Your ideal team for Euro '08

I still think Foster has to prove himself before being chosen for England , while James going by last season is definately my fav for no1.

gone wrote:

Calidad wrote:

gone wrote:-----------Lobont-------------
Ogararu--Goian--Chivu---Rat
---------Radoi---Codrea----
Nicolita-----Dica------Mutu
-----------Marica-----------

There's a player for Rat? That's unfortuntate.

Is the Romanian national side predominantly based in Romania, or is spread through Europe. I obviously know Chivu & Mutu, little of the others.

Lobont - Dinamo
Goian, Radoi, Nicolita, Dica - Steaua.

The rest are from Italy (Mutu, Chivu, Codrea), Shaktar (Rat, Marica) and Holland (Ogararu).

But this is MY ideal formation. But there are about 4-5 Romanian based players in the NT (if everyone is fit). In the 90's there was 1 or 2 but our league has increase a lot since then.

BTW, his name is something like Rats in said in Romanian. Doesn't mean the same thing as it does in English.

Isnt Radoi primarly a CB who can play DMC ?
And is Marica the best CF you got?

England:

-------------------Green--------------

Richards---Ferdinand---King---Bridge

Lennon/Beckham---Hargreaves---Gerrard---Cole

----------------Rooney---Defoe-------

Italy: To follow...

Dark Savante wrote:
Isnt Radoi primarly a CB who can play DMC ?
And is Marica the best CF you got?

He started as a CB but has been playing DMC for a couple of years now and it suits him better. Plus we have a lot of decent CB but not that many DMC.

Yes, Marica is the best we have now. There are a few others (Daniel Niculae from Auxerre is one of them) that can play as well.

Rafael Nadal wrote:England:

-------------------Green--------------

Richards---Ferdinand---King---Bridge

Lennon/Beckham---Hargreaves---Gerrard---Cole

----------------Rooney---Defoe-------

Italy: To follow...

I saw a lot of people didn't put Terry in their team. How come? He's one of the best CB in the world now.

MexicanTeamOfTheRosesFan wrote:

Kimbo wrote:-----------------James(?)-----------------

Neville--Ferdinand--Woodgate--Bridge

Gerrard--Hargreaves--Carrick--J.Cole

-------------Rooney--Owen-------------


All of our keepers are shite, if James keeps up last seasons form then i'd pick him despite his age.

Where's Terry?


Terry = Class

Terry's good, but not as good as Ferdinand or Woodgate.

-------------------James----------------
-Neville--Ferdinand----Terry---Cole--
---Beckham--Hargreaves--Gerrard--
--------Cole----Crouch---Rooney-----

Terry's the best defender England have

Luis wrote:Terry's the best defender England have

In a deep-lying defence he's awesome. Personally i want to see an attacking England team which means we need players with more agility and ability on the ball.

I don't think having woodgate over Terry will mean a more attacking England side to be honest, England's hope of attack comes from Rooney, Joe Cole and if Lampard would bugger off, Gerrard.

Why not having Woodgate or King means we can play a higher line or that either of our CB can carry the ball out of defense and join the attack.

Luis wrote:I don't think having woodgate over Terry will mean a more attacking England side to be honest, England's hope of attack comes from Rooney, Joe Cole and if Lampard would bugger off, Gerrard.

Woodgate would be a better defender for an attacking team. If the defence is pushed up to the half-way line and the other team counter attacks with pace, who would you rather have defending it?

gone wrote:

Rafael Nadal wrote:England:

-------------------Green--------------

Richards---Ferdinand---King---Bridge

Lennon/Beckham---Hargreaves---Gerrard---Cole

----------------Rooney---Defoe-------

Italy: To follow...

I saw a lot of people didn't put Terry in their team. How come? He's one of the best CB in the world now.

I just don't rate him in International football. in the Premiership he is the best CB in the league In International games he makes many mistakes and isn't the Premiership Terry.

The team I picked would be more attacking and have a lot of pace. It's what we want to see from an England team. The England team would be more successful playing like a Premiership team rather than all this negative continental Cr@p.

