Well Owen will be fit in time for the WC so its really one crocked striker!
I presume that if Rooney isnt fit they will be going for 1 up front.
Absolute joke of a squad. The selection of Walcott cannot be justified. Bent or Defoe deserved it more and would have been better options. Can't see any logic in Hargreaves been selected- Nolan a far better choice. Glad to see that Sven had the bottle to drop SWP for Lennon- the right choice I feel. After reading Eriksson's comments it looks like Joe Cole will be used to support the main striker if Rooney is unfit.
Depends on whether he actually intends to play him. If he's really thinking about a 4-5-1, Walcott will be barely relevant. If he goes for 4-4-2, I would think he's daft not bringing five strikers anyway, especially give Rooney and Owen's states.Originally Posted by dmandmythdledge
Do you actually watch Bayern's games dmetc? Hargreeves is a good player who plays at a very high level and who has had a good season. The claim that Nolan is better than him seems presumptuous to me.
Agreed. Lennon could make a genuine impact on their games.
You can't spell failure without FAI
Ever since Mad Sven took over the England team, he has been shown disrespect to international football. First of all, he was the first to introduce 11 substitutes at HT. Thankfully not allowed any more. Now he has selected a player, he has admitted he never saw playing live before. Can you believe the uproar if Stan had done the same thing. Don't mention Terry Dixon, thats different. Sven said he has seen videos of him and was impressed. Gob smacked at this. What must Defoe, Beattie, Vassell ect be thinking now. Arsenal have three English players in squad. 2 out injured the entire season, the other never deemed good enough to play in first team and all 3 have been selected for WC. David Dein is top man in FA and chairman of ARsenal. Wonder if he has any influence?
Last edited by drummerboy; 08/05/2006 at 10:24 PM.
Always look on the bright side of life
Their first choice XI remains as formidable as ever IMO.
I will really enjoy England and Sven struggle to beat even TaT. He has set his stall out very clearly now. He is not going to try to play a system but instead rely on individual brilliance to win matches. What I expect to see is some superb goals, a lot of bizarre substitutions, few pre-meditated attacks and general mismanagement.
They will get out of their group no doubt, may even beat a pretty good side in the next round but their chances of getting to the final in Berlin is slim in the extreme IMO.
They failed to break down Northern Ireland and messed around with different formations none of which have yet worked. Sven keeps the press happy and the fans in hopefull expectation but it's all nice window dressing. He talks quietly and few really question him properly, he talks about formations the can play and areas of strenght in the side. We can play 4-4-2 he said, 4-5-1 with five midfielders or 4-3-3 with Crouch upfront and two wingers, we have lots of wingers he says. Well all knowing one show me a good preformance using any of these formations in under your reign please. He insists with certain players regardless so as Beckham is fixed in the side 4-3-3 is automatically redundant. If Rooney or Owen is 85% fit he will play them so 4-5-1 is out the window too. The diamond and 'quarter back' systems didn't work either because he can't seen to accept that a triangular shape goes in the triangular hole.
Give me Netherlands, Argentina or Mexico anyday of the week.
A man is never really poor,
if he can still laugh.
Good to see you know so much about a side you hate!
Well said ! Thanks to the recruitment policy of most English top flight teams, the national side finishes up with that situation. They shouldn't complain. When all top teams (Arsenal, Chelski...) tend to buy foreign strikers instead of young homegrown talents you just finish up with what you said macdermesser...
"Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Don't confuse my passion with hatred. I have the same feeling toward England as I do to Poland or Sweden - complete neutrality. The reason I got so worked up over it yesterday is that I think he (Eriksson) is a bluffer.
However, now I've realised that the man actually has a personality and quiet a good sence of humour. I think this is the funniest thing in football. Sven is going to be sitting on a beach in 3 months time eyeing up some young lady, cocktail in hand laughing himself silly. He does not give a fidler's f*** about England and this is a clear example. The masses are too caught up in the dream and hype to notice. He collects something like 3 millions pounds a year while trying to seduce everyone from TV presenters to FA secretaries while he catches the odd game of football. He then strokes Englands ego and everyone is blissful.
He is giving the a big F You to everyone espessially the press I imagine. Thats my opinion and I haven't stopped laughing at it since early yesterday. He talks a good game thats how is got such a good contract and is continuing to do so. The amount of holes in the stuff he says and the squad he picked only points to one answer and I'm
England to be elimated between the GROUP STAGES AND THE QUARTERS. Quote on that, I'll take it if I'm wrong.
A man is never really poor,
if he can still laugh.
