The Next England Squad

Make this Gerrard debate broader AGIAN it's an english rampant decease we glorified this man and similar players like him in turn you end up with shit on the stick weak national sides. The younger generation of kids grow up with the wrong role models. Our football has never grown up, its like the crazy old comics my Dad use to read from the forties.   

How many years do we need to F*cking understand how to fix this BS The press are wankers real F*cking tossers. A Nation of brainwashed lost fans screwed up for money and they I bet don't even know their a part of it.

Say it again. If players the quality of Scholes were put on a pedestal (which is wrong) by the press. the way Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, kids would of learned and played a more intelligent effective team game to a higher quality.

We Suck and the Coaches are all to blame as much as the press weak F*cking turds................  feel better now........... 

Luis wrote:I remember when Gerrard bottled the 2006 FA Cup final when he scored a goal from about 25 yards out in the last minute with his left foot to equalise. Fucking bottler.

Always suspected that you didn't know your left from your right.

110% wrote: He had a bad game against Uruguay, but your favourite, Welbeck was even worse   

Fair comparison, two players playing out of position - Welbeck is a CF playing left/right mid, Gerrard is an AM who has proved consistently incapable of performing against semi-decent opposition as a CM.

I was actually quite shocked to read England always survived the groupstage at a WC, that's a pretty good record, especially if you compare it with Italy. Sure, England tend to have the more easier groups. But good record nontheless.

Why is Spurs sub Townsend a pundit btw....

Fey wrote:I was actually quite shocked to read England always survived the groupstage at a WC, that's a pretty good record, especially if you compare it with Italy. Sure, England tend to have the more easier groups. But good record nontheless.

Why is Spurs sub Townsend a pundit btw....

ITV do this for some reason, like Walcott has been a pundit in the past for England games. Their logic is probably that they give "insight" as they are kind of part of the set up, what they actually do though is say everything is fine and the players are world class. Andros said a couple of days ago that Lampard and Gerrard are world class, and no one pulled him up on it, on the BBC someone might have said something.

He made their team for 2016 aswell.



Fuckin shite!  

that midfield sure wouldn't get overrun

Looking into the future, with current material...that never makes sense.

If ITW would have been asked to show this last year, no Shaw etc.

That's one retarded team.

Luis wrote:That's one retarded team.

Yep, its got Gerrard in.

It's pretty stupid picking the England team 2 years in advance. Who knows which players will emerge or decline in the next couple of seasons? Well, I do. But I play far too much Football Manager.

It's also weird that Theo Walcott seems to have been completely forgotten, he was really starting to fulfill his potential before his injury.

Barkley and Townsend are ridiculously overrated. Stones probably is too, no one has ever seen him play. Shawcross, Caulker, Phil Jones have much more pedigree and are still young.

Gibbs and Cleverley are worth mentioning, although I'll never admit to it.

what did you think of gerrard's performance vs uruguay glenn?

I wasn't impressed with his performance against Uruguay BoBo. But I didn't think he should have started.

Kimbo wrote:

Deluded F*ck™ wrote:

stinger wrote:
I always thought it's Huth who is much better of Stoke central defense duo. Shawcross is nowhere near Jagielka IMO, I mean - I would be quite terrified if Everton would like to replace Jagielka with him one day.

They are all not much cop individually. But Stoke are an example of the whole being worth more than the sum of the parts.

Physically strong, big, but lacking mobility?

Then defend deep and narrow.

That's what England need to do IMO. Pack the midfield, play a big man up front, and make the most of set pieces. I said months ago that trying to play a more expansive style wouldn't work, I don't think we have the players.

110% wrote:Deschamps just picked the best players and left out Nasri because he's a c**t. Hardly a stroke of genius.

Picking Debuchy and Sissoko ahead of Sagna and Pogba would get a manager flogged in England.

That's nonsense Kimmy. England weren't bad in this WC. You could easily argue they were better than both Italy and Uruguay. I was at the Uruguay game and England were certainly the better team in that game. It's fine margins at this level and England missed their easy chances, Italy and Uruguay took pretty much all the chances they had. You can't seriously be advocating a return to the Capello days of no ambition ? The results here look bad on paper but watching the games told a different story. There is more to be positive about than you think for an England fan (setting aside the defence).

Has Gerrard retired yet? The c**t.

