LATEST ENGLAND SQUAD ANNOUNCEDAZURRI

110% wrote:

Otto's Olympic Dream wrote:

110% wrote:As for the game, england were good not great and a lot of room for improvement. They worked very hard which is a good start, and they had good passing, but were fortunate that croatia were reduced to 10 men. I think they would have won anyway, but not so comfortably. They were very nervous in defence a few times, and they didn't have much going on their left wing.

It was interesting that jenas came on instead of downing, maybe because downing didn't follow intsructions last time with his early crosses rather than hitting the byline.

I still expect croatia to push england all the way in the group.

This arguments rankles.

What's fortunate about a cynical foul which leaves one of England's best players with blood flowing out of his head and stretchered off the field?

Fortunate was the break getting the first goal, which involved a comical rebound off their defender into Walcott's path.

But then again, no more fortunate than Robbo's air kick, or Carson's misjudgement of Krakjar's long range effort at Wembley. Didn't hear Bilic mentioning those bits of fortune back then, yet was quick to point at Englan'd's fortune this time round

I meant they were fortunate in that the rest of the game became a bit easier. 11 against 11 at 1-0 up eventually england would have started getting more and more defensive etc, and they still looked dodgy at the back. As I said england would probably still have won, and of course they deserved it. Croatia of course were fortunate with robbo's air kick but also deserved it for playing well. You can be both good and fortunate.

I know what you mean, I'd just heard this argument from someone else too who said the sending off was lucky. It was akin to GBH.

Being 1-0 up and the opposition down to 10 men is a fortunate position to be in for sure. It was pleasing to see that England rammed home the advantage - something that is not a simple given in football

Just a point re Pierre's perhaps vaild dismissal of Walcott on the grounds that he can never be top-class either as a winger, a centre-forward or a second striker.

How many people are the perfect identikit fit for a particular position? It seems perverse to write someone off purely because at least from a technical/purist point of view they don't fit the bill. Compromises need to be made in football, whether it means playing with two DMs to accommodate attacking midfielders in the centre, shifting creative midfielders out wide so as not to weaken your centre, playing a versatile but excellent player "out of position" to make up for what would otherwise be a more glaring weakness (see debate on Mannschaft thread). Not every team has a Ballack available in central midfield or a Drogba up front. It's not about having someone individually who matches perfectly what you want from a particular position, it's about what the sum total of the team adds up to, and Walcott adds far too much as a potential weapon in terms of his effectiveness to be discarded or dismissed.

I think Pierre is just biased against him because of his extreme pace and lack (at this stage) of supreme technique – although surely his finishing has to be admired? – but at the same time I'm beginning to get the impression that there's a division here between those who think people should be used in their proper position, a position which their talent should merit, or not at all – and the rest of us who think you have to be pragmatic and who would argue "if it works, why complain?"

A New F Plan

Although I was very impressed with England performance the other
night I was a bit shocked to see Fabio attributing it to having a full
ten days in which to impress his ideas on the players. It is not the
first time an England coach has bemoaned the little time they get to
interact with the squad but I can't for the life of me understand why
this happens.


To the best of my knowledge a standard Premiership footballer's
'working day' is finished by about 1pm. For the kind of money the FA
are paying Fabio, surely he could arrange to see some of the squad in
the afternoons during the months between internationals!


Put it this way; The players of Manchester United, Manchester City,
Liverpool and Everton to name a few of the North West clubs live a
maximum of 40 minutes from each other (less if you drive like Barton).
I can imagine it is not dissimilar for many London clubs. Why can the
England manager arrange for established England players and promising
talent from a particular region to meet up once a week for a few hours
and talk about the team and his ideas? No one is asking them to do
extra training (perish the thought!) but some time showing how he plans
to play against future opponents, formations he will employ and the
conduct and commitment he expects of the team leading up to selection
seems to me like the perfect solution. José Mourinho is well known for
spending as much time running through power point presentations with
his staff and players as on the training pitch.


