiate relationship with the press towards the end of his captaincy and significant strides have been made under Gareth Southgate.

Yet Southgate had an early wobble at the 2018 World Cup when he headed out to training clutching a teamsheet that was visible to cameramen. The photographers zoomed in for newsworthy images and the story was written up.

"Our media has to decide whether they want to help the team or not," Southgate preached. The journalists covering England are primarily English but they are not on the payroll. Southgate conceded he made a mistake.

In recent years, a fan-first form of 'journalism' has crept in, as if it is acceptable for dedicated correspondents to celebrate in a press box, refer to the club they are covering as "we" or even don their merchandise. (This is not a reference to fan channels, which are run by fans of clubs.)

Impartial journalists are not supposed to double as cheerleaders but some have caught the attention of United, who have come to depend on a handful of brazenly supportive conduits. And so the lines have become blurred.

One of the aforementioned questions the United player asked after he reappeared was, "Do you support us?" That is not the essence of journalism, an impartial industry.

A former editor of the Evening News described the 'paper as a "critical friend" of United's. It criticises United more than any other outlet when it is warranted and it also praises United more than any other outlet when it is merited. That is by virtue of the website's worldwide reach and following on social media platforms.

We should rhapsodise about United after a particularly brilliant win and did so after the FA Cup final. Some club staff, players and fans are actually more negative as they home in on the negative even when the mood is positive. The player's mixed-zone outburst was after a win.

This correspondent was banned for reporting negative rumblings in the United squad last season and is not anticipating a one-on-one with Erik ten Hag for first writing that United were considering keeping him.

Gary Lineker, whose punditry Kane critiqued, accused journalists on the England beat of "not being brave enough to ask their own questions". This is a tad rich from someone whose insipid and remote Q&As with managers on Match of the Day are cause to turn over or hit fast-forward if one is watching on record.

Most of the journalists in Germany would dispute that. Lineker and Shearer's voices carry weight and they cut through, so thousands of their podcast subscribers will be in agreement. Fans don't want patsies. But they also don't necessarily want negativity.

Sometimes you have to play the politics. It is not always worth getting the manager's back up when there is a professional relationship to maintain. The daily newspapers have an advantage at pre-match press conferences as Ten Hag conducts his open section first and has warmed up by the time he glances at those of us on his right.

One is biased, but the Manchester box is the most assiduous. The odd English club has reporters in their pocket and avoid placing their manager in an invidious position at a press conference. They are likely to have earned that through the reporters' allegiance or the communications director catering for those on the beat.

United are different. During their hegemony under Sir Alex Ferguson, they were still the biggest story in the land and are held to loftier standards. United had just won a third successive title in 2001 but ejection from the Champions League by Bayern Munich at the quarter-final stage prompted an inquest comparable with some of the whippings last season.

"The players gave it their all tonight but we are just not good enough and maybe it's time to move on. Maybe it's the end of the road for this team, although I'm not sure." The doom-monger was Roy Keane, speaking to MUTV.

United must yearn for the day where a three-times Premier League winner responds to a craven question from their in-house channel after a Champions League knockout elimination. These are the standards they have let slip.

Times have changed and the media landscape is nigh-on unrecognisable from 23 years ago. It is the social media age and the proliferation of podcasts and punditry overwhelmed even Louis van Gaal, who tired of United's former players "yapping". Ole Gunnar Solskjaer had an easier ride that compromised some of his former teammates.

Newspapers and news sites continue to set the agenda and it is their coverage that occasionally vexes clubs. Constructive criticism underpinned Ferguson's great sides.

It is possible to disagree agreeably. Ten Hag is an amenable bloke who has developed a better understanding of how the press operate with each season. He does not scour for criticism, it is brought to his attention.

It was a pity Ten Hag's press conference at Wembley descended into a borderline interrogation but it had to. Ten Hag's future was newsier than United's pressing, the choice of a false nine or their shape out of possession. It is Ineos' fault that a triumphant debrief was not dominated by his tactical masterclass.

A United player has blocked me on X, another player's wife has blocked me on the same platform, the agent of a prominent player went spare over an accurate story regarding their client's future and another "wasn't happy" with me. That has no bearing on my view that all four squad assets should be at United next season.

It is a case of account, not agenda, with United. We are duty bound to hold them to account. But cheerleading 'journalism'? No effing chance.