England - Portugal before/during/after.

Aquos76

Hand back before it was taken from him, I would guess

Necronomicon

I thought he was going to retire from internationals as well.

Looks like all that stuff about players not listening to the media or reading newspapers is a load of crap anyway.

ctrl-alt-delete

mike65 wrote:

I just caught the last line of a news report suggesting Portugese/England bother in

Jersey!

Mike.

I think portugal own part of jersey? so maybe not as unexpected as one would think.....

just in relation to a few other things that have been mentioned IMO -

Crouch played very well when he came on, plaed much better in that role than rooney was playing, im always amazed at the control and delicate touches he has for a man that size.

Hargreaves was the best england player yesterday. Ive never really seen him play before, so i dont know if it was a one off, ive been guilty of writing him off on this forum before - but he really gave the new england manager something to think about for the future.

Speaking of the new england manager i think, like others have said, that he does not have the character to drop big name players for the benefit of the team - much like sven. He can however learn hugely from working under sven on how not to manage the england team - if he shows the same tendency for youth as he has done at times with boro and does the exact opposite as sven - england may just win something.

I see beckham has handed over the captains armband, to be honest i was half expecting him to retire.

ronbyrne2005

England are and always have been since begining of sky hyped and premiership makes many of them look better than they are,theres a few very good teams in england but outside top 4/5 theres a lot of dross,and of those top 5 teams very few of their players are english. At international level most of the english players are average,would any one of the english players get into a world XI or even a second string world XI ??Rooney didnt score at all in qualifiers and is expected to play as a lone striker? he's not prolific enough to be a great striker and doesnt even set up enough goals to be a great link up player either. Gerrard and lampard are great at going forward and shooting (normally) but have feck all dribbling ability and other technial ability and are a negative to the team due to the lack of a defensive/all round aspect to their game. HYPE HYPE HYPE

nlgbbbblth

adox wrote:

Anyone watching Beckhams press conference? I couldnt stop laughing.
Saying that he was going to read out a statement that he wrote late last night and wouldne be answering any questions.

As he started reading the statement in a crocky voice,nearly crying,I though well at least hes doing the decent thing and retiring from international football and I`m sure hes quite upset about it.

But no,whats the big statement about? Hes decided to hand over the captaincy to someone else but continue playing for England.

What a joke.The soap opera that has been Beckham for the last few years continues.

I`ll sayone thing for him.He sure knows how to spin. :nod:

I despise David Beckham and all that he stands for but why should he retire from international football?

He's only 31. What's wrong with making himself available for selection for the future? If he's not good enough he will hopefully not be picked.

This retiring early from international football is getting ridiculous. Almost always happens when a team loses a game. Kinda reminds me of kick arounds in the street when I was a kid. The guy who owned the ball would often go home and sulk when he was beaten.

WhiteWashMan

the buck stops with the manager.

he puts the team out.

people like lampard and gerrard just looked so tired. beckham has been rubbish since before this world cup started.

only having 1 fit striker in crouch.

the bizarre experimental formations a week before the world cup.

the manager was crap. he has always been crap. i thin kengland had a very good shot at winning this competition, but no team is going to win anything with the above points.

still was an entertaining game. thought england played very well with 10 men. crouch did superbly whenholding up the ball. was disappointed lennon didnt get more of the ball.

sttill, ive said i think germany are going to win it from the start, and they are still in with a chance. now that, is how to take a penalty.

mike65

Apparently Sven had them working like slaves in training when what they needed was a significant period of rest after the domestic season ended.

The whole "WAG"s issue was a mistake, keep the wimmin well away until late in the tournament.

Mike.

smemon

im glad it's all over. no more ian wright optimism or sky sports 24/7 coverage of wayne rooney.

bottom line is they weren't good enough and france showed what it takes to win World cups last night. england just can't play like that and never could.

big game players never showed up - terry, rooney, lampard, gerrard... gerrard looked like a schoolboy taking that penalty- he looked nervous, shy and just wanted to get it over with- i said before he hit it he'd miss.