COTR wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

Deluded F*ck™ wrote:

stinger wrote:
I always thought it's Huth who is much better of Stoke central defense duo. Shawcross is nowhere near Jagielka IMO, I mean - I would be quite terrified if Everton would like to replace Jagielka with him one day.

They are all not much cop individually. But Stoke are an example of the whole being worth more than the sum of the parts.

Physically strong, big, but lacking mobility?

Then defend deep and narrow.

That's what England need to do IMO. Pack the midfield, play a big man up front, and make the most of set pieces. I said months ago that trying to play a more expansive style wouldn't work, I don't think we have the players.

110% wrote:Deschamps just picked the best players and left out Nasri because he's a c**t. Hardly a stroke of genius.

Picking Debuchy and Sissoko ahead of Sagna and Pogba would get a manager flogged in England.

That's nonsense Kimmy. England weren't bad in this WC. You could easily argue they were better than both Italy and Uruguay. I was at the Uruguay game and England were certainly the better team in that game. It's fine margins at this level and England missed their easy chances, Italy and Uruguay took pretty much all the chances they had. You can't seriously be advocating a return to the Capello days of no ambition ? The results here look bad on paper but watching the games told a different story. There is more to be positive about than you think for an England fan (setting aside the defence).

Didn't Uruguay miss several chances at the start of the 2nd half?

Kimbo wrote:

Fey wrote:I was actually quite shocked to read England always survived the groupstage at a WC, that's a pretty good record, especially if you compare it with Italy. Sure, England tend to have the more easier groups. But good record nontheless.

Why is Spurs sub Townsend a pundit btw....

ITV do this for some reason, like Walcott has been a pundit in the past for England games. Their logic is probably that they give "insight" as they are kind of part of the set up, what they actually do though is say everything is fine and the players are world class. Andros said a couple of days ago that Lampard and Gerrard are world class, and no one pulled him up on it, on the BBC someone might have said something.

He made their team for 2016 aswell.



Fuckin shite!  

  

Should have been playing 3 in midfield, went with 2 and failed, the solution? Play 1 in midfield, at 36 years old   

Gerrard being in just shows that lack of options for that position, but it could be different in 2 years. However even they know that putting huddlestone, clevereley or livermore in would be pointless as they don't have the quality. There is basically no midfield there, if wilshire and cleverley can improve over the next 2 years then together with henderson they could be a good midfield 3. Hodgson at some time may try a midfield 3, find it's successful and then be congratulated for it   

England's best player against Italy was sterling, so makes perfect sense to drop him. But England do look like they have a fair few decent attacking midfielders, while getting weaker in all other areas. However no other team has the rooney problem, and I am pretty sure that Rooney will be in England's starting line-up until either he or hodgson retires.

Isco Benny wrote:Has Gerrard retired yet? The c**t.

When he does, guess what, Rooney will be captain   

Gerrard being in doesn't show lack of options - Townsend was hardly going to pick a team without the captain in was he ?

Its impossible to predict who will come up in the next year or two, but at the mo, I would probably go for:


Some other good options: Jay Rodriguez, Ox, Caulker, Gibbs, Barkley, Wilshere, etc

I think England have some good talent coming up.

Sturridge + Rooney don't seem to work well with each other, maybe England should play one at a time, with quality attacking played behind them.

England need a better DM than Noble, and soon (maybe convert Ox?). Also Jones needs to step up and realise his potential, or England need a better partner for Cahill. Terry would have been perfect, but...

Pierre Littbarski wrote:Gerrard being in doesn't show lack of options - Townsend was hardly going to pick a team without the captain in was he ?

He made a team without rooney who will be the next captain

110% wrote:
  

Should have been playing 3 in midfield, went with 2 and failed, the solution? Play 1 in midfield, at 36 years old   

Gerrard being in just shows that lack of options for that position, but it could be different in 2 years. However even they know that putting huddlestone, clevereley or livermore in would be pointless as they don't have the quality. There is basically no midfield there, if  wilshire and cleverley can improve over the next 2 years then together with henderson they could be a good midfield 3. Hodgson at some time may try a midfield 3, find it's successful and then be congratulated for it   

England's best player against Italy was sterling, so makes perfect sense to drop him.  But England do look like they have a fair few decent attacking midfielders, while getting weaker in all other areas. However no other team has the rooney problem, and I am pretty sure that Rooney will be in England's starting line-up until either he or hodgson retires.

Do Medel, Beausejour, and Jara have "the quality". 

