England vs Australia

[Portland Bill]

3 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

Wouldn't take him or Wilkshire who just constantly falls over before getting injured. Also have no idea why we need 3 keepers but no doubt Woy will play safe.

The rules state you must have 3 keepers, plus, it doesn't take a lot to get a keeper sent off or injured nowadays, so it's a must that you take three.

Dont worry to much though, we won't be in France for very long!

[GrahamC]

7 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

Also have no idea why we need 3 keepers but no doubt Woy will play safe.

Because it is a tournament rule that you have to?

[JamesBCFC]

7 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

Wouldn't take him or Wilkshire who just constantly falls over before getting injured. Also have no idea why we need 3 keepers but no doubt Woy will play safe.

3 keepers are the rules.

Wilshere gets fouled a lot by running at the other team, genuinely one of our best midfielders when fit. The debate is whether he should have been in the running for the squad, but his performances in the 2 friendlies have been good.

[ChippenhamRed]

1 hour ago, 29AR said:

The squad should not be based upon performances in friendlies: it should be the best performers across the season. IMO Wilshere should not even have the opportunity to impress in this game. 

 

1 hour ago, joe jordans teeth said:

But he's not on form so you go with the players who are

It's become very fashionable to say that you "pick the form players", as if there are no other factors to consider.

Form is one factor - a very important one. But actual quality also has to be considered. A fit and in-form Wilshire is comfortably one of our best midfielders, and if we are to have a genuine chance of winning the tournament, we have to take a chance that our very best players come good at the right time. We cannot rely solely on form. Mediocre players don't win tournaments, even if they are "in form". By definition, form is only temporary anyway - no guarantees any one of them will carry it into the tournament.

I don't blame Hodgson at all for picking Wilshire. He is giving him a chance to prove his fitness and find his form. Got no problem with it.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

 

It's become very fashionable to say that you "pick the form players", as if there are no other factors to consider.

Form is one factor - a very important one. But actual quality also has to be considered. A fit and in-form Wilshire is comfortably one of our best midfielders, and if we are to have a genuine chance of winning the tournament, we have to take a chance that our very best players come good at the right time. We cannot rely solely on form. Mediocre players don't win tournaments, even if they are "in form". By definition, form is only temporary anyway - no guarantees any one of them will carry it into the tournament.

I don't blame Hodgson at all for picking Wilshire. He is giving him a chance to prove his fitness and find his form. Got no problem with it.

Sorry CR but its not a new fashion. You're only as good as your last game - another phrase for form - is very old, but amounts to the same thing. It's a long held ideology that manifests in many different phrases.  

There are many factors to consider. One also being do you take a player who has been injured for the best part of a year, and has played less than a handful of games, and (I believe I am correct in saying) not once 90 minutes this Season, to a month-long tournament? To say yes to my mind is both lunacy and disrespectful to other players who earned the right to represent. 

Some 'mediocre' players won the PL this year. Some 'world class' stature players didn't even make the Europa League let alone the CL, let alone win any sort of medal. Form trumps reputation all day long for me. Perhaps stature is as temporal as form - indeed Sterling has the 'stature' of a £50m player  

 

[Portland Bill]

5 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Sorry CR but its not a new fashion. You're only as good as your last game - another phrase for form - is very old, but amounts to the same thing. It's a long held ideology that manifests in many different phrases.  

There are many factors to consider. One also being do you take a player who has been injured for the best part of a year, and has played less than a handful of games, and (I believe I am correct in saying) not once 90 minutes this Season, to a month-long tournament? To say yes to my mind is both lunacy and disrespectful to other players who earned the right to represent. 

Some 'mediocre' players won the PL this year. Some 'world class' stature players didn't even make the Europa League let alone the CL, let alone win any sort of medal. 

Without trying to be too negative, it may be a month long tournament but we won't be there for the duration. I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see anything to make me think otherwise. 

[ChippenhamRed]

6 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Sorry CR but its not a new fashion. You're only as good as your last game - another phrase for form - is very old, but amounts to the same thing. It's a long held ideology that manifests in many different phrases.  

There are many factors to consider. One also being do you take a player who has been injured for the best part of a year, and has played less than a handful of games, and (I believe I am correct in saying) not once 90 minutes this Season, to a month-long tournament? To say yes to my mind is both lunacy and disrespectful to other players who earned the right to represent. 