The benefit of this of course is that you will be educating
potential future managers and coaches in the mindset of a proven winner
and highly successful manager. The players will know well in advance
what they will be doing if they are selected and have the way they are
going to play in the back of their minds months in advance. If we are
all honest there are only maybe two genuine world-class players in the
England squad but we saw how effective they can be when playing in a
balanced team who had a clear idea of their roles.


I really think we are missing out on a huge opportunity to improve
the national team and the tactical education of our best players.

Dave F (Sky >>>> Setanta), Manchester

Decent mail on f365 mailbox.

Another one.

Another Heskey? Get Bent

Mike Christie
was spot on with his praise of Heskey in the Croatia game. He played
that role to perfection, stretching the Croatian defence to create the
space for Rooney to play in, just behind. However, his assertion that
we have alternatives in Crouch and Ashton is misguided in my opinion.



The key to Heskey's success is his pace and power and his
willingness to run on to things, this allows him to act like a
battering ram, driving the defenders back towards their own goal, in
exactly the same way as Drogba does for Chelsea, creating space for
Lampard to come through and get shots on goal (though Drogba manages to
score a few more goals than Heskey). Ashton and particularly Crouch, on
the other hand would be looking for the ball to feet more and coming
towards the players with the ball, i.e. our midfielders and deny Rooney
et al that space.


That is why Heskey's role in the victory was so important and must
not be overlooked. Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of real
alternatives. The only one which really comes to mind is (and I know
this will be the bit that the Mailbox Compiler bases his sarcatistic
title on) Darren Bent as also he has pace and power and the ability to
run in behind and stretch defences, plus he gets his fair share of
goals. After all, it's not about the best 11 players, it's about
finding players that play the role required by the team.

Dave B, Stevenage

Allez les rouges wrote:Just a point re Pierre's perhaps vaild dismissal of Walcott on the grounds that he can never be top-class either as a winger, a centre-forward or a second striker.

How many people are the perfect identikit fit for a particular position? It seems perverse to write someone off purely because at least from a technical/purist point of view they don't fit the bill. Compromises need to be made in football, whether it means playing with two DMs to accommodate attacking midfielders in the centre, shifting creative midfielders out wide so as not to weaken your centre, playing a versatile but excellent player "out of position" to make up for what would otherwise be a more glaring weakness (see debate on Mannschaft thread). Not every team has a Ballack available in central midfield or a Drogba up front. It's not about having someone individually who matches perfectly what you want from a particular position, it's about what the sum total of the team adds up to, and Walcott adds far too much as a potential weapon in terms of his effectiveness to be discarded or dismissed.

I think Pierre is just biased against him because of his extreme pace and lack (at this stage) of supreme technique – although surely his finishing has to be admired? – but at the same time I'm beginning to get the impression that there's a division here between those who think people should be used in their proper position, a position which their talent should merit, or not at all – and the rest of us who think you have to be pragmatic and who would argue "if it works, why complain?"

Pierre also seems to think Ronaldo is a pace merchant.

Pidgeonholing/evaluating the future of a 19 year old is hardly something to be proud of. Nobody can honestly say at this stage what will become of Theo, both in terms of his best position and how good he will be.

Right now he is proving to work well as a right winger for England, so I agree with Allez- why complain when there hasn't been a better option in that position since the days when Beckham was at his prime?

Playing Walcott on the right reminds me of how Germany play Podolski in that position too - on paper you scratch your head, but on the pitch both (so far) have seemed to perform admirably.

And so what if Walcott's crossing isn't great- do we honestly have anyone upfront worthy of crossing too? Since the day Shearer hung up his boots, and Owen no longer a regular, the onus isn't on whipping balls into the box anymore because neither Heskey nor Rooney are particularly dominant in the air.

The best fruits of England's labour on Wednesday were when the ball was played wide and the likes of Walcott and Ashley Cole were looking to play one two's off the midfield and Heskey and get behind the backline in order to either shoot or pull the ball back on the ground to Rooney/Lampard/Cole or whoever. This was far more progressive than the tactics used against Andorra which comprised of Downing and Walcott tossing aimless balls into the box with the hope of someone getting their head on it.