Kimbo wrote:

110% wrote:
  

Should have been playing 3 in midfield, went with 2 and failed, the solution? Play 1 in midfield, at 36 years old   

Gerrard being in just shows that lack of options for that position, but it could be different in 2 years. However even they know that putting huddlestone, clevereley or livermore in would be pointless as they don't have the quality. There is basically no midfield there, if  wilshire and cleverley can improve over the next 2 years then together with henderson they could be a good midfield 3. Hodgson at some time may try a midfield 3, find it's successful and then be congratulated for it   

England's best player against Italy was sterling, so makes perfect sense to drop him.  But England do look like they have a fair few decent attacking midfielders, while getting weaker in all other areas. However no other team has the rooney problem, and I am pretty sure that Rooney will be in England's starting line-up until either he or hodgson retires.

Do Medel, Beausejour, and Jara have "the quality". 

Not sure what your point is exactly, Medel was an 11 million GBP purchase, which is not a small amount for a defensive midfielder, and was part of a Cardiff team that conceded 74 goals last season while getting relegated, so obviously there is a question mark over his quality. Obviously the Chile manager knows how to get the best out of the limited players he has, and chile is a classic example of the sum being greater than its parts. But if Chile had a defensive midfielder playing for barcelona, chelsea etc you can bet your life he'd be ahead of Medel for Chile. The Chile manager is not a hipster, he actually knows about football.

Well why act like a snob towards mid-table players as if they couldn't possibly contribute to England, when better teams than England have championship players doing a good job in their starting XI? You don't need to be a big name or be at a fashionable club to be the best man for a job, I think i'm wasting my energy because i've said this about a dozen times now. It feels like an obvious point seeing as we're talking about a team sport, but it's an alien concept to most England fans.

Maybe Chile would pick a bigger name ahead of Medel if there was one available, maybe that player would be perfect, like Mascherano probably would be, or maybe he wouldn't be perfect and he would be crowbarred in due to his name and the team wouldn't function aswell.

Moved this to here:

110% wrote:

shazlx wrote:Hahaha. So we end the WC with Lampard and Gerrard in the pivot. Hahaha.

Lampard was one of the best players, Wilshire was one of the worst. Says it all really that you think wilshire is england's best midfielder, yet when he plays he's considerably worse than gerrard and lampard.

1 You clearly have never read anything I've written about Wilshere.
2 What you've said is bull shit anyway.

I only got in from work around 60 mins in so can only comment what I saw from there. Lampard played like Carrick normally does against opposition that didn't have to win so put no pressure on the defence and deepest midfielder. And like Carrick in similar situations, Lampard put in a credible screening mdifield sweeper performance. And from what I've read, he did that throughout the match. A rare good England performance from Lampard. Hopefully its his last.

Wilshere from that 60 mins to when he was taken off was pretty positive in everything he did. Some smart and easy ball circulation, some quick one touch play that moved the ball upfield positively and effectively and one great pass that Sturridge should have scored from. The only negative I saw was laziness when tracking back. Very cocky play, expecting others to get the ball.
Having read some stuff about his performance its seems he played like the way he's been playing in the past year. Great forward movement attempting to link play and sometimes succeeding well but a lot of the other times giving the ball away sloppily. Overall giving the midfield good shape with his movement as positioning but lack of energy and tracking back causing problems. And very annoyingly, patheticly falling over a lot from nothing challenges.

All that good midfield shape and cohesion was lost as soon as Gerrard (and Rooney) came on for Wilshere (and Lanana). Just as the players were getting used to each other as well. Dominating the Costa Rican team.
Gerard was terrible when he came on. As bad as you'll ever see him. And Gerrard has been so bad playing in the CM for England that I've very confident that whoever (and I mean whoever) replaces him, including a low talent like Henderson, England's midfield play will significantly improve. He's been that bad. He's actually so bad he makes his midfield partners worse. So much so that the coaches who have done well with him have either kept him away from central midfield and moved him into forward positions (Benitez) or kept the play away from midfield and focused it on the forward players (Rodgers).

With emphasis on

110% wrote:yet when he plays he's considerably worse than gerrard and lampard.

If that's a general comment rather than a specific match, then you're clearly just making shit up. When Wilshere first came into the England team, he pretty much always outplayed the other midfielders, most notably against Brazil. Since his injury problems, he's has a stop start frustrating game play with some genuine creative moments surrounded by lots of sloppy play. But even in his bad days, his movement and positioning give shape and direction to the midfield. Its not enough and I would play others midfielders ahead him until his all round game improves. But those other midfielders are not Gerrard or Lampard.