Some 'mediocre' players won the PL this year. Some 'world class' stature players didn't even make the Europa League let alone the CL, let alone win any sort of medal. 

Not denying it's a gamble to take Wilshire; it is, for all the reasons you say. But in a squad of 23 you can afford a gamble or two and if you're going to win it, you have to.

Don't agree with the disrespect or "earning the right" bit though. No one has the right. The manager can pick who he wants. If you lose out because the manager chooses to take a chance on a player who's been injured but is ultimately a better player than you, that's just hard luck. The squad isn't chosen on the basis of players we "owe" something to, it's chosen on the basis of who the manager thinks gives us the best chance of winning the tournament. You can't make that personal.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Not denying it's a gamble to take Wilshire; it is, for all the reasons you say. But in a squad of 23 you can afford a gamble or two and if you're going to win it, you have to.

Don't agree with the disrespect or "earning the right" bit though. No one has the right. The manager can pick who he wants. If you lose out because the manager chooses to take a chance on a player who's been injured but is ultimately a better player than you, that's just hard luck. The squad isn't chosen on the basis of players we "owe" something to, it's chosen on the basis of who the manager thinks gives us the best chance of winning the tournament. You can't make that personal.

I think if I played out of my skin and was overlooked for an unreliable sick-note (yes I'll label Wilshere that) who hasn't proven himself for 15 months I would take that personally, with fair reason. Reliability is the key; how anyone can suggest Wilshere is reliable and dependable based upon his history (as a young player with limited history behind him) and his injury record is beyond me. It's also beyond me to say that for Sturridge too. 

Both can potentially be phenomenal. But neither has done it long enough and sustained enough that I'd gamble on them.

I do see where you're coming from. At the time of Rooney's metatarsal honestly for me that was a different situation and I'd be arguing for his inclusion. Because he had a record of being available and performing far more often than not. For Wilshere, for Sturridge, I don't make the same allowances - largely because of their record of unavailability. Their fitness record is so poor I don't think you can make the same allowances. For me, Wilshere wouldn't even make the 26 and Sturridge wouldn't make the 23. If both had a sustained, injury-free period, I might argue otherwise. 

[ChippenhamRed]

3 minutes ago, 29AR said:

I think if I played out of my skin and was overlooked for an unreliable sick-note (yes I'll label Wilshere that) who hasn't proven himself for 15 months I would take that personally, with fair reason. Reliability is the key; how anyone can suggest Wilshere is reliable and dependable based upon his history (as a young player with limited history behind him) and his injury record is beyond me. It's also beyond me to say that for Sturridge too. 

Both can potentially be phenomenal. But neither has done it long enough and sustained enough that I'd gamble on them.

I do see where you're coming from. At the time of Rooney's metatarsal honestly for me that was a different situation and I'd be arguing for his inclusion. Because he had a record of being available and performing far more often than not. For Wilshere, for Sturridge, I don't make the same allowances - largely because of their record of unavailability. Their fitness record is so poor I don't think you can make the same allowances. For me, Wilshere wouldn't even make the 26 and Sturridge wouldn't make the 23. If both had a sustained, injury-free period, I might argue otherwise. 

Fair comments @29AR. Seems it boils down to the gamble; I'd take it, you wouldn't. Respect your view.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Fair comments @29AR. Seems it boils down to the gamble; I'd take it, you wouldn't. Respect your view.

I think that's it; do you gamble or not, and I can totally understand why you might. That Barca game for Wilshere was a 10/10 performance of the like not many can touch, and if he pulls that outta the bag it's a great bet. Putting myself in Roy's shoes though, I'm probably just not able to look someone like Drinkwater in the eye and say "I'm rolling the dice" because of his injury record. 

[Northern Red]

Between various posts on this thread, virtually the entire midfield bar Dele Alli has been discarded.

[joe jordans teeth]

43 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Fair comments @29AR. Seems it boils down to the gamble; I'd take it, you wouldn't. Respect your view.

Think we have gambled enough times over the years,regarding fitness and the like,hasn't worked yet so let's not keep making the same mistake 

[yardy]

2 hours ago, Charliesboots said:

Not sure if it came across on TV (if the camera faced the dugouts) but each time Barkley lost the ball....and it was all bar once, Roy was firing off a few expletives in his direction. 