To be honest Lescott>>Terry and Woodgate......

Ledley King is better when he isn't injured.

Never going to happen but i would like to see this team for Euro 08 because they would actually play as a team together IMO:

Having Terry lie deep means that for England to attack, the midfield stretches away from the defense and the forwards from the midfield. As a result you'll not so much leave many gaps but acres of space for the opposition to run to (especially great teams). England will be more vulnerable to counters than they would be with a high line. Its just a risk of having Terry undroppable in international games. Pacy lone strikers, pace merchants, a good playmaker or #10 could all abuse this.
England already aren't a possession team so that's just a big risk to always have a deep defence as default.

A higher defensive line will allow England to play a more attacking attractive game as well, and will increase the chances for England to be in the driver's seat too.

And, Terry isn't the best defender, nor the best international type defender England have.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be selected, its just that his automatic inclusion, and making England play a deep defense curbs England's options, and is (partly) responsible for being more vulnerable to counters and 'ugly' offensively.
England will continue to play more 'boring' and ugly games as long as they can't stray from a deep defense.

I'm with Kimbo on this one.
England are a good national team with good/decent enough players to play a couple of ways, but as a team choose to play like a minnow (deep defense, some hoofing) to accomodate 'the best players'. And in more ways than one shoot themselves in the foot. The priority and the approach is just wrong. A good manager could really sort you out.

HHH wrote:Never going to happen but i would like to see this team for Euro 08 because they would actually play as a team together IMO:

Foster

Neville . . . . . Ferdinand . . . . Terry . . . . . A Cole

Hargreaves . . . . Carrick

Lennon . . . . . . . Rooney . . . . . . . J Cole

Ashton


Subs: James, King, Bridge, Gerrard, SWP, Crouch, Owen.

HHH is the current best poster on the board

HHH wrote:Never going to happen but i would like to see this team for Euro 08 because they would actually play as a team together IMO:

Foster

Neville . . . . . Ferdinand . . . . Terry . . . . . A Cole

Hargreaves . . . . Carrick

Lennon . . . . . . . Rooney . . . . . . . J Cole

Ashton


Subs: James, King, Bridge, Gerrard, SWP, Crouch, Owen.

That's the type of line-up England should play (Hargreaves & Carrick; Rooney as AM, and a good striker/targetman). The bench also looks good and is capable of adressing other things or impacting the game.

The names in blue should start and should play in those positions - a core of those players gives England much more stability and flexibility for the better. You can mix and match the other places without much consequence (e.g., Gerrard instead of Lennon etc.)

So i'm the only one that rates Woodgate?

Kimbo wrote:So i'm the only one that rates Woodgate?

If he stays fit then him and Rio would make a great partnership.

Kimbo wrote:So i'm the only one that rates Woodgate?

I think more people rate him. Its just irrelevant though; Rio is the best defender and Terry won't be dropped. He's more likely to get a starter over the back of Rio than Terry's.

Whether you rate him or not, he's not getting in the squad just like that.

No I am with you Kimbo.

But DD is right.

With Terry it really depends on the situation. If you don't play him from the start against a good, well organised team you are likely to be vulnerable because we would be playing a much higher line. I'd much rather see him there at the start, whether you rate him or not, he and Rio do look solid as a partnership.

However in chasing a game, you need to take more risks so playing Ferdinand + one of Woodgate/King would be better, although if we were really desperate for a goal, I'd stick Terry up front like he has done for Chelsea in the past:

E.g.

---------------------GK-----------------

Neville---Ferdinand---Terry---Bridge

----------------Hargreaves-------------

Beckham-------Gerrard---------J Cole

--------------Rooney--Owen------------

Chasing the game:

-------------------GK-------------------

-------Neville---Rio---Woodgate------

--------------Hargreaves---------------

Bentley-------Gerrard----------Bridge

-----------------J Cole-------------------

------------Rooney--Crouch-------------

DD wrote:
I'm not saying he shouldn't be selected, its just that his automatic inclusion, and making England play a deep defense curbs England's options, and is (partly) responsible for being more vulnerable to counters and 'ugly' offensively.
England will continue to play more 'boring' and ugly games as long as they can't stray from a deep defense.
.

