I don't think Marcus Rashford is too young for the Euro's

[Never to the dark side]

Taking into account Michael Owen Wayne Rooney and the Youngest England player Theo Walcott at 17 years and 75 days

[ExiledAjax]

I don't think he's too young.  I think he's too inexperienced.

[JM91]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I don't think he's too young.  I think he's too inexperienced.

This.  All Rashford offers is a lower standard of what the players we have already offer.

Whether you like the style he plays or not, Andy Carroll should have been included.

As it stands, if we are a goal down with 10 minutes to go we cannot go long and play urgently, it seems to me incredibly stupid not to take AC.  It doesn't matter what you think of AC's ability, you cannot deny that he is very effective and there are situations where he could have been the most important player in the England squad.

Having only recently found out Antonio (West Ham) is English, and looking at Mark Noble's omission, it seems Roy has something against West Ham.

[RedWilly]

And we have better options...

[LondonBristolian]

I don't think experience or age are particularly important.  Ultimately it's 7 games in a short space of time.  Being on form is what counts.  Right now, Rashford is on form and utterly flying.  He's also completely fearless and a bit of an unknown quality.  It's a gamble but one that could pay-off - especially as he's quick and clever and play right across the front line.  In the absence of Welbeck, we're really lacking a particular type of player and, if he does well in the friendlies, Rashford might just offer what we need.

[LondonBristolian]

4 minutes ago, JM91 said:

This.  All Rashford offers is a lower standard of what the players we have already offer.

Whether you like the style he plays or not, Andy Carroll should have been included.

As it stands, if we are a goal down with 10 minutes to go we cannot go long and play urgently, it seems to me incredibly stupid not to take AC.  It doesn't matter what you think of AC's ability, you cannot deny that he is very effective and there are situations where he could have been the most important player in the England squad.

Having only recently found out Antonio (West Ham) is English, and looking at Mark Noble's omission, it seems Roy has something against West Ham.

Whist I think Mark Noble can consider himself massively unfortunate to not be included (especially as Delph is) and I'd like to see Antonio in the squad in the future but I completely disagree on Carroll.  I can see the argument but I think that what Hodgson is starting to do, which I can't remember an England manager doing since maybe Hoddle or Venables, is to take a decision on how we can best play to our strengths and work with players who can fit into that system.

Yes, we need the ability to vary things tactically (which I think we can - Hodgson has played 4-4-2 with a diamond, 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 during the qualifiers) but there's no point choosing in a player who simply doesn't fit in with how the rest of the team play.  Against Germany we showed we can play a fluid possession game well and that isn't Andy Carroll.  I can see why you might argue that, if we want to lump long balls forward with ten minutes to go then Carroll is the sort of player we need but, again, we showed against Germany that lumping long balls forward isn't the best way for us to win a match and frankly as soon as we start doing that, we're lost.  Carroll is extremely effective in a team that plays a certain way.  England don't play that way and getting the other ten players on the pitch to change the way they play to accommodate one other simply is not the way to win football tournaments.

[JM91]

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Whist I think Mark Noble can consider himself massively unfortunate to not be included (especially as Delph is) and I'd like to see Antonio in the squad in the future but I completely disagree on Carroll.  I can see the argument but I think that what Hodgson is starting to do, which I can't remember an England manager doing since maybe Hoddle or Venables, is to take a decision on how we can best play to our strengths and work with players who can fit into that system.

Yes, we need the ability to vary things tactically (which I think we can - Hodgson has played 4-4-2 with a diamond, 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 during the qualifiers) but there's no point choosing in a player who simply doesn't fit in with how the rest of the team play.  Against Germany we showed we can play a fluid possession game well and that isn't Andy Carroll.  I can see why you might argue that, if we want to lump long balls forward with ten minutes to go then Carroll is the sort of player we need but, again, we showed against Germany that lumping long balls forward isn't the best way for us to win a match and frankly as soon as we start doing that, we're lost.  Carroll is extremely effective in a team that plays a certain way.  England don't play that way and getting the other ten players on the pitch to change the way they play to accommodate one other simply is not the way to win football tournaments.

Problem is, your argument is predicated on things going to plan.  The game against Germany was a friendly (albeit a good one clearly) an i don't think you can take too much from it.

If we're playing with the ball and its going well then fine, the problem is it won't go all our way.  If we play against teams who are winning 1-0 and sitting deep then we need a target.  Who could we bring on in the circumstances?  Vardy and Sturridge need space in behind to be effective, Rooney too needs to have space in front of him to exploit, we will find ourselves in this position at some point.

