The Next England Squad

The commentators were wanking themselves silly over Gerrard last night. It's so transparent, they hype him up for playing well against this pub side, but when he looks out of his depth against a decent side, a half decent side, or Scotland, then they say nothing. Gerrard will go through his entire England career without ever being scrutinised.

They did the same for Wilshere and his through passing straight forward was shit

christmasborocooper wrote:Why the fuck would we play him at cb?

Thats not as bad as it sounds most CB's we have right now a not that good.

Brian2468 wrote:They did the same for Wilshere and his through passing straight forward was shit

We'll see if they do it for Wilshere for the next 10 years and 100 caps.  

Brian2468 wrote:

christmasborocooper wrote:Why the fuck would we play him at cb?

Thats not as bad as it sounds most CB's we have right now a not that good.

they're better at it than an old centre mid who has never played there. It would be ludicrous.

christmasborocooper wrote:

Brian2468 wrote:

christmasborocooper wrote:Why the fuck would we play him at cb?

Thats not as bad as it sounds most CB's we have right now a not that good.

they're better at it than an old centre mid who has never played there. It would be ludicrous.

Borro it does sound nuts. He does have one gift that of reading the game and when it intercept the ball then play it. the CB has the advantage of seeing everything unfold in front of him at the back covering the front oppositions strikers is his only main concern and last ditch tackles.

Literally.. We should never.. When we have fit centre backs, play a centre mid at centre back.

Brian2468 wrote:

christmasborocooper wrote:

Brian2468 wrote:

christmasborocooper wrote:Why the fuck would we play him at cb?

Thats not as bad as it sounds most CB's we have right now a not that good.

they're better at it than an old centre mid who has never played there. It would be ludicrous.

Borro it does sound nuts. He does have one gift that of reading the game and when it intercept the ball then play it. the CB has the advantage of seeing everything unfold in front of him at the back covering the front oppositions strikers is his only main concern and last ditch tackles.  

He's not very good at reading when it's safe to pass back to the keeper. Lets not pretend he is an intelligent player.

Kimbo wrote:

Brian2468 wrote:

christmasborocooper wrote:

Brian2468 wrote:

christmasborocooper wrote:Why the fuck would we play him at cb?

Thats not as bad as it sounds most CB's we have right now a not that good.

they're better at it than an old centre mid who has never played there. It would be ludicrous.

Borro it does sound nuts. He does have one gift that of reading the game and when it intercept the ball then play it. the CB has the advantage of seeing everything unfold in front of him at the back covering the front oppositions strikers is his only main concern and last ditch tackles.  

He's not very good at reading when it's safe to pass back to the keeper. Lets not pretend he is an intelligent player.

He has made many mistakes agree. When I meant reading play from an intersection point of view he is excellent. Another CB can mark the main attacker he is much better with the ball than any CB we have ever had in his time as a player. It is not as crazy as it sounds.

Who do you think is our most sure footed CB

We should play Milner at CB.

Kimbo wrote:The commentators were wanking themselves silly over Gerrard last night. It's so transparent, they hype him up for playing well against this pub side, but when he looks out of his depth against a decent side, a half decent side, or Scotland, then they say nothing. Gerrard will go through his entire England career without ever being scrutinised.

It's so transparent Kimmy  

I don't know how true it is though. 

Gerrard is regularly England's best players. 

When he is out of his depth, it's often the case that he's not the only one, and not the worst. 

It's so transparent, to what end? 

Anyway, that's not what I came on here to talk about.

I'm wondering why, if Welbeck is so important, did he need to play against Moldova?

Did geriatrics Gerrard and Lampard both need to play, so close to such an important game?

If Ashley Cole is important enough to take off at half time to avoid him getting booked, why did he need to play at all? This is the only position where the backup is as good as the first choice.

For all Hodge Podge's supposed dedication to the future, he ignored all the youngsters in a game where he could have afforded to give them a run out, with the bonus of keeping the senior citizens fresh for Tuesday.

Here's a game where Henderson, Wilshere and Cleverley could have started; rather than waiting for them to be needed in an emergency situation; we could have blooded them together in an easy competitive fixture. 

It's so transparent

The headless chicken Gerrard at centre back  

will.i.glenn wrote:

Kimbo wrote:The commentators were wanking themselves silly over Gerrard last night. It's so transparent, they hype him up for playing well against this pub side, but when he looks out of his depth against a decent side, a half decent side, or Scotland, then they say nothing. Gerrard will go through his entire England career without ever being scrutinised.

It's so transparent Kimmy  

I don't know how true it is though. 

Gerrard is regularly England's best players. 