Orizio

The buck doesn't stop with the manager-the players have to take responsibility as well.Neville was defensively poor yesterday,Gerrard and Beckham were irrelevent and Lampard was terrible.Throughout the tournament this completely over hyped squad failed to deliver.The players have to shoulder much of the blame as well.

Lampard has been average all year for Chelsea and worse for England.Gerrard and Terry failed to show the leadership qualities they are supposed to have,and both had an unremarkable tournament.Rooney was given little chance to shine,but did nothing besides stamping on someone with what chance he was given.Crouch is distinctly average,J Cole showed sparks but no more in the tournament,Carragher was poor when he played,while G Neville was shown up defensively yesterday and rarely offers anyting of any use in an attacking sense.There is too much of a coincidence here to blame luck,refeeres and the manager.Maybe just maybe England aren't that great?

Can anyone disagree that Argentina,Spain,France or even Germany offer more from an attacking point of view then England?Defensively Italy and France are easily stronger.And over the tournament England have shown nothing that suggests they deserve more then a quater final spot.

therecklessone

Jazzy wrote:

england in my opinion just had no creation. they relied too much on impact players. they hope enough impact happens between certain players and then *goal*.

Very good point, I said the same over a few pints after their match against T&T to mates and they all agreed. Lampard/Gerrard are superb at what they do, but they are not creators. Joe Cole is as close as England have in the first XI to a creative influence, but he can't be relied on to turn up in gameplaying mode.

Lennon coming on for Beckham yesterday was their best chance of creating something, a lot of people said that England only gave it a go after the red card, but IMO it was lennon's introduction which was the catalsyt. Defenders hate playing against the likes of Lennon, pacy with a low centre of gravity, and if nothing else he'll win you frees in dangerous areas.

England's problems lay entirely with the manager, and if his players failed to perform on the world stage then he must bear the blame for not replacing them over the years. SGE has shown exceptional "loyalty" to certain individuals, IMO that was to the detriment of the team and lead players to believe that poor performances would go unpunished.

Eriksson's squad selection was bizarre to say the least. Only four strikers went to the WC, two whose fitness was questionable and one who has a dozen senior games under his belt. Walcott should have been left at home, and two of Bent/Defoe/Harewood should have travelled (he could have left Jenas behind and taken all three) Erikkson obviously did not rate Carrick, so why bring him? The one game he started was because Hargreaves was playing RB (and the Swede wanted Beckham to play there so Hargreaves could stay at DMC!!!)

PHB

England's problems lay entirely with the manager,

That's bull**** imo. I'm not saying the manager isn't terrible, but lets just look at England for a second.

IMO, the only true world class players they have in their squad are:

Ashley Cole
Wayne Rooney

These are the only two players that England have that would walk into any team.

Gerrard and Lampard imo are a creation of modern football. For a team to work, they require your whole game plan to be based around them, which Chelsea and Liverpool do. They are AMC's, but not like Scholes used to be. Scholes took control of a game, and all the attacking went through him, and he would pass the ball a lot more than Lampard and Gerrard.

Terry has shown in this WC how much he relies on Makelele, who has made the French defense look incredible again. I think Carragher may be better than him.
Rio imo is a top top clas player, but there are definally some better CB's out there, but I think he is world class, but I accept why most won't.

Neville is a good player, but he was clearly unfit to play.

David Beckham is not the Beckham we used to know, he is very poor now. SWP and Lennon? Good prospects, miles away.

Owen is injured all the time, but aside from that, he hasn't looked the player he used to be, and after another serious injury, and his soon to be declined pace, he isn't up there anymore.

England are way way way way way way overrated in terms of the squad they have at their disposal.

therecklessone

PHB wrote:

That's bull**** imo.

Thanks.