Walcott has decent technique, excellent pace and excellent finishing - erratic with his final ball granted (at the age of 19 most are), but seeing as he seems to have the luxury of getting onto the end of moves rather than having to start them, who honestly cares?

Poldi is very left-footed Bernd as you know (and currently playing up front albeit drifting out to the left...)

I wonder what Pierre thought of Theo's run against Liverpool in the CL last season. Pure pace-merchantry no doubt

Pierre Littbarski wrote:

Walcott cannot make it as a second striker 'cos he is not skillful/creative enough, he won't make it as a winger (that will def be his position) 'cos his crosses/cutbacks are so poor and he can't play as an out and out striker 'cos he's well under 6ft and can't play with his back to goal.

Does that also apply to Arjan Robben?

The Professor wrote:

Pierre Littbarski wrote:

Walcott cannot make it as a second striker 'cos he is not skillful/creative enough, he won't make it as a winger (that will def be his position) 'cos his crosses/cutbacks are so poor and he can't play as an out and out striker 'cos he's well under 6ft and can't play with his back to goal.

Does that also apply to Arjan Robben?

Definitely applied to Henry - that's why he was so $h!t as a winger.

Allez les rouges wrote:Poldi is very left-footed Bernd as you know (and currently playing up front albeit drifting out to the left...)

I wonder what Pierre thought of Theo's run against Liverpool in the CL last season. Pure pace-merchantry no doubt

He was originally playing on the left with Gomez and Klose upfront for Germany in the group stages was he not? And he played excellently too.

Do you not feel it a fair comparison of 2 players not readily pidgeonholed into one position?

Not an illegitimate comparison at all Bernd, you know I'm just being a pedant (though very different players, so I wouldn't push the generalization too far...)

(Poldi wide in a 4-2-3-1 is easier to justify from a tactical point of view than wide in a 4-4-2.)

They are very different players indeed. What a waste seeing Poldi rotting away at Bayern

I agree with Allez and Pele regarding Walcott. Besides which, with the team England put out on Wednesday, with Rooney behind Heskey; with Joe Cole and Walcott out wide; with both Lampard and Barry sitting relatively deep; the formation wasn't far from a 4-3-3. I think Walcott can be very effective as a second striker in a 4-4-2 or as a winger in that formation, despite his crossing not being the best. But I think he certainly suits a 4-3-3 - his pace stretches the opposition's defence and enables him to get to the byline, and besides from being quick, I think his movement in general is good - he gets into good attacking positions - if his cut backs aren't the best, Wednesday obviously shows the role he could play coming inside from an advanced wide position to finish moves off.

Regarding the value and the role of pragmatism in football in general: it's obviously always tempting to play very gifted players in the position that should best suits their gifts. In the same vein, when a more limited sort of player might be required to balance a team out in some way (a destroyer in midfield, or a target man, for instance), it is tempting to try to adapt a talented player for these roles - hoping that the player will be able to self regulate, to play these positions as required whilst adding a bit of extra quality if the moment calls for it. I guess the question there is whether this is a valid thing to hope for, or whether talented attacking players in particular will ultimately break from instructions and therefore maybe won't add the required balance. It's also difficult to know how to judge the Butts and Heskeys of the game - if they add balance to a team, is it right to call them good players, or do they simply help other players play well?

The problem with Walcott is that he is just too light-wieght to really make it. Even other small players like Tevez and SWP have enough power to make up the deficiency of their hight.

Well, his passing was pretty good on Saturday apart from anything else. Sooner or later some people on here are going to have to go easy with some of their agendas.

I don't buy the to my ears rather sniffy prejudice against "limited" players by the way – diss the likes of Butt and Heskey all you like I guess, but not, say, Flamini or Toni... these supposed "limited" players are an essential component in any winning team, and a team of Robinhos would quite rightly get destroyed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/7617476.stm

England to play Slovenia and Slovakia in friendlies next year.