We're playing into the oppositions hands if we do not have a Plan B, and the second we disregard any change in tactics, we're lost.

[Robbored]

There's one sensible reason why Rashford should be included and that is that he's unknown at international level and that "surprise" element might just give England an edge. 

Hed played at Old Trafford in front of huge crowds so shouldn't  be phased by the pressure of playing for England and of course he's a young lad and will have great confidence in his own ability.

 

[LondonBristolian]

8 minutes ago, JM91 said:

Problem is, your argument is predicated on things going to plan.  The game against Germany was a friendly (albeit a good one clearly) an i don't think you can take too much from it.

If we're playing with the ball and its going well then fine, the problem is it won't go all our way.  If we play against teams who are winning 1-0 and sitting deep then we need a target.  Who could we bring on in the circumstances?  Vardy and Sturridge need space in behind to be effective, Rooney too needs to have space in front of him to exploit, we will find ourselves in this position at some point.

We're playing into the oppositions hands if we do not have a Plan B, and the second we disregard any change in tactics, we're lost.

My argument is predicated on the fact that, if things don't go to plan, we need a back-up plan that plays to our strengths rather than to throw everything in the bin and hope for the best.  I completely agree that, against a team sitting deep, we need players who can offer something else but walloping a ball at a big man is not the only 'Plan B' in the world and nor is it the one we should be using.  Alli and Barkley are capable of unexpected passes that can open pockets of space against deep defending teams.  Townsend and Alli are capable of shooting from unexpected places.  Harry Kane gets a lot of goals in those circumstances. A lot of Rashford's goals too have come against teams defending deep against United.

 

We do need a Plan B, plus a Plan C, Plan D, Plan E etc... but those plans should be modifications on what we're already doing and that fit into the strengths of the players not throwing the baby out with the bath water and playing against the strengths of most of our players.  Carroll is a brilliant player but he is not what England need right now - on the bench or anywhere. 

[Jack Dawe]

20 minutes ago, Robbored said:

There's one sensible reason why Rashford should be included and that is that he's unknown at international level and that "surprise" element might just give England an edge. 

Hed played at Old Trafford in front of huge crowds so shouldn't  be phased by the pressure of playing for England and of course he's a young lad and will have great confidence in his own ability.

 

I'm not sure Rashford will be much of a "surprise" to Chris Coleman, or Ashley Williams, old chap. Both probably have Sky at home. And anyone playing at Old Trafford "in front of huge crowds" in 2016 will be instantly known by millions around the globe, they've got Sky TV in Russia I think, and even Slovakia probably! It's a small world these days, isn't it?

[Robbored]

6 minutes ago, Jack Dawe said:

I'm not sure Rashford will be much of a "surprise" to Chris Coleman, or Ashley Williams, old chap. Both probably have Sky at home. And anyone playing at Old Trafford "in front of huge crowds" in 2016 will be instantly known by millions around the globe, they've got Sky TV in Russia I think, and even Slovakia probably! It's a small world these days, isn't it?

Watching a player on TV is nothing compared to actually playing against them. Do suppose the Russians have a deep knowledge of Rashford?

Anyway, it's probably all academic as Rashford won't make the cut.

[JM91]

23 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

My argument is predicated on the fact that, if things don't go to plan, we need a back-up plan that plays to our strengths rather than to throw everything in the bin and hope for the best.  I completely agree that, against a team sitting deep, we need players who can offer something else but walloping a ball at a big man is not the only 'Plan B' in the world and nor is it the one we should be using.  Alli and Barkley are capable of unexpected passes that can open pockets of space against deep defending teams.  Townsend and Alli are capable of shooting from unexpected places.  Harry Kane gets a lot of goals in those circumstances. A lot of Rashford's goals too have come against teams defending deep against United.

 

We do need a Plan B, plus a Plan C, Plan D, Plan E etc... but those plans should be modifications on what we're already doing and that fit into the strengths of the players not throwing the baby out with the bath water and playing against the strengths of most of our players.  Carroll is a brilliant player but he is not what England need right now - on the bench or anywhere. 

I couldn't disagree more.  In football an urgent situation can rarely be solved with patience.

Playing Andy Carroll isn't exactly like asking the rest of the team to suddenly pick up a racket and play tennis, it's the same game in a slightly different style, one that many of the players will be used to at their clubs.