PHB wrote:

IMO, the only true world class players they have in their squad are:

Ashley Cole
Wayne Rooney

And Rio as you said later on. I don't agree with #3, but I'd substitute in Gerrard.

Now how many world class players are there in the German squad? One, Ballack. How many in the Portugese? Three IMO, Figo, Deco and Carvalho. How many in the French? Again, IMO only three (zidane, Henry, Makalele).
How many Italians? Again, only three IMO, Cannavaro, Nesta and Totti.

I still await the team of 11 world class players, hell I've yet to see a side with any more than 4/5 players who approach that description. Greece won Euro 2004 with how many world class players? Ireland only had the one at WC2002 yet a lot of posters on this forum seem to think we had a chance at that tournament.

The fact is it is the managers job to get the best out of the players he has at his disposal. SGE's squad choice alone meant he did not have the best players at his disposal, and his record of mismanagement with England meant he was never going to be able to get his players to perform at this WC. Eriksson's tenure as England manager was characterised by pointless friendlies, an unwillingness or inability to drop star names despite sh*t performances, and bizarre team/formation selections.

Eriksson is a fraud, how he managed to get the reputation he had before the England job (and unbelievably he still has!) I'll never know.

PHB

Eriksson is a fraud, how he managed to get the reputation he had before the England job (and unbelievably he still has!) I'll never know.

Lazio : 1997-2000

Coppa Italia in 1998 and 2000
European Cup Winners' Cup 1999
Serie A 2000

therecklessone

PHB wrote:

Lazio : 1997-2000

Coppa Italia in 1998 and 2000
European Cup Winners' Cup 1999
Serie A 2000

Missing: his transfer budget from said period.

PHB

Wow, manager spends money to win titles.
Breaking news!!!

It appears that Mourinho, Wenger, Fergie are all ****e managers.

PeadarofAodh

Now how many world class players are there in the German squad? One, Ballack. How many in the Portugese? Three IMO, Figo, Deco and Carvalho. How many in the French? Again, IMO only three (zidane, Henry, Makalele).
How many Italians? Again, only three IMO, Cannavaro, Nesta and Totti.

I still await the team of 11 world class players, hell I've yet to see a side with any more than 4/5 players who approach that description. Greece won Euro 2004 with how many world class players? Ireland only had the one at WC2002 yet a lot of posters on this forum seem to think we had a chance at that tournament.

Well said. You can't say that England didn't have a nucleus of players around which a decent manager couldn't have taken a very good shot at the World Cup! I know Lampard and Gerrard didn't get anywhere near showing the form they have in the Premiership but I reckon with a manager who could instill the drive and passion into them, they could've come out and performed with their hearts to a much greater degree, even if the legs weren't neccesarily there.

In the words of Gareth Southgate "We went in at half time against Brazil expecting Winston Churchill, instead we got Iian Duncan Smith" Half time is meant to be where the manager gets the tired team up for it again, to re-ignite them. If Eriksson just goes in and gives them the old "Ees good so far...em...defend now the 1-0 for win and perhaps one more millions I will earn next years...3 points for great victory..." then I can't see the players putting in a World Cup winning performance.

kinaldo

PHB wrote:

Lazio : 1997-2000

Coppa Italia in 1998 and 2000
European Cup Winners' Cup 1999
Serie A 2000

Also, his Sampdoria team of 96 played some great attacking football. Montella and Mancini upfront were unstoppable and Veron was making his name as one of the best midfielders in Europe.

therecklessone

PHB wrote:

Wow, manager spends money to win titles.
Breaking news!!!

It appears that Mourinho, Wenger, Fergie are all ****e managers.

Now you're just being silly. The amount of money Eriksson had to spend at Lazio provides context to his record. His last six years of mismanagement is what has marked him down as a sh*t manager.

