The Next England Squad

2002

Agree with Kimmy. We have much better players than a lot of teams in the competition so why aren't we putting in the performances or getting results? Must be Gerrard's fault   

Are trying to tell us Gerrard had a good tournament? Or that he wasnt at fault for us being out?

Gerrard had a poor 2 games yeah, so did the rest of the team besides Cahill, Sterling and maybe Henderson.

There is only one reason we are going home before the knock out rounds and it isn't any of the players - take a guess.

Gerrard?

Luis wrote:Gerrard had a poor 2 games yeah, so did the rest of the team besides Cahill, Sterling and maybe Henderson.

There is only one reason we are going home before the knock out rounds and it isn't any of the players - take a guess.

Name a tournament he played well in. He's just not a big game player for us, you take him out of his comfort zone in Liverpool and he just doesn't have the same spark about him, maybe he loses confidence or something.

He isn't the problem, but he's a big name that has had several tournaments and hasn't come close to expectations, what do you expect us to do? Petition for a testimonial and build a statue? None of the golden generation are getting that.

Meh. None of the big name players have done much for England over the last 4 world cups - Rooney has one WC goal to his name, Lampard never scored the amount of goals he did for Chelsea, Terry was a Facking disgrace etc. Owen or Beckham was probably the last big name player who actually did well for us.

It comes back to who would start ahead of Gerrard though - Lallana is poor defensively, Wilshere and Barkley can't be trusted at this level.

Luis wrote:Meh. None of the big name players have done much for England over the last 4 world cups - Rooney has one WC goal to his name, Lampard never scored the amount of goals he did for Chelsea, Terry was a Facking disgrace etc. Owen or Beckham was probably the last big name player who actually did well for us.

It comes back to who would start ahead of Gerrard though - Lallana is poor defensively, Wilshere and Barkley can't be trusted at this level.

But surely you see people slagging off those players? Rooney has been getting it far worse than Gerrard. Other than Cole I would have fucked the lot of them off after 2010.

I don't know who would start ahead of Gerrard, it's a problem. I think we need to reassess the way we even talk about these things, we can list the players and look at who has the biggest name, plays for the best team etc etc, but clearly there is more to being a tournament player than that.

Kimbo wrote:

Luis wrote:Meh. None of the big name players have done much for England over the last 4 world cups - Rooney has one WC goal to his name, Lampard never scored the amount of goals he did for Chelsea, Terry was a Facking disgrace etc. Owen or Beckham was probably the last big name player who actually did well for us.

It comes back to who would start ahead of Gerrard though - Lallana is poor defensively, Wilshere and Barkley can't be trusted at this level.

But surely you see people slagging off those players? Rooney has been getting it far worse than Gerrard. Other than Cole I would have fucked the lot of them off after 2010.

I don't know who would start ahead of Gerrard, it's a problem. I think we need to reassess the way we even talk about these things, we can list the players and look at who has the biggest name, plays for the best team etc etc, but clearly there is more to being a tournament player than that.

Yeah I know, the big name players will always take the hits because they're the ones expected to get us the goals or the key passes but the whole point of having an exciting young squad is to ensure it's not about these so called big names any more but about ensuring the youth can step in and that we can play as a team. I'm not saying bin all experienced players, as you say Cole should have went and started, Lambert isn't young but IMO should have started over Rooney.

You look at teams like Belgium, Chile or even Costa Rica - Belgium are so inexperienced and very young but they play for each other. Chile and Costa Rica don't have the same ability as England, more so the latter but they are passionate and they are unified as a group. England are still relying on individuals. Spain had big name players sure but every one of their players became a big name player over the course of tournaments - you had your Xavis and Puyols but you then had your Busquets, Torres, Pedro, Fabregas. They love each other the Spain squad, they're a team, they don't piss and moan at Xavi because they went out this time, they know collectively they weren't up for it.

We don't look for who is the biggest name though - it's just the fact that as you have clearly shown who is going to play ahead of Gerrard and are they going to do any better? With Rooney it's different, you have Lambert, Lallana or Chamberlain who could have played ahead of him and done better. Granted Chamberlain wasn't fully fit.

Huddlestone, Barry, Cleverly, Milner.

the 1st 2 are better defensively (Huddlestone would be better for the "Pirlo" role), Barry & Cleverly are more efficient users of the ball, and Milner has way more energy.

Gerrard got in on 80% image.

-----------------------------------

Classic Harry Redknapp snitching on his players. Those players probably told him that in confidence.

Deluded F*ck™ wrote:Huddlestone, Barry, Cleverly, Milner.

the 1st 2 are better defensively (Huddlestone would be better for the "Pirlo" role), Barry & Cleverly are more efficient users of the ball, and Milner has way more energy.

Gerrard got in on 80% image.

Not sure if serious.

Milner perhaps for the role Gerrard needed to have.

The rest? Get the fuck out of here.

No one could play ahead of Gerrard, he has a permanent place in the first team until he retires because he is a lionheart and an England legend. As for who could have played better, it's an impossible question. Gerrard was shit, it's entirely conceivable that some midtable player like Delph or Huddlestone would have been more useful, I don't know because I don't know what their mentality for big games is. I'd take a less talented player that is going to be up for it over some fancy boy from a big club that is going to crumble, I think that is one of the lessons we need to learn from this.

Kimbo wrote:No one could play ahead of Gerrard, he has a permanent place in the first team until he retires because he is a lionheart and an England legend. As for who could have played better, it's an impossible question. Gerrard was shit, it's entirely conceivable that some midtable player like Delph or Huddlestone would have been more useful, I don't know because I don't know what their mentality for big games is. I'd take a less talented player that is going to be up for it over some fancy boy from a big club that is going to crumble, I think that is one of the lessons we need to learn from this.

Fair enough, but you've just said before you don't know who you'd have in place of him...sticking Tom fucking Huddlestone in to see if he's any better is a bit of a retarded ploy   

Was Gerrard any less up for it than Sturridge or Rooney or Baines? We've been hearing that Baines is the new Alves or Lahm, where was he this tournament? Abject.

So the lesson you've learned is take an average quality but enthusiastic player from the likes of Villa or Hull instead of someone with a proven track record for winning trophies, scoring big goals and being a leader who just had one if his best seasons? Brilliant.

It's funny that Capello took a lot more stick than Hodgson yet had a much poorer squad to work with   

Huddlestone did well for Spurs in most big games we had, he left because he was too injury prone. He is a better Defensive Midfielder and passer from deep than Gerrard, no doubt.

Barry Had a good season for Everton.

Liverpool left Gerrard as their DM, so it's no coincidence.