When he is out of his depth, it's often the case that he's not the only one, and not the worst. 

It's so transparent, to what end? 

Anyway, that's not what I came on here to talk about.

I'm wondering why, if Welbeck is so important, did he need to play against Moldova?

Did geriatrics Gerrard and Lampard both need to play, so close to such an important game?

If Ashley Cole is important enough to take off at half time to avoid him getting booked, why did he need to play at all? This is the only position where the backup is as good as the first choice.

For all Hodge Podge's supposed dedication to the future, he ignored all the youngsters in a game where he could have afforded to give them a run out, with the bonus of keeping the senior citizens fresh for Tuesday.

Here's a game where Henderson, Wilshere and Cleverley could have started; rather than waiting for them to be needed in an emergency situation; we could have blooded them together in an easy competitive fixture. 

It's so transparent

It depends on where you get your opinions really. Townsend loves him, but on the newcastle forum I post on he is seen as a joke for England. I certainly don't see him as regularly being one of Englands best players myself.

The transparency is about certain English players having their reputations protected, I don't know why. Gerrard isn't the only one, Rooney gets away with it, Terry and Beckham always got away with it aswell.

will.i.glenn wrote:

Kimbo wrote:The commentators were wanking themselves silly over Gerrard last night. It's so transparent, they hype him up for playing well against this pub side, but when he looks out of his depth against a decent side, a half decent side, or Scotland, then they say nothing. Gerrard will go through his entire England career without ever being scrutinised.

It's so transparent Kimmy  

I don't know how true it is though. 

Gerrard is regularly England's best players. 

When he is out of his depth, it's often the case that he's not the only one, and not the worst. 

It's so transparent, to what end? 

Anyway, that's not what I came on here to talk about.

I'm wondering why, if Welbeck is so important, did he need to play against Moldova?

Did geriatrics Gerrard and Lampard both need to play, so close to such an important game?

If Ashley Cole is important enough to take off at half time to avoid him getting booked, why did he need to play at all? This is the only position where the backup is as good as the first choice.

For all Hodge Podge's supposed dedication to the future, he ignored all the youngsters in a game where he could have afforded to give them a run out, with the bonus of keeping the senior citizens fresh for Tuesday.

Here's a game where Henderson, Wilshere and Cleverley could have started; rather than waiting for them to be needed in an emergency situation; we could have blooded them together in an easy competitive fixture. 

It's so transparent

Well it just shows the extent of confidence the staff have in us beating even Moldova and getting the points means everything.  In their mind leaving nothing to chance and playing seniors generally puts them a safer place with the media. Plus it makes the seniors better and easer to pick for the next games cause they looked good in the last and folks have short memories.  

If they had at least half a team of good young players  that they could throw in and take over and run things they would just like the German could and did. England is way to conservative minded to make such changes without really having the players to pull it off. Saving face guys right.

Kimbo wrote:We should play Milner at CB.

Okay he never went anywhere I get your nagging on him...

Give me reasons for not trying Gerrard at CB where they are short When Ledley King was tried out and DM for the national team.

He's a 33 year old who has never played at centre back even for his club..

christmasborocooper wrote:He's a 33 year old who has never played at centre back even for his club..

Okay he is old still at CB his age does not overly concern me.

The one main trait for a CB is that being the one of the last men of defence he cannot mess up this is the gamble.

Do we not have one CB that could play alongside him and keep him in position.

WHY?!

Why do we have players learning their position from youth to then, at the highest level, just say "fuck it stick that old centre mid with no experience in at centre back.. It doesn't matter that he doesn't actually know how.. And we'd apparently need someone alongside to cover his arse doing two jobs.. But he does know how to hit a 50 yard pass.. Well sometimes he can but hey ho".

It's ludicrous.

IF you were going to play a CM at CB for some reason, you'd go for Carrick 'cause at least he's played there a few times for Man Utd. but we're not so short that we need to try extreme options. there's people like Shawcross, Dawson, who are decent CBs

christmasborocooper wrote:WHY?!

Why do we have players learning their position from youth to then, at the highest level, just say "fuck it stick that old centre mid with no experience in at centre back.. It doesn't matter that he doesn't actually know how.. And we'd apparently need someone alongside to cover his arse doing two jobs.. But he does know how to hit a 50 yard pass.. Well sometimes he can but hey ho".

It's ludicrous.

   

Screw the CB lets go back to  2-3-5 England's original formation two lightening fast backs 3 mids to send the long ball whooping up field to the 5 forwards......