PeaderofAodh wrote:

I know Lampard and Gerrard didn't get anywhere near showing the form they have in the Premiership but I reckon with a manager who could instill the drive and passion into them, they could've come out and performed with their hearts to a much greater degree, even if the legs weren't neccesarily there.

Mourinho and Benetiz respectively would have managed it. Every single time the tide turned against England in the last 6 years the camera has focused on a gormless looking Eriksson. How the hell could anyone be motivated by that?

GuanYin

I think there is some level of wishful thinking here.

England don't have a strong backbone of players.

The terms "great" and "World Class" are overused and many player in the premiership get this title with little of no justification.

Players mentioned by the reckless one may justify this title, I'd add in Buffon, Viera (even though he was poor last season and in the group matches), Lahm for Germany and Klose look very close.

But who do you say from England are World Class? Rooney (maybe), Cole (he looked it in Euro 04, but not here), Lampard, Terry and Ferdinand? (not at all for England). Gerrard (sometimes yes, sometimes not at all).

England's backbone was weak and I think Eriksson knew this. I think its the only thing he knew. Why else would he take a squad that on retrospective examination of his tactics, can only be justified as a squad intended to play a system where the midfield was packed to kill the game.

England had two strategies. Ball over Rooneys head or ball on Crouches head. It was predictible, uninspiring stuff and international teams (good ones anyway) learned to deal with it back in the Charlton era. anytime England tried something different they looked good.

Eriksson had a good reputation, not just as a money backed manager but as a tatician. He showed none of this for England. Walcott's includion bit him badly on the ass. If they had won the penalty shoot out, he was left witha strike force of crouch or walcott. Can you imagine facing Germany, France or Italy with those players?

England have players that should allow them to compete atthe top level, but not the manager or the system. McClaren is unlikely to offer anything new.

Chucky the tree

psi wrote:

I think there is some level of wishful thinking here.

England don't have a strong backbone of players.

The terms "great" and "World Class" are overused and many player in the premiership get this title with little of no justification.

Players mentioned by the reckless one may justify this title, I'd add in Buffon, Viera (even though he was poor last season and in the group matches), Lahm for Germany and Klose look very close.

Klose, lahm? No chance. To be world class you have to play well at the top level. Klose has never performed in the champions league, neither has lahm. They do well in their own league, but the germen league is poor. Klose got his goals in the easist group in the world cup.

Very good player, but definitly not world class.

If england went to the world cup with either bent or defoe and played a 4-4-2 against portugal with carrick/hargreeves in for lampard and lennon in for beckham they would of beat them.

GuanYin

Chucky the tree wrote:

Klose, lahm? No chance. To be world class you have to play well at the top level. Klose has never performed in the champions league, neither has lahm. They do well in their own league, but the germen league is poor. Klose got his goals in the easist group in the world cup.

Very good player, but definitly not world class.

Hrmm, CL>>CL ??????? :rolleyes:

Klose scored against argentina and played a large part in the goals against Sweden. In fact he has done well in every match. As has Lahm. I said close to world class in any case.

If england went to the world cup with either bent or defoe and played a 4-4-2 against portugal with carrick/hargreeves in for lampard and lennon in for beckham they would of beat them.

I don't know about that. Against the team that faced them on saturday maybe, I think that in general you are right. The squad selected was not equiped for that. It was equipped to allow Eriksson to play his star players.

Of course if every team played their best players in the right positions they would do well.

Jazzy

therecklessone wrote:

And Rio as you said later on. I don't agree with #3, but I'd substitute in Gerrard.

but again, PHB is Man Utd through and through so the day he says gerrard is equal to or better then scholes is the day hell freezes over. it doesnt matter how good gerrard is or plays... its just the old pool vs. utd seeping through...

Big Nelly

As I mentioned during the game and after those stupid comments from "Shearer" who we should all remember got Keane sent off not so long ago the English Rags have gone for the Ronaldo got us kicked out of the WC story, listening to BBC Radio 1 and they are having a phone/text in to let everyone tell the "nation" how much they hate Ronaldo!!