Cant wait

You've got November to look forward to at least.

Allez les rouges wrote:You've got November to look forward to at least.

why is that?

If you're so up on next year's friendlies then I might've thought you'd be aware of the more imminent schedule?

Can't be arsed to dig it out, look it up yourself...

Cant be arsed with a new thread, someone else can make one.

Squad announced. No Owen. Recalls for Crouch and SWP..No David Bentley, whose career has been ruined since his arrival at Spurs.

England squad: James (Portsmouth), Green (West Ham), Carson (West Brom); Brown (Manchester United), Johnson (Portsmouth), Terry (Chelsea), Ferdinand (Manchester United), Lescott (Everton), Upson (West Ham), A Cole (Chelsea), Bridge (Chelsea); Beckham (Los Angeles Galaxy), Walcott (Arsenal), Barry (Aston Villa), Jenas (Tottenham), Lampard (Chelsea), Gerrard (Liverpool), Downing (Middlesbrough), Wright-Phillips (Manchester City); Heskey (Wigan), Crouch (Portsmouth), Rooney (Manchester United), Defoe (Portsmouth).

hmm, not overly excited.... the team looks void of any guile.

Rooney can sometimes play incisive stuff, Gerrard and Lampard the occassional defence splitting ball (at least for club anyways)

Apart from that i don't see without brute force and ignorance (and pace) we're going to play any real clever football.

$h!t squad

Why the f@ck is Jenas and Beckham in the squad

... and Wayne Bridge, I thought he was dead.

I think Ashley Cole raped Capello's cat or something to never get selected.
If there ever was a chance to use Young it is this game with Joe Cole out.
Looks like it will be Gerrard on the left again

Ade Alves wrote:Why the f@ck is Jenas and Beckham in the squad

... and Wayne Bridge, I thought he was dead.

I think Ashley Cole raped Capello's cat or something to never get selected.
If there ever was a chance to use Young it is this game with Joe Cole out.
Looks like it will be Gerrard on the left again

Ade Alves wrote:Why the f@ck is Jenas and Beckham in the squad

... and Wayne Bridge, I thought he was dead.

I think Ashley Cole raped Capello's cat or something to never get selected.
If there ever was a chance to use Young it is this game with Joe Cole out.
Looks like it will be Gerrard on the left again

Do you ever know what you're on about? SERIOUSLY

S4P - 13 wrote:

Ade Alves wrote:Why the f@ck is Jenas and Beckham in the squad

... and Wayne Bridge, I thought he was dead.

I think Ashley Young raped Capello's cat or something to never get selected.
If there ever was a chance to use Young it is this game with Joe Cole out.
Looks like it will be Gerrard on the left again

I wouldn't put it past Ashley Cole though

lrd..

lrd I don't fancy you, get over it

So first Ashley cheats on Cheryl with another woman, now he cheats on her with a cat?

S4P - 13 wrote:So first Ashley cheats on Cheryl with another woman, now he cheats on her with a cat?

Only god knows

Ade Alves wrote:

S4P - 13 wrote:

Ade Alves wrote:Why the f@ck is Jenas and Beckham in the squad

... and Wayne Bridge, I thought he was dead.

I think Ashley Young raped Capello's cat or something to never get selected.
If there ever was a chance to use Young it is this game with Joe Cole out.
Looks like it will be Gerrard on the left again

I wouldn't put it past Ashley Cole though

lrd..

lrd I don't fancy you, get over it

I'm not into asians

Capello is a bit of a plonkero tbh, even if Owen isn't a first teamer he makes a great supersub. If England are down who are they going to bring on? Fucking Heskey?

Well Heskey should be starting going by the last England game with Rooney upfront. I agree that Owen would of been great to bring on though.

Kimbo wrote:Capello is a bit of a plonkero tbh, even if Owen isn't a first teamer he makes a great supersub. If England are down who are they going to bring on? Fucking Heskey?

Wouldn't Heskey start though?

So Crouch or Defoe then