A plan B/C/D/E etc. requires players who offer something different to the players they are replacing, not just a sub-standard version of what the player coming off already offered.

We'll be going out with a whimper if we are so inflexible, particularly if it is just based on the performance of the team in one friendly.  I'm not saying Carroll should start, but he should 100% in the squad, definitely ahead of Rashford. 

[Jack Dawe]

21 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Watching a player on TV is nothing compared to actually playing against them. Do suppose the Russians have a deep knowledge of Rashford?

Anyway, it's probably all academic as Rashford won't make the cut.

Vardy and Kane should be enough of a "surprise" then, against most sides we face in this tournament.

[phantom]

Won't matter unless one of the other strikers get injured in the upcoming friendlies he will miss out on the final 23 anyway

[Chairman Mao]

How Rooney is there

 

An Wilshire. Lucky mug. 

[Selred]

3 players need to be dropped from the squad, I expect Rashdord to be one of these. I'd rather Rashford got experience from the next 3 games, understands what it is like to be in a camp before a big competition and gets hungry for the next World Cup, than someone like Defoe or Carroll who won't learn as much and will be dropped. 

[Touch_my_butter]

3 hours ago, JM91 said:

Whether you like the style he plays or not, Andy Carroll should have been included.

Agreed. It borders on foolish that he is not.

Carroll offers a genuinely different option to all our other attacking players. Another 'club in the bag' so to speak.

He wouldn't start many games, maybe not even play many minutes, but if we're up against a resolute defence and the short passing game isn't working, then we need to be able to try something new.

[The Gasbuster]

23 minutes ago, Touch_my_butter said:

Agreed. It borders on foolish that he is not.

Carroll offers a genuinely different option to all our other attacking players. Another 'club in the bag' so to speak.

He wouldn't start many games, maybe not even play many minutes, but if we're up against a resolute defence and the short passing game isn't working, then we need to be able to try something new.

Nail on head.

Many European teams in the tournament will not be used to coming up against a striker like Carroll, some would definitely struggle against him. 

[EnderMB]

He's definitely not too young. He's just not played enough. He's played ten professional games, and he's in the senior squad.

It's basically a message to all kids in a top academy. Sit back, wait your turn, and play a few good games and you'll be good enough for your country.

Either that, or Hodgson wants to be known as the manager to give the next generation of talent their start.

[Robbored]

2 hours ago, JM91 said:

 

Playing Andy Carroll isn't exactly like asking the rest of the team to suddenly pick up a racket and play tennis, it's the same game in a slightly different style, one that many of the players will be used to at their clubs.

I'm not saying Carroll should start, but he should 100% in the squad, definitely ahead of Rashford. 

The "problem" for player like Andy Carroll is that his style of play - a battering ram - is very unfamiliar to referees and he'd be penalised for the tamest of challenges just as Peter Crouch used to be. 

I heard Graham Poll on Talk Sport a while ago and he said the referees have group meetings in preparation for the tournament organised by FIFA and during one of those meeting Peter Crouch was highlighted as a "dangerous"  when challenging for the ball. Subsequently Crouch was penalised for innocuous challenges. 

Andy Carroll although a different type of player from Crouch would be victimised in much the same way. 

Although I agree that he should be in the frame I reckon Hodgeson might consider him too much of a risk.

[Show Me The Money!]

24 minutes ago, The Gasbuster said:

Nail on head.

Many European teams in the tournament will not be used to coming up against a striker like Carroll, some would definitely struggle against him. 

Unfortunately its not just the players who are not used to playing against a player in the style of Carroll its the referees too. It may well be that it's been seen that Carroll's style of play just won't work with refs on the international stage. It was the same with Peter Crouch. The number of fouls that would be given against him that a lot of the time you could argue weren't became really frustrating. We all know European players like to act like they've just been sniper'd at the slightest touch. That is what they will do when playing against Carroll and refs will fall for it.  

[Show Me The Money!]

18 minutes ago, Robbored said:

The "problem" for player like Andy Carroll is that his style of play - a battering ram - is very unfamiliar to referees and he'd be penalised for the tamest of challenges just as Peter Crouch used to be. 

I heard Graham Poll on Talk Sport a while ago and he said the referees have group meetings in preparation for the tournament organised by FIFA and during one of those meeting Peter Crouch was highlighted as a "dangerous"  when challenging for the ball. Subsequently Crouch was penalised for innocuous challenges. 