I doubt that very much. England were terrible at the European Championships. The only good performance they put in was against Croatia. They'll play badly 9 times out of 10 with a midfield of LM-Gerrard-Lampard-Beckham. Add Carrick in behind them and it will make the world of difference. With Rooney out injured Sven will probably be forced to play Carrick and England will actually start playing well for the first competitive series since the last world cup.
Possession wise I would agree that England suffered but attacking wise certainly not and never did I feel their overall performance could be labelled as 'terrible'. England scored 11 goals in 4 games without really retaining the ball as well as they should have which when you look at it is some feat in itself.
They should have undoubetedly gone through in the game against Portugal with their last minute goal that was cruelly chalked off. The performance against France I was also impressed with and England would have been more than worthy of the 2-0 lead had Beckham slotted the penalty away. The moment of brilliance Zidane created for the goal was the only way at that that point that France was going to score.
The Croatia and Switzerland games once again highlighted England's inability to retain possession but also showed how despite underperforming they were most dangerous attacking outfit at the competition with Rooney playing.
Unlike in Japan in 2002, I honestly do believe that England could have gone on and won that competition. A team who scores goals will always have a chance in cup football.
Foot.ie - NFL Fantasy Football Champion, 2006!
You have a point overrall but I don't believe that that goal should have stood. At the time I must have watched the goal about a thousand times and took a load of stills. Something that wasn't noticed at all by the media was that Terry was actually offside. He ran into an offside position just before Cambell hit the bar and stayed the furthest man forward for the 2nd phase too. If Terry wasn't in that position Ricardo would have probably gotten to the ball (Terry's arm is stopping Ricardo from getting his feet off the ground):
http://homepage.eircom.net/~gearoidw01/Image165.jpg
Anyway, England were pushing their luck throughout the tournament, especially against Switzerland. Rooney was a huge help but he's not going to be the difference between them winning the world cup if they play like they did at Euro 2004. Rooney hs had not cast on his foot for 2 or 3 days now and he seems to be walking fine in normal shoes. With a month left I feel he might just be able to make at least the knockouts.
England are an enigma. They have players that'd get into most international teams & have more ability to get goals from midfield than most teams.
They're incapable of playing a measured, tactical game but yet are always capable of goals.
The Croatia game cited above is a classic example. Conceding early was the best thing to happen to them. It put them on the front foot & by playing their usual direct football they imposed their style on Croatia and proved to be better.
I'm not sure if anything will have changed since 2004 but I thought England were shocking defending set pieces. Switzerland could have scored a hatful & Croatia scored from a corner (twice?). Robinson is a far better 'keeper than James, but in my opinion is very weak coping with a well struck inswinging free kick. If I was an opposition coach I'd highlight this as a major weakness.
On the flipside, I think it's exactly this type of free kick that I think England will get goals from, but in a way I'm surprised SWP wasn't picked as he's the kind of player that will win those frees. Continental refs will always give frees when a player like him goes to ground.
I think England CAN win but I'm (almost!) convinced that ultimately their style of play will not prevail against the higher level of technical skill that almost all of the other likely Q-finalists will have. What I saw of the UEFA Cup final last night and watching games like Chelsea vs Barcelona reinforce this opinion. Greece in 2004 was different. Large slices of luck (Spain & Russia should have buried them, Czechs too) helped them on their way, but even though they employed a similar Anglo-saxon type of game I think they were far better organised than England are.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 11/05/2006 at 10:19 AM.
There's definetly a case for the offside and I must admit I haven't seen the goal in a year or two. I did remeber Terry appearing to be in an offside position but honestly can't remember if he strayed after Campbell made contact with his head or not so I'll take your word on it as the images aren't that conclusive.
However I do know for certain that linesman's flag never went up and I'm not surprised at that as the penalty box was so crowded for the incident and any offside was marginal in a split second.
Either way I suppose my real issue is with the conscious deciscion the referree made and not the honest one he missed. There was no foul on the goalkeeper in my eyes and I'll never view that type of incident as a foul. It was a very soft descision to give to the home team. To give that type of foul everytime would effectively rule challenging for a header anywhere out on the field in my opinion. I would definetly feel hard done by if that had been us in that scenario.
Foot.ie - NFL Fantasy Football Champion, 2006!
Thanks to the recruitment policy of most English top flight teams, the national side finishes up with that situation. They shouldn't complain. When all top teams (Arsenal, Chelski...) tend to buy foreign strikers instead of young homegrown talents you just finish up with what you said macdermesser...
Am I the only one who finds this statement inaccurate?
Isn't Theo Walcott a direct result of a bigger club (i.e. Arsenal) who have invested heavily in a 'young homegrown talent'. The bigger clubs are spending more 'one-off' huge sums of money on UK players than most of their foreign players i.e Rooney, Walcott, Owen, SWP, Crouch, Defoe, Lampard, Cole et al.