Jesus this is a surprise isnt it? oh yeah I said this would happen on Sat

http://www.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/popup_paper/0,,70141-1226529-11,00.html

BolBill

PHB wrote:

Lazio : 1997-2000

Coppa Italia in 1998 and 2000
European Cup Winners' Cup 1999
Serie A 2000

Coppa Italia is easier to win that the English League Cup, none of the big teams bother a jot with it.

The Cup Winners Cup was the last one ever played and was scrapped because it was a sh*te competition.

One league title, what a legend.

The guy looks like he knows his stuff, the glasses and the soft voice (See Wenger) but at least Wenger is consistant, SGE is a chancer, tactically inept and a huge lose to World Football (as England manager), 25 million from the FA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kinaldo

Big Nelly wrote:

As I mentioned during the game and after those stupid comments from "Shearer" who we should all remember got Keane sent off not so long ago the English Rags have gone for the Ronaldo got us kicked out of the WC story, listening to BBC Radio 1 and they are having a phone/text in to let everyone tell the "nation" how much they hate Ronaldo!!

Jesus this is a surprise isnt it? oh yeah I said this would happen on Sat

http://www.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/popup_paper/0,,70141-1226529-11,00.html

You need to edit that bit about Shearer getting Keane sent off

therecklessone

Sven-Goran Eriksson has defended his controversial decision to take Arsenal teenager Theo Walcott to the World Cup.

Walcott, 17, made England's squad despite Eriksson never seeing him play, and he did not feature as they went out to Portugal in the last eight.

Eriksson said: "I am sure I took the right players, and not for my benefit.

"It will have served Walcott extremely well for the future. He has been to a World Cup, knows how it is and it will be very good for him in his career."

BBC

Who paid Eriksson's salary, the FA, Arsenal, or Theo Walcott's agent?

AthAnRi

England always need a scapegoat cause they hate to admit that they just weren't good enough when the heat was on. In 86 it was Maradona in 90 it was Gazza, in 94 Graeme Taylor in 98 David Beckham. This time it's gonna be Ronaldo. For what? For reacting in exactly the same way as all the english players would have if it was the other way round. Of course if it had been the other way round, Ronaldo being sent off and english players rushing to the referee and 'trying' to influence his decision i there would be nothing about it. It would be a case of it being all part of the modern game. At the end of the day rooney got sent off for stamping, not for Ronlado telling the referee whatever he told him. The only question left is whether or not it was intentional or not, and who can blame the referee for thinking it was.

Ericson made some a poor decisions but at the end of the day his players didn't perform. Lampard was abmisimal. Gerrard didn't play anything like he does for Liverpool, largely due to the formation and the fact that he isn't given a free role. Rooney was injured and was always gonna struggle up front on his own. Owen is overrated and lacked confidence. Joe Cole isn't a left winger as you can tell from his consistencey of cutting inside and ignoring the potential that A.Cole offers as an attacking full back. Crouch - no comment.

The only players that performed well were Ashley Cole, Rio Ferdinand, Owen Hargreaves and John Terry, but these are all defensive players and are unlikely to win games for you.

PHB

he says gerrard is equal to or better then scholes is the day hell freezes over.

lol, first off, Gerrard won a CL, and was a force of nature in the matches to win it, that speaks for itself.

The problem with Gerrard, as i've stated, and you just ignored, cause you know, whats the point in listening if you can't just assume stuff, is that Gerrard needs a team to be built around him. It's why Liverpool appear to be so reliant on him, because the team is built around him, and if he doesn't preform, the team has a lot of trouble preforming.
He is like Riqueleme in that sense. However, as part of a team, he is not like Riqueleme. In almost every situation during the WC, instead of playing a simple pass, he would either go for a long range strike or a killer pass. This resulted in England having absolutely no flow, because lots of their play was going through him. He'd get the ball, and almost inevitably lose possession.
Compared to Scholes, or to a more modern player, Deco, who will keep the ball and move it around the pitch, as an actual playmaker should.

