World Cup 2014 Super Thread copyright warning #1645

K4t

x43r0 wrote: »

Welbeck works hard but talent wise he has no business in that team ahead of sterling

Welbeck is easily as good a footballer as Sterling. People have let the past season cloud their judgement a lot regarding both team and individual performances.

Ross Barkley is a phenomenal talent and almost reminds me of a younger Rooney, moreso in his attitude than style of play. Every time Barkley gets the ball you don't know what he'll do and it is this unpredictability to his game which Rooney (spray it out wide) has lacked for a quite a while now. Barkley is really knocking on the door to getting a place in the team.

Hank Scorpio

K4t wrote: »

Welbeck is easily as good a footballer as Sterling. People have let the past season cloud their judgement a lot regarding both team and individual performances.

He's not

If he was he'd have more than 30 goals in 140 appearances or whatever it is

Ferguson rly let the rot set in, in the united setup the last 3 or 4 years and that's why Wellbeck is even considered as a top striker, anyone who watches him knows the deal

Sturridge is the opposite had to work hard at clubs he was on loan and eventually he found his level, and kudos to him for not reacting tonight when the guy kicked the ball in his chest

Corholio

K4t wrote: »

Welbeck is easily as good a footballer as Sterling. People have let the past season cloud their judgement a lot regarding both team and individual performances.

Ross Barkley is a phenomenal talent and almost reminds me of a younger Rooney, moreso in his attitude than style of play. Every time Barkley gets the ball you don't know what he'll do and it is this unpredictability to his game which Rooney (spray it out wide) has lacked for a quite a while now. Barkley is really knocking on the door to getting a place in the team.

Barkley is talented but he's also unpredictable in the opposite way too, he gives away the ball fairly often or loses concentration when in possession, that will be punished lot more severely in a tournament like this. Lallana was the only one who stood out a little tonight, and that was really only for a small few pieces of skill.

K4t

nuxxx wrote: »

He's not

If he was he'd have more than 30 goals in 140 appearances or whatever it is

Still not a bad return for a player who plays most of his games on the left wing.

nuxxx wrote: »

Ferguson rly let the rot set in, in the united setup the last 3 or 4 years and that's why Wellbeck is even considered as a top striker, anyone who watches him knows the deal

United have won the league twice in the last four years, losing out on goal difference once too and Welbeck played a big role so not sure what point you're trying to make.

Anyone who watches him knows he is an immensely talented young footballer who the media and opposition fans have unfairly criticised for a few poor misses on goal which has been blown completely out of proportion with accusations of him being like Emile bloody Heskey. His overall play is as good as any of the top players in the premier league and his finishing is improving all the time. You have to wonder what the guy has done wrong to warrant this attack on his game. Suppose it comes with the territory of playing for a certain team.

K4t

mike65 wrote: »

Welbeck - seriously. Pass it.

Posts like these make me sigh. I presume it was in relation to the bursting run he made which ended in a goal kick? Because Welbeck is generally the most economical player on the team and gives possession away far less than Rooney, Sturridge or Lallana. But I suppose it's easier to see mistakes in those you are looking for them in. :rolleyes:

I don't see you mentioning the excellent through ball he made to Sturridge or his involvement which lead to Sturridge's chance which he should have scored? Or the three runs through on goal Welbeck made tonight for which the wrong option was made every time by the player in possession (Barkley/Wilshire/Baines)? No, that would be too logical and objective for a football fan.

Hank Scorpio

United winning the league had nothing to do with Wellbeck, he had 2 goals in 40 appearances the last time season they did

"anyone who watches him" I've watched every United game for I don't know how many seasons

Good athlete, horrible footballer. To even compare him or say hes a better player than Sturridge is baffling

K4t

nuxxx wrote: »

Good athlete, horrible footballer. To even compare him or say hes a better player than Sturridge is baffling

Welbeck is a more talented footballer than Sturridge. Sturridge has had a great season at Liverpool in fairness but I don't feel like he has much more to him and I think he will struggle to replicate his form next season. He is a better finisher than Welbeck right now but Welbeck's overall play is superior.

Hank Scorpio

K4t wrote: »

Welbeck is a more talented footballer than Sturridge. Sturridge has had a great season at Liverpool in fairness but I don't feel like he has much more to him and I think he will struggle to replicate his form next season. He is a better finisher than Welbeck right now but Welbeck's overall play is superior.