Kimbo wrote:Well why act like a snob towards mid-table players as if they couldn't possibly contribute to England, when better teams than England have championship players doing a good job in their starting XI? You don't need to be a big name or be at a fashionable club to be the best man for a job, I think i'm wasting my energy because i've said this about a dozen times now. It feels like an obvious point seeing as we're talking about a team sport, but it's an alien concept to most England fans.

Maybe Chile would pick a bigger name ahead of Medel if there was one available, maybe that player would be perfect, like Mascherano probably would be, or maybe he wouldn't be perfect and he would be crowbarred in due to his name and the team wouldn't function aswell.

We've seen what playing the big names has done for Spain this WC. Playing the big names and "heroes" over players will a lower status but actually have the attributes Spain needed to give them balance.

Kimbo wrote:Well why act like a snob towards mid-table players as if they couldn't possibly contribute to England, when better teams than England have championship players doing a good job in their starting XI? You don't need to be a big name or be at a fashionable club to be the best man for a job, I think i'm wasting my energy because i've said this about a dozen times now. It feels like an obvious point seeing as we're talking about a team sport, but it's an alien concept to most England fans.

Maybe Chile would pick a bigger name ahead of Medel if there was one available, maybe that player would be perfect, like Mascherano probably would be, or maybe he wouldn't be perfect and he would be crowbarred in due to his name and the team wouldn't function aswell.

Don't worry I feel like I'm wasting my energy as well with my point. You've played in defensive midfield last season and your team finished 2nd, the other players in contention in other people's minds finished 16th in the table. You were in the team of the season, and one of the best midfielders in europe statistically. But some think that the players who can't pass as well as you (livermore), tackle as well as you (huddlestonne), read the game as well as you (all of them), "might fit better in the team" although there is real basis for assuming this, and no actual reasoning has been put forward. "They might be a better man for the job" even though they haven't shown that at their clubs. I might be a better man for the job as well, Hodgson's not giving me a chance the fucker. Gerrard might have been the best English midfielder, but I might be a better man for the job of playing in england's midfield. I'm just not getting a chance because Gerrard is a big name, and plays in a fashionable club   .

110% wrote:

Kimbo wrote:Well why act like a snob towards mid-table players as if they couldn't possibly contribute to England, when better teams than England have championship players doing a good job in their starting XI? You don't need to be a big name or be at a fashionable club to be the best man for a job, I think i'm wasting my energy because i've said this about a dozen times now. It feels like an obvious point seeing as we're talking about a team sport, but it's an alien concept to most England fans.

Maybe Chile would pick a bigger name ahead of Medel if there was one available, maybe that player would be perfect, like Mascherano probably would be, or maybe he wouldn't be perfect and he would be crowbarred in due to his name and the team wouldn't function aswell.

Don't worry I feel like I'm wasting my energy as well with my point. You've played in defensive midfield last season and your team finished 2nd, the other players in contention in other people's minds finished 16th in the table. You were in the team of the season, and one of the best midfielders in europe statistically. But some think that the players who can't pass as well as you (livermore), tackle as well as you (huddlestonne), read the game as well as you (all of them), "might fit better in the team" although there is real basis for assuming this, and no actual reasoning has been put forward. "They might be a better man for the job" even though they haven't shown that at their clubs. I might be a better man for the job as well, Hodgson's not giving me a chance the fucker. Gerrard might have been the best English midfielder, but I might be a better man for the job of playing in england's midfield. I'm just not getting a chance because Gerrard is a big name, and plays in a fashionable club   .

Do Liverpool fans really consider Gerrard a proper DM?

shazlx wrote:Moved this to here:

110% wrote:

shazlx wrote:Hahaha. So we end the WC with Lampard and Gerrard in the pivot. Hahaha.

Lampard was one of the best players, Wilshire was one of the worst. Says it all really that you think wilshire is england's best midfielder, yet when he plays he's considerably worse than gerrard and lampard.

1 You clearly have never read anything I've written about Wilshere.
2 What you've said is bull shit anyway.

I only got in from work around 60 mins in so can only comment what I saw from there. Lampard played like Carrick normally does against opposition that didn't have to win so put no pressure on the defence and deepest midfielder. And like Carrick in similar situations, Lampard put in a credible screening mdifield sweeper performance. And from what I've read, he did that throughout the match. A rare good England performance from Lampard. Hopefully its his last.

