World Cup Squad. The Excellent and The Poor Choices

1457910

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,830
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Without Townsend, we will not have much of a chance to get beyond the Quarters.
  • DandemDandem Posts: 13,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    petertard wrote: »
    Without Townsend, we will not have much of a chance to get beyond the Quarters.

    Is this...are you serious?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,830
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dandem wrote: »
    Is this...are you serious?

    When I heard Townsend was out injured, I thought we can't get far without him.
  • O'NeillO'Neill Posts: 8,721
    Forum Member
    England need Darius Vassel, is he still playing? Overpaid, BPL preeee-madonnas dont deserve ttheyre place, England arent automatic favourites so shouldn't even bother turning up, whys that, other countries also good at football:o:p
  • DandemDandem Posts: 13,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    O'Neill wrote: »
    England need Darius Vassel, is he still playing?

    No thanks, I still haven't forgiven him for his penalty miss at Euro 2004.

    Michael Ricketts would be a better option, should've taken him.
  • spindiddlyspindiddly Posts: 4,975
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Manchester United effect has definitely been in full force with old Woy.

    Smalling & Lampard shouldn't be going. Welbeck is debatable and shiuld be thanking the heavens that Rodriguez got injured and Cleverley shouldn't even be stand by, keep him away.

    Glen Johnson at RB is a nightmare in waiting.

    However

    Hart
    Jones Cahill Jagielka Baines
    Milner Gerrard Barkley Lailana
    Sturridge Rooney

    Would, imo, be a decent, well-rounded team.
  • celesticelesti Posts: 25,977
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    petertard wrote: »
    When I heard Townsend was out injured, I thought we can't get far without him.

    Was he set to drive the coach?
  • yakutzyakutz Posts: 10,993
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    petertard wrote: »
    When I heard Townsend was out injured, I thought we can't get far without him.

    Townsend being injured is about the best thing that could have happened to England's World Cup campaign.
  • ChateauMarmontChateauMarmont Posts: 2,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Welbeck shouldn't be anywhere near an England squad, he's a poor mans Sturridge. I'd have taken Andy Carroll over him any day for some direct route one football when all else fails.

    The defence is far too dodgy, Johnson isn't England material at right back and playing Jones there means he's yet again out of position. If he starts with Milner on that left flank it's a travesty, I'd have Shaw at left back and Baines left wing, give us some attacking quality plus the ability to track back.

    I can see it being a faux young squad with Roy bringing our hopes up that youth will prevail but sticking with Milner and Lampard most of the time.
  • ArmiArmi Posts: 3,317
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Are the other two reserve keepers better than Ruddy?

    He was in every qualifying squad only to miss out now. I think he could have been given the 3rd keeper spot for all his loyalty and time spent sitting there on the bench all over Europe.
  • Flat MattFlat Matt Posts: 7,023
    Forum Member
    The squad is pretty much as expected. Let's face it, Roy isn't exactly spoilt for choice.

    On paper, I think it's the weakest squad we've had in years. If Hodgson gets us out of the group with this bunch he'll have done very well. If nothing else, we will get an idea of just how good some of these youngsters are.
  • ChateauMarmontChateauMarmont Posts: 2,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm hoping Jones' shoulder stays injured so John Stones goes, like to see him play in the World Cup.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 850
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I wish people would stop whining about Welbeck. I don't remember him ever playing poorly for England.
  • Jamesp84Jamesp84 Posts: 31,180
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    RotMojo wrote: »
    I wish people would stop whining about Welbeck. I don't remember him ever playing poorly for England.

    Agreed. Done more in an England shirt than Sturridge for starters. And no, before anyone starts, that's not me saying Sturridge shouldn't be going.

    Arguably he's better for England than he is for United.
  • ChateauMarmontChateauMarmont Posts: 2,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Players are picked on merit, and that includes club form.

    My recollection of Welbeck this season is wasting an amazing chance to put Man Utd into a 1-0 lead against Bayern by being too cocky. If players are picked because they're a good striker, how can Welbeck be in the squad with the amount of goals he has scored this season?

    Edited to add: 13 goals this season. Internationally two against Moldova and one against Scotland. Hardly the best stats for the season.
  • skimminstonesskimminstones Posts: 8,403
    Forum Member
    Players are picked on merit, and that includes club form.