And what would that "overall play" consist of

K4t

nuxxx wrote: »

And what would that "overall play" consist of

Link up play, movement on and off the ball, ball retention and making the right passes under pressure. Granted he's not as good a dribbler as Sterling but that is the only area in which Sterling has the edge imo and Welbeck is not a bad dribbler either. I'm not tying to knock Sterling here or anything like a lot of people are doing with Welbeck. I simply believe Welbeck to be the better player and feel he has shown that time and again for club and country.

Neeson

Welbeck is OK. He can run.

Sturridge is a great talent. He can also run, but not as fast as Welbeck. I'd say Welbeck would beat him.

Welbeck is OK with a ball at his feet. Sturridge is better with a ball. If you have both men a ball I think Sturridge would use it better. Welbeck would lose it first.

Welbeck is fit. Sturridge is fit also. Welbeck is leaner though. Sturridge has a bit of bulk. Sturridge is a harder man. But Welbeck has a bit of a Peter Crouch effect but with less technical ability.

Hank Scorpio

K4t wrote: »

Link up play, movement on and off the ball, ball retention and making the right passes under pressure. Granted he's not as good a dribbler as Sterling but that is the only area in which Sterling has the edge imo and Welbeck is not a bad dribbler either. I'm not tying to knock Sterling here or anything like a lot of people are doing with Welbeck. I simply believe Welbeck to be the better player and feel he has shown that time and again for club and country.

You believe Welbeck to be better and has shown to be a better player than Sterling, have you missed the last 10 months?

What Link up play has Welbeck shown as a United striker/wide player and with what players? He had a single assist in the league last season.

He doesn't make the right passes under pressure, for United he often overruns the ball when the correct passes are on, whether that's a lack of vision or being greedy I don't know. Every United fan knows this.

His off the ball running is good, but I don't think its any better than Sterling or Sturridge or whoever.

Bedtime now have a good one...

duffman13

K4t wrote: »

Link up play, movement on and off the ball, ball retention and making the right passes under pressure. Granted he's not as good a dribbler as Sterling but that is the only area in which Sterling has the edge imo and Welbeck is not a bad dribbler either. I'm not tying to knock Sterling here or anything like a lot of people are doing with Welbeck. I simply believe Welbeck to be the better player and feel he has shown that time and again for club and country.

I think your mixing up versatility with being a more complete footballer. Sterling is a better winger full stop. Welbeck may be more disciplined but sterling is a natural wide player. Close control would be Danny Welbecks biggest failing and you need that as a winger more than most things. I'm a fan of Welbeck but this argument is nonsense. Sterling is in form and playing well. Welbeck has experience which seems to be the only reason you think he should be starting

Iused2likebusts

Pro. F wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the stereotypical British centre-back. That line which is so often used to defend centre-backs from criticism is purely an attempt to discredit the critics. As if all we can understand of the CB's art is the winning of headers and making tackles. Pure bullshít.

Luiz being a shít CB has nothing to do with British CBs. He would be laughed out of the Italian squad as well. He is simply a dodgy CB playing on a strong team.

lol at the idea of Luiz being first choice on every PL team other than Arsenal and Chelsea too.

IMO He would play alongside kompany at city, Verthongen at Spurs and would be an upgrade at whats at liverpool and utd. He is hardly a **** CB 2 massive transfer fees paid for his services by people whose footballing opinion holds far more clout than mine or yours. As I said I think his mistakes get highlighted more than others this tends to happen in the PL a lot, DDG was getting fierce criticism for a few mistakes at the same time joe Hart was making as many mistakes and nothing was being said. Gerrard and Rooney get away with murder on the pitch and nothing is ever said. You think his criticism is justified thats fair enough I dont.

kfallon

Luiz was fantastic throughout the Confederations Cup last year!
Imo Brazil have the best defence in the tournament

greendom

kfallon wrote: »

Luiz was fantastic throughout the Confederations Cup last year!
Imo Brazil have the best defence in the tournament

Yes he's a different player when paired up with Thiago Silva. Not sure how much of that is down to playing alongside the best defender in the World.

tomaussie

Does anybody know what is wrong with Higuain or if he will be fit for the first game ?

wadacrack

Will rooney start for england? His form has bern very poor

greendom

wadacrack wrote: »

Will rooney start for england? His form has bern very poor

Nailed on to start.

wadacrack

greendom wrote: »

Nailed on to start.