Andy Carroll although a different type of player from Crouch would be victimised in much the same way. 

Although I agree that he should be in the frame I reckon Hodgeson might consider him too much of a risk.

Beat me to it 

[Phileas Fogg]

4 hours ago, JM91 said:

This.  All Rashford offers is a lower standard of what the players we have already offer.

Whether you like the style he plays or not, Andy Carroll should have been included.

As it stands, if we are a goal down with 10 minutes to go we cannot go long and play urgently, it seems to me incredibly stupid not to take AC.  It doesn't matter what you think of AC's ability, you cannot deny that he is very effective and there are situations where he could have been the most important player in the England squad.

Having only recently found out Antonio (West Ham) is English, and looking at Mark Noble's omission, it seems Roy has something against West Ham.

Totally agree about Carroll. A strong case for Jermaine Defoe too based on form. For the first time in a while though we've got a strong strike force. It might even be the strongest we've had since the 90s.

Vardy -  lightning quick, works hard anddifficult to play against, in form and rested from his suspension. 

Kane - great natural goalscorer. Had a great season.

Rooney - like him or not, he's very gifted. Can also play midfield. Need his experience and leadership.

Sturridge - great natural goalscorer, quick and in form.

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, Selred said:

3 players need to be dropped from the squad, I expect Rashdord to be one of these. I'd rather Rashford got experience from the next 3 games, understands what it is like to be in a camp before a big competition and gets hungry for the next World Cup, than someone like Defoe or Carroll who won't learn as much and will be dropped. 

I would argue that he should get experience of the following before being included in the senior men's squad for the second most prestigious international football tournament in the world:

1) a full season in the Premier League;

2) a junior international tournament (he currently has five caps for junior England teams - none higher than the Under-20s); and

3) senior international friendlies that are not in the immediate lead up to said senior men's tournament (or easier, less high-profile qualifiers).

Each of these three experiences can be gained within the next 13 months, by which time he will be all of 19 years old.  He can play all season for Man U (or be loaned out to another Prem side).  He can play in either the Under-20s World Cup or the Under-21s Euros next summer.  He can even have a smashing time pissing around with the senior team in a friendly or perhaps even against Malta or Slovenia in the WC qualifiers.

These three build up friendlies are intended to give an opportunity to make final preparations for the tournament.  They are not the time to give a young lad his first chance to impress.

[The Gasbuster]

37 minutes ago, Show Me The Money! said:

Unfortunately its not just the players who are not used to playing against a player in the style of Carroll its the referees too. It may well be that it's been seen that Carroll's style of play just won't work with refs on the international stage. It was the same with Peter Crouch. The number of fouls that would be given against him that a lot of the time you could argue weren't became really frustrating. We all know European players like to act like they've just been sniper'd at the slightest touch. That is what they will do when playing against Carroll and refs will fall for it.  

Good shout.

[Monkeh]

Andy Carroll shouldn't be anywhere near and England squad, he isn't even the best striker at West Ham let alone England,

rashfird is there on merit and merit alone, he is the reason Man U were still in with a chance of 4th and has been the one shining light in a dismal campaign,

noble is the unlucky one but with Ali drinkwater dier Henderson all having better seasons then him he is massively unlucky

the only one I can't get my head round is Wiltshire he shouldn't be there

[Monkeh]

6 hours ago, EnderMB said:

He's definitely not too young. He's just not played enough. He's played ten professional games, and he's in the senior squad.

It's basically a message to all kids in a top academy. Sit back, wait your turn, and play a few good games and you'll be good enough for your country.

Either that, or Hodgson wants to be known as the manager to give the next generation of talent their start.

He has actually played 15 games scoring 7 goals 

[LondonBristolian]

10 hours ago, NeilS said:

I don't think he will make the cut,because despite having so much talent and being the sort of player that can give us a win out of nothing, Roy doesn't take risks, which is why Defoe is not going, Rashford is a finisher, Defoe is a finisher, and the latter has seen and done it all, but not good enough for safe hands Roy. 

Wasn't Pele 16 or 17 when he debuted  for Brazil in the World Cup? Not a lot of 'experience' but in a way that's a good thing, Rashford is worth a punt before all that raw talent is coached out of him. 

Defoe has 55 England caps.  Whether it's right or wrong not to take him, the only way you could define taking him as an example of "risk taking" would be by taking a red pen to every dictionary in the country and redefining the word "risk" as "a safe choice that will yield the expected results". 