    My recollection of Welbeck this season is wasting an amazing chance to put Man Utd into a 1-0 lead against Bayern by being too cocky. If players are picked because they're a good striker, how can Welbeck be in the squad with the amount of goals he has scored this season?

    Edited to add: 13 goals this season. Internationally two against Moldova and one against Scotland. Hardly the best stats for the season.

    Who would you have instead?
  • ChateauMarmontChateauMarmont Posts: 2,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andy Carroll. Purely not on the basis of goals scored, but for something different when you're 80 minutes gone and 1-0 down. Route one football, we have no stocky tall striker in the squad and Welbeck is far too similar (and not as good this season) as Sturridge.

    As a previous poster said, if Rodriguez had been fit he would've been my first choice replacement.
  • skimminstonesskimminstones Posts: 8,403
    Forum Member
    If players are picked because they're a good striker, how can Welbeck with the amount of goals he has scored this season?
    Andy Carroll. Purely not on the basis of goals scored

    You don't see the hypocrisy in that?
  • ChateauMarmontChateauMarmont Posts: 2,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Reading it back I'm admitting my choice of wording is wrong.

    However Carroll offers another option upfront. What does Welbeck offer that is different to Sturridge or Rooney?
  • skimminstonesskimminstones Posts: 8,403
    Forum Member
    Reading it back I'm admitting my choice of wording is wrong.

    However Carroll offers another option upfront. What does Welbeck offer that is different to Sturridge or Rooney?

    The ability to play on the wing and to pressure a defence into far more errors than Andy Carroll.

    Will Italy, Spain, Uruguay, Germany etc etc etc be picking a striker up front purely because of being a big bloke? Or would they only pick him of he was any good.


    It's all very well saying wellbeck shouldn't go but it's usually a kneejerk reaction. When you think about what other English strikers there are as options it's the right decision to take him. We aren't in the days where we had plenty of English strikers scoring goals to choose from
  • LateralthinkingLateralthinking Posts: 8,027
    Forum Member
    This would have been my squad:

    Hart
    Forster
    Heaton or Grant
    Baines
    Shaw or Flanagan
    Caulker or Shawcross
    Cahill
    Jagielka
    Ward or Stones
    Clyne or Jenkinson
    Barry
    Wilshere .
    Shelvey
    Barkley
    Gerrard
    Henderson
    Lallana
    Sterling
    Chamberlain
    Lambert
    Rooney
    Sturridge
    Wickham
  • ChateauMarmontChateauMarmont Posts: 2,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We have Oxlade-Chamberlain, Sterling, Lallana, Barkley and even Milner to do that job on the wing. Maybe even Baines if he played him on the left wing.

    Picking a player on versatility isn't a wise move, a strikers job is to score goals, not venture onto the wing. What we ideally needed was a Hernandez type play who gets in the box and is on the six yard line, always alert. A ten years younger Defoe would have been good for that!

    To be honest out defence and attacking options are limited, I just personally don't see the point in picking strikers who are similar in play, we only get four strikers, why not have four different attributes providing options if one is failing?
  • skimminstonesskimminstones Posts: 8,403
    Forum Member
    What we ideally needed was a Hernandez type play who gets in the box and is on the six yard line, always alert. A ten years younger Defoe would have been good for that!

    What we ideally need is Messi and Ronaldo but we don't have them so it's pointless saying someone shouldn't be picked because of it

    Ideally Kate Beckinsale would be my sex slave but it doesn't mean I'm going to stop having sex with other women because I can't have her
  • ChateauMarmontChateauMarmont Posts: 2,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As a poster further up just said, even Wickham would have been a better option. He's been fantastic these past couple of months at Sunderland and his hold up play is good along with goals scored.

    I'm struggling to find reasons for Welbeck's inclusion when we do have alternative options upfront. They might not be to everyone's taste but I'd rather give a relatively unknown on the international scene a chance over a player who barely gets a game for his club team.

    It could be worse, Cleverley could've been picked!
  • Joey BoswellJoey Boswell Posts: 25,141
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    RotMojo wrote: »
    I wish people would stop whining about Welbeck. I don't remember him ever playing poorly for England.

    Exactly, my whine is he plays better for England then he does United.
Sign In or Register to comment.