That should have been.. Should rooney start based on his form. England have a few options who could play in the 10 behind Sturridge

greendom

wadacrack wrote: »

That should have been.. Should rooney start based on his form. England have a few options who could play in the 10 behind Sturridge

Fair point maybe not. I think his experience means he has to be in the starting line up against Italy though.

In other news if the injury to Lukaku proves to be serious Belgium go from dark horses to a bunch of old nags. Who'll play up front for them - Mirallas ?

Agueroooo

Johnson.
Rooney.
Welbeck ..

Need to to dropped if England have any chance. They are passengers out there and a big liability imo.

The hope in Rooney pulling off a moment of magic is the only thing keeping him in the side, and probably rightly so.
But if he doesn't pull anything out of the hat in the first couple of games in the group stages, and himself and the others just not putting it in are left in the team then it's home early for England for me.

Paully D

My England team would be (I'm baring in mind that Hodgson has and probably always will play 4-2-3-1 with England):

Hart

Johnson Cahill Jagielka Baines

Henderson Gerrard

Lallana

---

Sterling

Rooney

Sturridge

The full-backs are a weakness (yes, Baines included at this level) IMO but there's not really anything that can be done now.

Rooney would be one that questions have been asked of and I've questioned him myself (in terms of form and fitness) over the last couple of weeks, but at the end of the day I just can't find someone who should be in ahead of him in that position. Barkley would be a nice impact player off the bench but he's too raw at the minute, gives the ball away far too often and shoots when he should pass far too often to be a starter IMO. His time will come.

Hodgson himself will most likely field Welbeck, largely because he can trust him a bit more to help out defensively than either Sterling or Lallana, simply because he's seen him and been around him for England more. I would start the aforementioned duo, but I do understand why it can be difficult for managers to deviate from what they know at crucial times.

eagle eye

Rooney is well worth his place on that team. He is still a class act and can turn a game on its head on his own. I don't think there is another England player who can do that.

I don't like the idea of Sturridge as the main striker. He will score goals but I feel he offers a lot more as a wide forward.

Pro. F

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

He is hardly a **** CB 2 massive transfer fees paid for his services by people whose footballing opinion holds far more clout than mine or yours.

The fees spent by sugar daddy clubs carry zero weight. The fact that you let the fee spent by a sugar daddy club influence your opinion of a player explains how you've ended up with being so wrong on Luiz though.

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

As I said I think his mistakes get highlighted more than others this tends to happen in the PL a lot, DDG was getting fierce criticism for a few mistakes at the same time joe Hart was making as many mistakes and nothing was being said. Gerrard and Rooney get away with murder on the pitch and nothing is ever said. You think his criticism is justified thats fair enough I dont.

It sounds like you worry too much about what some faceless majority says rather than just watching players and forming your opinion.

kfallon wrote: »

Luiz was fantastic throughout the Confederations Cup last year!
Imo Brazil have the best defence in the tournament

I take it you missed the Uruguay game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bUXod2mYlE

Pro. F

Agueroooo wrote: »

Johnson.
Rooney.
Welbeck ..

Need to to dropped if England have any chance. They are passengers out there and a big liability imo.

The hope in Rooney pulling off a moment of magic is the only thing keeping him in the side, and probably rightly so.
But if he doesn't pull anything out of the hat in the first couple of games in the group stages, and himself and the others just not putting it in are left in the team then it's home early for England for me.

The problem for England, as always, is that their central midfield are not skilful enough to dominate possession. Gerrard and Henderson could do a job for Liverpool working from behind (in the case of Gerrard) or in (in the case of Henderson) the all-or-nothing attack. But that won't work in the heat or against the quality that you come against at the business end of a WC. And that's before you get to the fact that Liverpool had the perfect attacking player for that style of play and England don't.

I agree that Johnson and Welbeck shouldn't be starting. It's clear that Sterling and Clyne should be playing instead of them imo. Rooney is not so straightforward. I might have Barkley or Lallana at 10 instead of him, but I still think they would struggle and Sturridge and Rooney are even for me at centre-forward.

But if you made all those changes England would still struggle badly. Henderson and Gerrard is nowhere near a good enough combination in the engine room and that's the biggest problem.

Iused2likebusts

Pro. F wrote: »

The fees spent by sugar daddy clubs carry zero weight. The fact that you let the fee spent by a sugar daddy club influence your opinion of a player explains how you've ended up with being so wrong on Luiz though.