A stand up, throw arms around and fall back into chair happened too. 

I'm not convinced he's worth taking

I wouldn't take Roy either

[Charliesboots]

6 minutes ago, yardy said:

I wouldn't take Roy either

[North London Red]

Cracking night out in Newcastle, as always.

The booing of Townsend when he came on was an absolute disgrace. Those who booed should be ashamed - and there were plenty of them.

Reminds me of an old thread on the England fans forum where someone claimed that booing of England players only ever happened in the south. Gary Neville being booed at Anfield, Peter Crouch being booed at Old Trafford, Owen Hargreaves being booed everywhere and Townsend being booed tonight would very strongly suggest otherwise. 

[TheCulturalBomb]

A very average game but one thing is worth mentioning, generally we don't do too well with the pre-tournament friendlies, but we're winning these easily enough without fielding our best squad. I'm expecting from England even if everyone else writes them off.

[LondonBristolian]

Personally, in terms of balance of the squad, I think the 2 players (on top of Delph) to be cut would be one defensive or central midfielder (Henderson, Drinkwater or Wilshere) and one attacking midfielder or forward (Sturridge, Rashford, Townsend, Lallana, Sterling or Barkley). The other 16 players are pretty much guaranteed their places bar injury.

Midfield-wise it's tough. I think I'd take Drinkwater cos I'm not convinced of the fitness of the other two. Taking Wilshere would be a massive gamble, especially as he's not played 90 minutes in either friendly but I can see why Roy would take it. Particularly as Henderson plays primarily off energy and running so, if his fitness is a doubt, his game is compromised. But Wilshere has still not completed 90 minutes and is it a risk too far?

The forward position is even tougher. I think Rashford has to go now and, if fit, I'd take Sturridge too as he can play anywhere across the front three and has a knack for goal scoring. Six months ago I'd have laughed at the idea of taking Townsend but, whilst form isn't everything, neither can it be ignored and I think he deserved to be on the plane.

 

That leaves two places and one of Sterling, Lallana and Barkley to be cut. Lallana is the most consistent performer but he's basically steady and unspectacular whilst, if on form, Barkley and Sterling can do things Lallana isn't capable of. At the World Cup Sterling looked world class and I think Barkley may be the most technically gifted player England have. But the kicker is neither are on form as neither have shown much to justify their selection. So I think Lallana goes. I also think, over the last year, Barkley has shown more than Sterling who seems to be going through something of a malaise.

So I think I'd send Wilshere and Sterling home (with Sterling getting a reprieve if Sturridge isn't fit)

[robin_unreliant]

10 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Because it is a tournament rule that you have to?

Yet another stupid, undemocratic rule forced upon us by Europe. I'm surprised I haven't heard Nigel Farage banging on about this before now. Sooner we leave the better I say!

[Super]

Rashford and Sturridge if fit will both go, drinkwater and Townsend will prob be the ones getting left out.

[Davefevs]

Strange game last night.  Got an early goal, which was just what we needed, and then pretty much got outplayed passing wise.  The Aussies moved it forward and quickly, working one touch triangles around us.  Fair play to them, a little more composure around the box nay have made it interesting.

Forster - not overly convinced, think he is a shot stopper, but a bit awkward in his movement and with the ball at his feet. Glad we've got Hart, sad that we haven't got Butland.

Clyne and Bertrand - very little to choose between them and Walker and Rose.  Think Clyne and Rose will get the nod.

Smalling - steady, and likes to defend.  My first choice CB from what's available.

Stones - played much better last night, but nice as it is to see a player confident on the ball, there are times when I want him to just effin clear his lines, not try to play a 15-20 yard volley pass that goes astray.  Would love to see someone like Rio take him under his wing.  I'd play a fit Cahill if it were me.  Many may disagree.

Wilshere - got bypassed in the holding role by slick Aussie passing.  How many times did Rogic get between the lines, far too many!  

Henderson and Drinkwater - didn't think either of them played that great last night, but it looked a big step up for DD.  I like Henderson, and I think his energy is key to England's midfield.  Assuming he is fit, he will go.  Been a big part of a successful qualifying campaign.

Lallana - fairly anonymous last night, but has been better recently.  I'm sure he will go.