Whilst I agree with the rest of what you say (and that Rashford probably won't make the cut), I think Hodgson's reputation for caution is slightly unfair and based on his appearance and image more than his record.  He jettisoned Rio Ferdinand and took the (still!) virtually known Martin Kelly to Euro 2012 after six weeks in the job.  He ended Ashley Cole's England career in favour of the inexperienced Luke Shaw.  He picked Jamie Vardy at the tail end of last season at a point when he had scored 5 goals in 34 games and when most people outside of Leicester probably had to use Google to work out who he was.  He was quick to include Alli and Dier in the squad, at a point when many might have said they were new and adjusting to the Premier League.  

I don't think Hodgson gets everything right by a long shot but, in comparison to Capello who took three players under the age of 25 to the World Cup in 2010 or Sven, who edged past Ecuador in 2006 using defensive football and a goal from a set piece, he's nowhere near as cautious as people make out. 

[LondonBristolian]

10 hours ago, JM91 said:

I couldn't disagree more.  In football an urgent situation can rarely be solved with patience.

Playing Andy Carroll isn't exactly like asking the rest of the team to suddenly pick up a racket and play tennis, it's the same game in a slightly different style, one that many of the players will be used to at their clubs.

A plan B/C/D/E etc. requires players who offer something different to the players they are replacing, not just a sub-standard version of what the player coming off already offered.

We'll be going out with a whimper if we are so inflexible, particularly if it is just based on the performance of the team in one friendly.  I'm not saying Carroll should start, but he should 100% in the squad, definitely ahead of Rashford. 

This is exactly where you miss my point. At no point have I said an urgent situation should be resolved by patience.  For one. patient build-up play doesn't really play to the strengths of the players in the squad and for a second thing, it's self-evident that if you're chasing a goal at the end of a game then urgency is required.  BUT lumping the ball to a target man is not the only way to play urgent football.  There's also increasing the tempo, moving the ball quicker, pushing men forward, hitting long low passes  or looped balls to feet, shooting on sight, changing the shape, injecting pace and various other ways you can make the game more urgent.  

Nor is lumping it up to a big man necessarily effective.  As far as I recall none of Germany in 2014, Spain in 2012, 2010 or 2008, Brazil in 2006, Italy in 2004, Brazil (again) in 2002 or France in 2000 relied on long balls to a front man to win tournaments.  Guivar'ch was probably a bit better in 1998 than he gets credit for and I'd grant you Bierhoff in 1996 (but there's much more to his game than Carroll's) but in 1994 you go back to Bebeto and Romario.  If it's so important to have a target man in the squad to hit long balls to, why does no-one else do it?

Furthermore, I'm not sure how it's worked out for us.  The closest thing we had in 2014 was Rickie Lambert, who didn't really help us much but probably doesn't count.  In 2012, bringing Andy Carroll on didn't help us beat Italy.  Granted he did the business against Sweden but really that's the only game he's looked the part for England.  Going back, we had Heskey and Crouch in 2010.  Neither made much of an impact.  2008 we didn't qualify.  2006 we brought Crouch on against Portugal and he made no impact. 2004 and 2002 we didn't try target men in key games.  In our two best finishes in my lifetime, we used Beardsley and Lineker (neither target men) in 1990 and Shearer and Sheringham in 1996 (bit simplistic to call Shearer a target man alone and, like Bierhoff, way more to his game than Carroll's).

Beyond the old wife's tale about the value of a big striker as an alternative, I'm honestly struggling to think of an example of a time in a major tournament where that tactic has paid off in a decisive game at the semi-final stage or beyond for England or for any other team.  Spain have omitted Costa whilst France, Germany and the other big fish in Europe don't use long ball tactics, and neither do the likes of Colombia, Brazil or Argentina.  Pretty much none of the major teams in England (Chelsea aside)  rely on target men and neither do Real, Barcelona or Bayern.  For one simple reason - it isn't very effective and there are far better tactics to employ when chasing a game.  I seriously don't think England can win or even compete in major tournaments whilst clinging to this out-dated notion you need the big man on the bench just in case you want to lump it up to him.

if this it too long to read, the bottom line is Carroll isn't in the squad for a very good reason. 

[Monkeh]

if we have to relay on lumping the ball forward we are in trouble, but look at a lot of Vardys goal's this season, long ball over the top for him to run on to, much more effective then kicking it to a target man to knock on