Going further back you also had the likes of Fowler, Shearer, Andy Cole, Sutton,going to and being chased by the big clubs for astronomical fees.
The top clubs will certainly spend the money if the talent is available and that's the bigger issue I think. I can't remember the last time a really top young starting out english player went anywhere other than to a top English club - David Platt in 1990 maybe.
Arsenal, who I know a little about, are a club who have spent so much money on English youth in recent years with not too reward. There's an endless list of investments (some in the millions) made at that club that ended up having to be shipped off because they just weren't the right standard - Pennant, Upson, Thomas, Sidwell, Bentley, Bothroyd, I could go one forever.....I believe when we had a similar discussion before I checked the current reserve squad and there was no fewer than 9 English players at that time (and about a handful of Irish lads.)
It's a common misconception I believe that English clubs don't invest in English youth. I can't speak for the other big clubs but I imagine that when you walk around their training grounds you see the amount of english players and the type of time and effort being put into them by their clubs.
There's honestly not much more some of these clubs can do. If they are talented enough players will make it, and end up at Arsenal, United, Liverpool, Chelsea or Spurs.
Foot.ie - NFL Fantasy Football Champion, 2006!
I wouldn't class Pennant or Upson not good enough. Pennant only played a few league games for Arsenal(if even that amount) and scored a hat-trick on his debut. He never got a look in at Arsenal and has proved this season that he has the potential to be an England international. The fact that his displays have been for a team that has been relegated. As soon as Upson left Arsenal and was playing regularly for Birmingham he was selected in the England squad. Arsenal did have talented English players and hopefully Walcott won't end up going down the same road as them.
[QUOTE=KarlosIRL]Am I the only one who finds this statement inaccurate?
Isn't Theo Walcott a direct result of a bigger club (i.e. Arsenal) who have invested heavily in a 'young homegrown talent'. The bigger clubs are spending more 'one-off' huge sums of money on UK players than most of their foreign players i.e Rooney, Walcott, Owen, SWP, Crouch, Defoe, Lampard, Cole et al....
Ok, let's drop Arsenal than if that may please you. But what about Chelsea (SWP spends his time on the bench) ?
I was talking of strikers!
Sure the England side is full of quality they got a good keeper (just 1) good defenders, excellent midfield players, world class strikers but ONLY 2 OF THEM!
You can't seriously tell me that this is enought to win a world cup...
The basic problem is that Rooney is out due to injury and Owen is only at +/-75% and that's a fact.
Crouch is a nice guy but he won't lead England to success as won't Defoe (who is a very good PL player) or Walcott.
Anyway, most homegrown talents emerged (and do still today) from clubs like West Ham (Lampard, Cole...)
"Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
I would personally class them as not good enough for a number of reasons, talent being a part of that but commitment & attitude aslo being highly relevant in the career of top club player. If they are good enough for Arsenal then they would and should be playing for a top 6 team. There's was very little interest in either player from within the top 6 clubs when they were being released in Pennant's case and asked for a move in Upson's.
A pedantic point I know, but just to point out that Pennant's hatrick was in his first start & not on his Arsenal debut.
Foot.ie - NFL Fantasy Football Champion, 2006!
It doesn't please me to drop Arsenal, I'm just trying to debate an issue sensibly that I disagree with. I used Arsenal as an example because it's what I'm knowledgeable on, I dodn't want a debate on Arsenal in the England thread. I'm making a point about the English league that was brought up in relation to the England squad. I never said anything about winning the world cup I don't think. As for strikers I believe I addressed that with the likes of Owen, Fowler, Defoe, Crouch, Rooney, Shearer, Sutton, Andy Cole etc used as examples.
You are right on the likes of West ham creating players and that never was in question, I was referring soley to the inaccurate synopsis in my opinion that the top english clubs won't buy young english players. I just disagree with you, that's all.
Last edited by Karlos; 12/05/2006 at 11:17 AM.
Foot.ie - NFL Fantasy Football Champion, 2006!
It doesn't please me to drop Arsenal, I'm just trying to debate an issue sensibly that I disagree with. I used Arsenal as an example because it's what I'm knowledgeable on, I dodn't want a debate on Arsenal in the England thread. I'm making a point about the English league that was brought up in relation to the England squad. I never said anything about winning the world cup I don't think. As for strikers I believe I addressed that with the likes of Owen, Fowler, Defoe, Crouch, Rooney, Shearer, Sutton, Andy Cole etc used as examples.
You are right on the likes of West ham creating players and that never was in question, I was referring soley to the inaccurate synopsis in my opinion that the top english clubs won't buy young english players. I just disagree with you, that's all.
Well that's absolutely no problem Karlos ! That's why we use this forum
"Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks