Very well said, same discussion in this house.

Neutrals thread my a**e.

Some of the club bias on here is comedy.

Very much agree with what Dandem has posted about Rashford. The really dumb move would be to take Rashford and leave Sturridge.

I bet you said the same thing when Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney were picked for England

What praise does he deserve, he has been very poor for City and is very lucky to be in the squad this week.

Can we rely on Sturridge to be fit though?

It is all well and good being a very good striker, but if the manager cannot rely on you being fit, then it is pointless being a better player.

No offence to the kid but he's not half as good as either of the two you mentioned when they were 18. I wish we had an 18 year old Rooney and Owen in the squad!

The media are always desperate to create some sort of angle of optimism in order to entice the large number of casual football followers in the country to jump on the England bandwagon when a major tournament comes around - as it gives them more viewers and listeners and readers.

The angle they've got for Euro 2016 is a hot young striker who's had a great season for his club and has now scored inside three minutes on his debut for his country; what more does he have to do to make the squad?

That's the line that will be peddled out from now until the squad gets chosen.

For me, if he's fit he goes, if he isn't he doesn't. Unlike Wilshere, Sturridge has actually played occasionally this year.

12 goals and 8 assists in an underperforming team this season plus a manager who had no idea what to do with him added to fact he was out injured to 6 weeks.

Plus 3 assists out of the last 4 England goals.

I'm not saying he's been great but he doesn't deserve the amount of stick he's gotten and the scapegoat he's been made out to be.

1. I was a too young to remember Michael Owen breaking through

2. As FrostyJim says, Rashford is nowhere near the level those two were on when they were the same age. Owen had scored 23 goals in the 97-98 season before getting called up for the World Cup, and Rooney had already made 77 appearances for Everton before Euro 2004.

As for Sturridge's fitness, it's as Niteowl says. If he's fit, he goes. I'm sure Vardy, Kane and Rooney could manage if Sturridge does pick up an injury. I'm sure Sturridge's games/goals ratio of 1.74 is worth the risk.

Beckham had loads of those at the back end of his career.

Disgraceful when you think that a great player like Steve Bruce didn't get one .

The media might be overplaying Rashford's performances now, but they'll be just as quick to start getting on his case if he starts to struggle.

Even if he goes, and I'm still not convinced he will, he's an impact substitute at best in this England setup so those getting their knickers in a twist shouldn't worry too much.

Was it really 'disgraceful'? Or just something that a few people, with nothing better to moan about, got mildly irritated by?

Forget Rashford, was nobody watching Northern Ireland? #willgriggsonfire

Should we really be taking another player whose fitness is at best a gamble, haven't we learnt from previous tournaments where we have done that, and it has backfired on us?

We really should only be taking players who are (a) good enough and (b) who are fully fit, and can be relied upon to be so come game time.

I thought Hoddle gave Rashford MOTM so he would have something to remember his debut with.

and I'd add c) being played in their best positions and not just played anywhere just to get them in the team.

You're way too cautious. I'd definitely be gambling on the fitness of a striker who's as prolific as Sturridge, regardless of his history. That's why you have a 23 man squad, to ensure you have cover.

I actually agree. I don't think any of the crocks (Henderson, Wiltshere or Sturridge) should go, although Sturridge has much more of a case for inclusion than the other two. Not so long ago, I was urging Roy to show ruthlessness and cut Rooney from the squad, but Wayne has clearly played his way back in. Now I reckon he has to be ruthless with Sturridge - if he's only going to include four strikers.

As raw as Rashford is at times I reckon he's a more natural finisher inside the box than Owen was at his age - (he actually reminds of Robbie Fowler in the way he takes his chances) even if Owen had scored more goals before making the cut. And Rashford is a willing, pacy, team player. If England are going to do anything at the Euro's they need as much fully-fit, pace up front as possible.

That's why I also hope both Sterling and Townsend go. Sterling hasn't been great but will terrify defenders if played in his favourite position while Townsend has had a great end to the season. If both Sturridge and Rashford are in, then surely Barkley has to miss out?