You could get away with it against Moldova, but against even half-decent teams like Montenegro and Ukraine it would be suicide. Montenegro were all over us for 45 minutes. If you're going to play a CM in defence you have to be sure that you're going to have the ball more and that you're going to be dictating the game. Also, Gerrard is a window licker.

Playing a CM in the defence will not make you play like Barcelona. You need a concept first and the right players for it. Barcelona 'get away with it' because their philosophy is based on ball retention, coordinated pressing and a high line of defence.

No club in England plays like that. And England currently don't have the players for it, Gerrard included (no matter if midfield or defence).

Ever played football  in a 3 5 2  or 3 4 3  to the opposition it looked like your set up  as 4 at the back. The  middle player in the defence would spend most his time on possession as forward as possible up the middle and was used like a playmaker at times. the wide backs pinched in.

Brian2468 wrote:Ever played football  in a 3 5 2  or 3 4 3  to the opposition it looked like your set up  as 4 at the back. The  middle player in the defence would spend most his time on possession as forward as possible up the middle and was used like a playmaker at times. the wide backs pinched in.

so you play one of your 3 CBs as DM and the wide backs as full backs. sounds an awful lot like a regular back 4

debaser wrote:

Brian2468 wrote:Ever played football  in a 3 5 2  or 3 4 3  to the opposition it looked like your set up  as 4 at the back. The  middle player in the defence would spend most his time on possession as forward as possible up the middle and was used like a playmaker at times. the wide backs pinched in.

so you play one of your 3 CBs as DM and the wide backs as full backs. sounds an awful lot like a regular back 4

See it fooled the opposition...........  if you defend using 3 players and a player in a 4-4-2 with a playmaker in front of the sweeper both full backs stay in the game playing more defensively pinching in... it changes the football played somewhat. In most cases breaking from the middle of defence gives you more options where to play the ball.

       
                 
 ------------------ Sweeper---------------

-------RB--------Gerrard-----------LB----

---RW------DM-----------DM-------- LW--

----------------F-------F-------------------

Lampard will win his 100th cap:
http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1548285/england-midfielder-frank-lampard-win-100th-cap-ukraine?cc=5739

Ukraine players expected to give 150% by their coach, is that even possible?

Konoplyanka will be a problem tonight.

Brian2468 wrote:

will.i.glenn wrote:

Kimbo wrote:The commentators were wanking themselves silly over Gerrard last night. It's so transparent, they hype him up for playing well against this pub side, but when he looks out of his depth against a decent side, a half decent side, or Scotland, then they say nothing. Gerrard will go through his entire England career without ever being scrutinised.

It's so transparent Kimmy  

I don't know how true it is though. 

Gerrard is regularly England's best players. 

When he is out of his depth, it's often the case that he's not the only one, and not the worst. 

It's so transparent, to what end? 

Anyway, that's not what I came on here to talk about.

I'm wondering why, if Welbeck is so important, did he need to play against Moldova?

Did geriatrics Gerrard and Lampard both need to play, so close to such an important game?

If Ashley Cole is important enough to take off at half time to avoid him getting booked, why did he need to play at all? This is the only position where the backup is as good as the first choice.

For all Hodge Podge's supposed dedication to the future, he ignored all the youngsters in a game where he could have afforded to give them a run out, with the bonus of keeping the senior citizens fresh for Tuesday.

Here's a game where Henderson, Wilshere and Cleverley could have started; rather than waiting for them to be needed in an emergency situation; we could have blooded them together in an easy competitive fixture. 

It's so transparent

Well it just shows the extent of confidence the staff have in us beating even Moldova and getting the points means everything.  In their mind leaving nothing to chance and playing seniors generally puts them a safer place with the media. Plus it makes the seniors better and easer to pick for the next games cause they looked good in the last and folks have short memories.  

If they had at least half a team of good young players  that they could throw in and take over and run things they would just like the German could and did. England is way to conservative minded to make such changes without really having the players to pull it off. Saving face guys right.

I agree with this, if he started Henderson/Cleverly/Wilshire and they performed well he would be making short term problems for himself re selection, instead he's putting these problems in the post and yet complaining about lack of options - these guys start for their club sides. 

Just as frustrating is that he hasn't called anyone else up, so our options are Lambert and Defoe. Were Crouch, Agbonlahor, Fraizer Campbell, Jay Rodriguez, Darren Bent etc considered? They may not be world beaters, but they're getting a lot more football than Jermaine Defoe and would surely be a better option than sticking Chris Smalling up front, which is where we're headed.

He should've called up Rooney, there's fuck all wrong with him. I saw Ricky Burns fight with a broken jaw on saturday, but Wayne is fannying about on a beach with a cut on his head. Fannies.