Gerrard is a hollywood player, one of the best in the world at it. When his stuff comes off, he is absolutely world class, and for Liverpool, his stuff comes off in big big games, but that's because Benetiz has set up the system for him to do it in, for England, he is more of a hiderence than a benefit.

---

Eriksson said: "I am sure I took the right players, and not for my benefit.

"It will have served Walcott extremely well for the future. He has been to a World Cup, knows how it is and it will be very good for him in his career."

Brazil used to do that, and it worked out. Give the young talents a chance to work with the top players. However, they made sure they had enough players in the position, unlike Sven.

Dont be at yourself

Funny that if Gerrard needs a team to be built around him, he's played some of his best football being played out of position last season. And in the CL win, he was being used everywhere from playing off a forward to filling in at right-back. In fact for Liverpool, his versatility often means that far from the team being built around him, he's left to plug any holes in the team due to injury etc. Hence him playing off a lone striker or on the right wing for much of the season.

PHB

He was being played 'out of position', and thats when Liverpool preform their best. Because they actually have quite a good team.

It's why in the past season, he has been deployed more and more on the right wing, because you need him in the team to produce moments of magic which he does, but you can't play him in central midfield which is where he plays for England.

If he plays in central midfield, the team must be built around him, and the team suffers as a result, although if Gerrard does what he can do, they could easily win any individual game, against any team in the world imo, but it's a risky tactic.

If he plays on the right wing, he can be a hollywood player, cause he is a winger, and it's to a limit acceptable to go for the killer ball and long range shot every time. I've always thought his best position is the ring wing.

MisterAnarchy

PHB wrote:

lol, first off, Gerrard won a CL, and was a force of nature in the matches to win it, that speaks for itself.

The problem with Gerrard, as i've stated, and you just ignored, cause you know, whats the point in listening if you can't just assume stuff, is that Gerrard needs a team to be built around him. It's why Liverpool appear to be so reliant on him, because the team is built around him, and if he doesn't preform, the team has a lot of trouble preforming.
He is like Riqueleme in that sense. However, as part of a team, he is not like Riqueleme. In almost every situation during the WC, instead of playing a simple pass, he would either go for a long range strike or a killer pass. This resulted in England having absolutely no flow, because lots of their play was going through him. He'd get the ball, and almost inevitably lose possession.
Compared to Scholes, or to a more modern player, Deco, who will keep the ball and move it around the pitch, as an actual playmaker should.

Gerrard is a hollywood player, one of the best in the world at it. When his stuff comes off, he is absolutely world class, and for Liverpool, his stuff comes off in big big games, but that's because Benetiz has set up the system for him to do it in, for England, he is more of a hiderence than a benefit.

I couldnt agree more.

mike65

Jesus Christ! 10 pages of Irishman banging on about Englands football team.

Priceless.

Mike.

el rabitos

PHB wrote:

lol, first off, Gerrard won a CL, and was a force of nature in the matches to win it, that speaks for itself.

The problem with Gerrard, as i've stated, and you just ignored, cause you know, whats the point in listening if you can't just assume stuff, is that Gerrard needs a team to be built around him. It's why Liverpool appear to be so reliant on him, because the team is built around him, and if he doesn't preform, the team has a lot of trouble preforming.
He is like Riqueleme in that sense. However, as part of a team, he is not like Riqueleme. In almost every situation during the WC, instead of playing a simple pass, he would either go for a long range strike or a killer pass. This resulted in England having absolutely no flow, because lots of their play was going through him. He'd get the ball, and almost inevitably lose possession.
Compared to Scholes, or to a more modern player, Deco, who will keep the ball and move it around the pitch, as an actual playmaker should.