Wilshere from that 60 mins to when he was taken off was pretty positive in everything he did. Some smart and easy ball circulation, some quick one touch play that moved the ball upfield positively and effectively and one great pass that Sturridge should have scored from. The only negative I saw was laziness when tracking back. Very cocky play, expecting others to get the ball.
Having read some stuff about his performance its seems he played like the way he's been playing in the past year. Great forward movement attempting to link play and sometimes succeeding well but a lot of the other times giving the ball away sloppily. Overall giving the midfield good shape with his movement as positioning but lack of energy and tracking back causing problems. And very annoyingly, patheticly falling over a lot from nothing challenges.

All that good midfield shape and cohesion was lost as soon as Gerrard (and Rooney) came on for Wilshere (and Lanana). Just as the players were getting used to each other as well. Dominating the Costa Rican team.
Gerard was terrible when he came on. As bad as you'll ever see him. And Gerrard has been so bad playing in the CM for England that I've very confident that whoever (and I mean whoever) replaces him, including a low talent like Henderson, England's midfield play will significantly improve. He's been that bad. He's actually so bad he makes his midfield partners worse. So much so that the coaches who have done well with him have either kept him away from central midfield and moved him into forward positions (Benitez) or kept the play away from midfield and focused it on the forward players (Rodgers).

With emphasis on

110% wrote:yet when he plays he's considerably worse than gerrard and lampard.

If that's a general comment rather than a specific match, then you're clearly just making shit up. When Wilshere first came into the England team, he pretty much always outplayed the other midfielders, most notably against Brazil. Since his injury problems, he's has a stop start frustrating game play with some genuine creative moments surrounded by lots of sloppy play. But even in his bad days, his movement and positioning give shape and direction to the midfield. Its not enough and I would play others midfielders ahead him until his all round game improves. But those other midfielders are not Gerrard or Lampard.

Gerrard was the best English midfielder last season. Claiming wilshire is England's best midfielder when fit is like saying, cronaldo is the world's best player when messi's not fit. Either you are the best or you're not.

I suggest you read what wilshire said about himself. He's admitted he is shite and soon to be 23 so he can't considered young any more.

I suggest you look at this:
http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/789640/Live
Pretty clearly supports my view that wilshire was one of the worst players, only marginally better than gerrard who was obviously still upset of england going out etc.

Kimbo wrote:

110% wrote:

Kimbo wrote:Well why act like a snob towards mid-table players as if they couldn't possibly contribute to England, when better teams than England have championship players doing a good job in their starting XI? You don't need to be a big name or be at a fashionable club to be the best man for a job, I think i'm wasting my energy because i've said this about a dozen times now. It feels like an obvious point seeing as we're talking about a team sport, but it's an alien concept to most England fans.

Maybe Chile would pick a bigger name ahead of Medel if there was one available, maybe that player would be perfect, like Mascherano probably would be, or maybe he wouldn't be perfect and he would be crowbarred in due to his name and the team wouldn't function aswell.

Don't worry I feel like I'm wasting my energy as well with my point. You've played in defensive midfield last season and your team finished 2nd, the other players in contention in other people's minds finished 16th in the table. You were in the team of the season, and one of the best midfielders in europe statistically. But some think that the players who can't pass as well as you (livermore), tackle as well as you (huddlestonne), read the game as well as you (all of them), "might fit better in the team" although there is real basis for assuming this, and no actual reasoning has been put forward. "They might be a better man for the job" even though they haven't shown that at their clubs. I might be a better man for the job as well, Hodgson's not giving me a chance the fucker. Gerrard might have been the best English midfielder, but I might be a better man for the job of playing in england's midfield. I'm just not getting a chance because Gerrard is a big name, and plays in a fashionable club   .

Do Liverpool fans really consider Gerrard a proper DM?

I don't know why don't you ask them? I only know that I've been robbed of my rightful place in the centre of England's midfield because gerrard is a big name playing for a fashionable club.

It's weird isn't it. In some ways, it seems different players can be good in some teams, and yet not other teams. Who knows, maybe playing for Liverpool is different from playing for England.

But that doesn't seem likely. After all, it would definitely be the first time in recent memory where a player has had a good club season and failed to recreate that at a major international tournament.