I am not cautious, I just don't want us to repeat what we have been doing previously when that has shown to be the path that we should not be going down.

We should only take players who are fit, and can be relied upon to be so come game time, if Sturridge picks up an injury at the tournament, it would be then too late to ask for a replacement, so why take that risk,when it has been proven that he cannot sustain his fitness for very long?

Take Rashford who is very much the player in form (even if ideally I would personally prefer he was not taken and saved for the Under 21 tournament next summer I think it is), and who has proven that he is not an injury concern.

For me Sturridge is a risk worth taking. He brings something special and different to the squad. He is not a pivotal player around whom the team is built, whose injury would lead to a collapse of all plans and tactics and leave England completely bereft of suitable alternatives; Kane and Vardy are not exactly bad or inferior options, just different. Similarly Rashford's inclusion would not dramatically change England's prospects - it would possibly be a good experience for him and he would be useful to have on the bench, nothing more.

I see the point you are making but I dont think looking back on what was done in the past, even with the benefit of hindsight is hugely relevant.

The two most obvious examples are players who England absolutely relied upon - Beckham and Rooney and essentially they were taken when they really weren't fit at all, but were deemed so important to the team that they needed to be there at all costs. Neither had a brilliant tournament so you could argue they shouldn't have gone but it would be really brave/stupid manager who wouldnt take the chance and take them.

Sturridge (and Wilshere for that matter) is different. If he isn't fit he doesn't need to go, if he is he can. He isn't absolutely central to Englands plans. Kane and Vardy can play. Its not a massive risk. He is a cracking player and if he is fit and he goes I dont think there can be much outrage.

Equally in terms of risk, taking an 18 year only with 60mins international football and less than half a season of top flight football is clearly a big risk too but for different reasons. However again its not critical to England. They have other options.

As much as you insist you aren't biased it seems more than coincidence that you've decided taking the Liverpool striker is too big a risk whilst dismissing any risk attached to taking the United boy.

Both are fine players and for different reasons both would be assets to the squad IMO.

Please this has nothing to do with who Sturridge plays for at club level, so do not bring that into the discussion to try and muddy the waters, this is purely a fitness based point.

I would say the same things if it were a Manchester United player that had these issues, in fact the club is totally irrelevant, as I am solely looking at this from an England perspective only.

Yes Sturridge might not be a starter, or as important a player as say Rooney or Beckham were in the past, but that is no reason to cast aside all logic, I agree that he is a very talented player, but we should be only taking players that we can rely upon to not break down, as we have already seen this past week, Sturridge has yet again picked up another injury.

Thankfully it has not been during the tournament, so this week it hasn't mattered that he has been injured, but that will not be the case once the cut-off point happens, and he perhaps picks up an injury during it, to leave us a bit short up top in terms of options.

We need to go to the tournament with as many players as possible that we can rely upon to be fit when needed or called upon, can that be said about Sturridge, with his injury record, even as recently as this very week?

I would only take players that as a manager I could rely upon to be fit, and who have the confidence within themselves to do well, at the moment neither can be applied to Sturridge, so I wouldn't take him, again, just to reiterate, this has nothing to do with who a player plays for at club level.

Agree with all of Dandem's post. The worst thing Rashford did last night was score within 5 minutes. Now the world and it's dog is saying he has to go to the Euros.

He did some simple things well, but as Dandem pointed out, lost possession so many times in the final third that against better opposition, England would've been severely punished. He's excellent in the box a la Fowler, but at the moment he's a one trick pony with nowhere near enough in his toolbox to compete or be effective at the highest level.

The one thing that did strike me last night about Rashford that I've not noticed watching for Man Utd, is that he seems to have no pace whatsoever.

The issue here though isn't Rashford. It's the inability of the Jurassic age England training and medical staff to keep Sturridge fit. Hodgson should've taken a few of the Liverpool doctors on board just to keep Sturridge fit, but of course it's not happened, and now despite only having trained with England, Sturridge has done his groin after a few months injury free with Liverpool. So, purely because of this, I think Rashford has to be in the squad and Sturridge left at home.