It appears to be in the 'Carrick should make himself available for England' camp, where as you seem to be in the 'Carrick is right to not play a bit part' camp.
It appears to be in the 'Carrick should make himself available for England' camp, where as you seem to be in the 'Carrick is right to not play a bit part' camp.
I'm in the "lets not criminally underuse our talent" camp. Parker is another one, finally got recognised due to media hype.
To be honest, I don't really have a camp. I just want us to take our best players. Which we aren't at the moment. ****, I would even take Beckham over Henderson. At least he can play a deeper role and ping the ball around.
I don't know what his criteria is, whether its appease the Liverpool fans, or not to rock the boat. But his selection has been baffling. He gave his reasonings for most of them, and for those it doesnt stack up. Still havent heard why Richards wasnt picked.
fuelledbypassion
Complete Legend
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,437
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Although I understand what a number of you are saying re: Carrick/Richards/many others, I'm not too disappointed by the inclusion of Henderson. Hodgson was in a catch 22, he'd have been slated had he picked a squad full of older players like Carrick, when everyone had already said we should be looking towards the future. Henderson has had a difficult season, but he's still a very good player and I'm sure will progress into an important player for England in years to come.
I'd way prefer to go out of the tournamemt having tried players like Welbeck, Henderson, Oxlade Chamberlain, Jones, Carroll etc than do the same with Barry, Crouch, Lampard, Gerrard et al. (although I still think Scholes/Carrick should have been included)
I'd way prefer to go out of the tournamemt having tried players like Welbeck, Henderson, Oxlade Chamberlain, Jones, Carroll etc than do the same with Barry, Crouch, Lampard, Gerrard et al. (although I still think Scholes/Carrick should have been included)
Well I would have to disagree. I would much rather we went with all our best players in the team, rather than taking younger players for the sake of taking them. Take some of them as squad players, sure, but if they aren't ready for the national team I would much rather them playing in the Olympics or for the Under 21's.
fuelledbypassion
Complete Legend
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,437
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I think they are good enough though. Gerrard has been average at best this season, why take him? We have some excellent prospects coming through, and while I would have taken some of the experienced players (Cole, Green, Terry, Parker, Lampard, Rooney, Carrick, Scholes:wub
I feel that so little is expected of us this tournament, it was the perfect opportunity to try something new. Give Ox a chance behind Welbeck!
I feel that so little is expected of us this tournament, it was the perfect opportunity to try something new. Give Ox a chance behind Welbeck!Exactly. Was saying the same 15-20 pages back. No point taking youngsters for the sake of taking them. They will learn zilch because they are not good enough and would probably get kicked out in the group stages. At least if we take our best players we have a chance of putting up a decent showing
I guess I was being hugely bias and wanted to give him too much credit whilst forgetting about past greats but I still think he's top 4/5.
Not that I want to backtrack too much after being shot down
In his prime, we was easily the best LB in the world. When he retires he will be remembered as a great LB. Just not the best ever
Henry Winter @henrywinter
The word coming out of #eng RT @Matt_Lawton_DM: Hart; Johnson Cahill Terry Cole; Milner Gerrard Parker Oxlade-Chamberlain; Young Welbeck
The word coming out of #eng RT @Matt_Lawton_DM: Hart; Johnson Cahill Terry Cole; Milner Gerrard Parker Oxlade-Chamberlain; Young Welbeck
Would be happy with that, giving Welbeck a go, trying out the defence that will most likely start against France, not sure why Milner is being put in starting line up again though, would play Walcott there personally.
Probably played in middle along with Parker.
Not a bad shout actually, I would play Jones over him there though. I do like Milner though.
Depends what formation he goes with, with these players he could play either a 4-4-1-1, 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3.
For me it would be...
-------------Hart------------
Johnson--Cahill----Terry-----Cole
----------Milner---Parker---------
Ox----------Gerrard---------Young
------------Welbeck-------------
4-2-3-1 basically.
He likes a 4-4-2 so i don't really expect that.
mccollio09
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,670
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I like the pace in that trident up front.
Against Norway it was more like a 4-2-3-1 than a 4-4-2
Not true, he favours a 4-4-1-1. The difference is subtle, but important. Especially considering that with that lineup you posted using two strikers isn't feasible due to Young... well, not being a striker.