Surely playing a higher line makes you more vulnerable to counter attacks, especially if they play the offside trap well? (if the opposition doesn't have Inzaghi or Defoe playing for them you're fucked in this case)

The higher line does appear to be the antithesis of a 'safer' defense - however it isn't, unless its played badly.
A deep back is easier, but a higher line is better defensively. This because of a higher line will squeeze the midfield and defense tighter together and it will not allow the oposition to use space.

However, a higher line does need people that can play it: a defense that is in sync, that understands the off side game to a tee, the defenders need vision to intercept the oppositions through balls and they need pace to be able to correct any possible mistake or penetration. And preferably a sweeper keeper.
Obviously you're not going to play a high line with Titus bramble; its not for everyone. Rio, however, is perfect for it. So are King and Woodgate.

The advantage of a high line is to condense your team onto the oppositions half and limit the space for them to play on - you're bullying the opposition on their own half. And you're transforming your team into a more attacking one (easier to create more chances).

DD wrote:Having Terry lie deep means that for England to attack, the midfield stretches away from the defense and the forwards from the midfield. As a result you'll not so much leave many gaps but acres of space for the opposition to run to (especially great teams). England will be more vulnerable to counters than they would be with a high line. Its just a risk of having Terry undroppable in international games. Pacy lone strikers, pace merchants, a good playmaker or #10 could all abuse this.
England already aren't a possession team so that's just a big risk to always have a deep defence as default.

A higher defensive line will allow England to play a more attacking attractive game as well, and will increase the chances for England to be in the driver's seat too.

And, Terry isn't the best defender, nor the best international type defender England have.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be selected, its just that his automatic inclusion, and making England play a deep defense curbs England's options, and is (partly) responsible for being more vulnerable to counters and 'ugly' offensively.
England will continue to play more 'boring' and ugly games as long as they can't stray from a deep defense.

I'm with Kimbo on this one.
England are a good national team with good/decent enough players to play a couple of ways, but as a team choose to play like a minnow (deep defense, some hoofing) to accomodate 'the best players'. And in more ways than one shoot themselves in the foot. The priority and the approach is just wrong. A good manager could really sort you out.

I don't think England will ever go out on the attack. Let just do what made us champs in the 60's. A great defensive front anchored by an amazing center defender(Terry anyone)

Play defensively and the second we go ahead we drop all our guys down for the duration of the match.

All kidding aside

A good defensive England with swift intelligent counterattacking from the wings and intelligent forward play

That's all I want

DD wrote:The higher line does appear to be the antithesis of a 'safer' defense - however it isn't, unless its played badly.
A deep back is easier, but a higher line is better defensively. This because of a higher line will squeeze the midfield and defense tighter together and it will not allow the oposition to use space.

However, a higher line does need people that can play it: a defense that is in sync, that understands the off side game to a tee, the defenders need vision to intercept the oppositions through balls and they need pace to be able to correct any possible mistake or penetration. And preferably a sweeper keeper.
Obviously you're not going to play a high line with Titus bramble; its not for everyone. Rio, however, is perfect for it. So are King and Woodgate.

The advantage of a high line is to condense your team onto the oppositions half and limit the space for them to play on - you're bullying the opposition on their own half. And you're transforming your team into a more attacking one (easier to create more chances).

I don't really need to comment much - DD nearly always speaks for me on these matters:

-----------------------------------Foster

G.Neville (c)-------------Rio----------King/Woody----------Bridge

-------------------------Carrick----------Hargreaves

Dyer-------------------------Gerrard/Rooney-----------------J.Cole

-------------------------------Rooney/Ashton.


Deano - Bret "The Hitman" Hart has been campaigning long for Ashton's inclusion before Triple H brought it up - you know this!

I'm the best Poster there is, the best poster there was, and the best poster there ever will be!