Rashford - fairytale start, and did reasonably.  Can't believe Hoddke gave him ITV MOTM though.  Some nice touches, nice awareness, but a bit naive at times.  Unfazed though.  If Kane got injured I'd rather see Rashford play up top on his own that Rooney or Sturridge (that's not saying he is a better player, because he isn't, but he will fit that role better than the other two).

Sterling - if you take any pre-match opinions out, does anyone think he didn't have a decent game last night, he was one of our brighter players last night.  Still doubts over whether he can finish, but he created several very good chances last night, showing he can assist.  Fits Roy;s system.

Subs:

Rooney - has he come back from injury a different player?  Has the threat of his place bucked his ideas up.  He actually looks full of running, touch is good.  This is a real bonus for England.  6 weeks ago, I wouldn't have even thought about starting him.  This morning I'm not so sure.

Milner - usual performance

Townsend - decent, a different option....like him for England....good squad option for me.

Barkley - what has happened to him.  Never been on his 'the new Gazza' band-wagon, but accept that he was playing well earlier this season.  I always questioned his decision making.  Of course he has ability, but he was poor last night.  Of course there was the odd bit of skill last night, but nowhere near enough.

Heaton and Dier - both automatic choices for very different reasons and rules!

So who to leave behind:

Sturridge - not fit, can't take a risk (Rashford to go)

Barkley - as per above

Delph 

What else:

Cahill - fitness.....who do you bring in?  Does Dier become the back-up, and a midfielder get a reprieve.  I think Dier will start, so suggest we bring in Jagielka.

 

[yardy]

Yet again frustrating watching England, they played like they were strangers!

To be successful you need some consistency in the team not chopping and changing every time there is a game, the most successful teams hardly ever change their lineup look at Leicester, or us the season before last or Spain. At least 9 or 10 players in those teams pick themselves and after time they gel and start getting some good performances and results.

Once you get a good group of 9 or 10 players then its much easier to blood new players into the team because the team actually play like a team, something England hasn't done in a tournament since Euro 96!

You don't have to have the best squad in the world to win things you just need to build team spirit and togetherness, the players in the team need to believe in theirs and the teams ability and the results will come.

I fear England will fail yet again but not because we have a poor squad but because we won't play like a team!

[Big C]

3 hours ago, robin_unreliant said:

Yet another stupid, undemocratic rule forced upon us by Europe. I'm surprised I haven't heard Nigel Farage banging on about this before now. Sooner we leave the better I say!

To be fair it used to be only squads of 22 at tournaments. It was increased to 23 to accommodate this rule.

 

[And Its Smith]

Amazing that there seems to be a decent amount of people thinking Forster is close to Hart in terms of ability 

[Super]

14 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Amazing that there seems to be a decent amount of people thinking Forster is close to Hart in terms of ability 

I think Forster is decent but you are right he is miles away from JH.

[JamesBCFC]

8 hours ago, RedDave said:

Amazing that there seems to be a decent amount of people thinking Forster is close to Hart in terms of ability 

Hart is ridiculously over rated

[And Its Smith]

14 minutes ago, City169 said:

Hart is ridiculously over rated

Hahahaha

 

[JamesBCFC]

10 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Hahahaha

 

Such a super goalkeeper shouldn't make amateur mistakes as often as he does.

mind you I wasn't expecting many to agree with me, let alone his fan club. If everyone agreed with me, he wouldn't be overrated.

[And Its Smith]

48 minutes ago, City169 said:

Hart is ridiculously over rated

Buffon says he's the best in the world.  Schmeichal says top five in the world.  These people should know what they are talking about.

Regardless of their views, he has performed heroics on the biggest stages for years now.  Some of his Champion League performances have been incredible.

[JamesBCFC]

3 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Buffon says he's the best in the world.  Schmeichal says top five in the world.  These people should know what they are talking about.

Regardless of their views, he has performed heroics on the biggest stages for years now.  Some of his Champion League performances have been incredible.

He has ****** up on big stages for years now too.

Buffon, Casillas, ter Stegen, Courtois, Cech, Navas, Neuer are all better goalkeepers, those are just off the top of my head

[And Its Smith]

12 minutes ago, City169 said:

He has ****** up on big stages for years now too.

Buffon, Casillas, ter Stegen, Courtois, Cech, Navas, Neuer are all better goalkeepers, those are just off the top of my head

Courtois and Cech absolutely not.