Gerrard is a hollywood player, one of the best in the world at it. When his stuff comes off, he is absolutely world class, and for Liverpool, his stuff comes off in big big games, but that's because Benetiz has set up the system for him to do it in, for England, he is more of a hiderence than a benefit.

kinda goes against the statistics from last season that show that liverpool won more when gerrard was out of the team or didnt play.

now....run along and talk about how rio is a legend and yadda yadda ronaldo world class

PHB

kinda goes against the statistics from last season that show that liverpool won more when gerrard was out of the team or didnt play.

Actually, that's the whole point. When he isn't in central midfield for Liverpool, they are imo, and now apparently supported by statistics, a better team.

el rabitos

PHB wrote:

Actually, that's the whole point. When he isn't in central midfield for Liverpool, they are imo, and now apparently supported by statistics, a better team.

do u ever watch liverpool?

he rarely plays in a flat central midfield, he players ahead of a 4 man midfield in a role behind the striker, or when deployed as a right winger he alternates between the right wing and playing behind the strikers

liverpool rarely play under the formations outlook from the start of a game, benitez sets up the team to be able to alternate between 4-5-1 and 4-4-2 per his instruction.

gerrards biggest problem within the english squad is his versatility, he's so much more of a complete player than lampard that he's sacrificed to play in the less flattering role of a defencive midfielder while lampard gets the attractive looking attacking midfield role.

look at the champions league final last year and how many different positions gerrard played in.

hollywood player my ass. riquelme is the ultimate hollywood player

he can play absolutely no role for a club unless its as the sole attacking midfielder and he has a player like macherano behind him to clean up, ala lampard + makelle

theres a reason riquelme is playing for villareal and was dumped out of barca, the didnt build the team around him and villareal did.

A Dub in Glasgo

This was fun to watch, oh how the World Champians elect [(c) ITV, BBC, Sky etc)] fumbled in all of their matches. Now their ire turns to Ronaldo of Manchester United were apparantly Rooney will lamp him one next month lol

PHB

Gerrard doesn't play behind a striker, he plays in front of the midfield.
The difference, behind the striker plays with his back to goal, while in front of midfield plays with his face to goal.
He plays as a central midfielder, albeit a most attacking one.

el rabitos

PHB wrote:

Gerrard doesn't play behind a striker, he plays in front of the midfield.
The difference, behind the striker plays with his back to goal, while in front of midfield plays with his face to goal.
He plays as a central midfielder, albeit a most attacking one.

thats the most befuddling thing you've ever said

Pepe LeFrits

PHB wrote:

Gerrard doesn't play behind a striker, he plays in front of the midfield.
The difference, behind the striker plays with his back to goal, while in front of midfield plays with his face to goal.
He plays as a central midfielder, albeit a most attacking one.

AHAHAHA

That's a classic. Wayne Rooney, king of scoring with his arse!

PHB

When they recieve the ball

Pepe LeFrits

Your post is already as clear as the liffey, no need to try and shovel more excrement into it!

herbieflowers

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Your post is already as clear as the liffey, no need to try and shovel more excrement into it!

hahaha

county

Lemlin wrote:

Fair play to Owen Hargreaves. May have played himself into the England starting 11 and has definitely shut up the English tabloids.

best player for england imo

iregk

What I thought was quite funny was the bbc (always good for a laugh) and Ian Wright. When the squad was announced pre WC he was ramping on about how Hargreives must know something about sven to be picked ahead of the obvious world class talent SWP and he just couldn't understand it. After the portugal match he refused to comment on anything about Hargreives. Well done Owen hats off to you kid you shut them up big style.

mike65

BBC humour 10 uses for an England flag

Mike.

Rikand

3. If you're a Sun reader you could consider using the flags as stuffing for an effigy of the newly-crowned "least popular man in the Premiership" Cristiano Ronaldo. Don't burn it though as some polyester can give off pollutants.

^^ LOL!