It sounds like you worry too much about what some faceless majority says rather than just watching players and forming your opinion.

Where do u get this stuff from. Obviously I form my own opinion as a lot of pundits ridicule Luiz.I don't feel I'm wrong we obviously look for different attributes in cbs. You prefer Dawson I prefer Luiz. Did you ever consider that maybe you could be wrong

Pro. F

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Where do u get this stuff from. Obviously I form my own opinion as a lot of pundits ridicule Luiz.I don't feel I'm wrong we obviously look for different attributes in cbs. You prefer Dawson I prefer Luiz. Did you ever consider that maybe you could be wrong

Ah yeah, of course. Sure I can see that the likes of Dawson has flaws too and the two of them come from different ends of the spectrum in terms of style. It just seemed that a lot of your post was about other people's opinions and reacting to those rather than the ability of the player.

K4t

Agueroooo wrote: »

Johnson.
Rooney.
Welbeck ..

Need to to dropped if England have any chance. They are passengers out there and a big liability imo.
.

Strange when he is one of the most players involved in play, whether through his link up play or winning of possession in all areas of the pitch. He's easily been more impressive than both Lallana and Rooney in the friendlies and on a par with Sturridge.

Paully D wrote: »

Hodgson himself will most likely field Welbeck, largely because he can trust him a bit more to help out defensively than either Sterling or Lallana, simply because he's seen him and been around him for England more. I would start the aforementioned duo, but I do understand why it can be difficult for managers to deviate from what they know at crucial times.

He picks Welbeck because he's an excellent footballer.

wadacrack

Yes true about Clyne. He has been very good for Southampton but it is just Shaw who recieves the plaudits. Clyne should have been picked ahead of Smalling

Agueroooo

Pro. F wrote: »

The problem for England, as always, is that their central midfield are not skilful enough to dominate possession. Gerrard and Henderson could do a job for Liverpool working from behind (in the case of Gerrard) or in (in the case of Henderson) the all-or-nothing attack. But that won't work in the heat or against the quality that you come against at the business end of a WC. And that's before you get to the fact that Liverpool had the perfect attacking player for that style of play and England don't.

I agree that Johnson and Welbeck shouldn't be starting. It's clear that Sterling and Clyne should be playing instead of them imo. Rooney is not so straightforward. I might have Barkley or Lallana at 10 instead of him, but I still think they would struggle and Sturridge and Rooney are even for me at centre-forward.

But if you made all those changes England would still struggle badly. Henderson and Gerrard is nowhere near a good enough combination in the engine room and that's the biggest problem.

I agree on the problems both Gerrard and Henderson playing bring, but I don't think it's chronic and a change of tact by the manager could resolve a lot of it.

Watching England reminds me of watching Liverpool say in '10/11.

Everything needs (and looks to be coached) to go through Gerrard.

He seems to be told that he must have 9 outfield players in front of him and his relationship is with those in front
Henderson seems to be told to push on a bit, but his main job is with his team mates behind, and get back if/when possession is lost. The guy looks terrified to get caught out.

Everyone else doesn't look to be playing with their own initiative and expressing themselves, but since whenever did a Roy Hodgson team ever promote style and flair?

If the shackles are not taken off and some players don't cop on then England could be a hiding away by a team that show any form and togetherness.

wadacrack

Welbeck is not an excellant footballer. Decison making in teh finla third is not up to it atm. He is a very useful player tho. But I would start with Sterling

Paully D

K4t wrote: »

He picks Welbeck because he's an excellent footballer.

He's not. I like him, but you're going overboard, and I watched him every week for a full season when he was on loan at Sunderland.

For me, as things stand, he's not good enough to start every week for a top level team, but would likely score around 12 a season and be a canny all-round addition for that second tier of Premier League teams. Can he improve? Sure. But that's how I see him at the minute.

IMO he gets picked by Hodgson more for his defensive contribution out wide than because he's an "excellent footballer."

MarkY91

this thread would could do with a poll. id love to see a couple of hundred votes and see the poll then.

nobody on tv/papers/internet is giving spain any hope at all. ive backed them and the inclusion of costa and young players like koke should at least be getting the respect they deserve

K4t

Paully D wrote: »

He's not. I like him, but you're going overboard, and I watched him every week for a full season when he was on loan at Sunderland.

For me, as things stand, he's not good enough to start every week for a top level team, but would likely score around 12 a season and be a canny all-round addition for that second tier of Premier League teams. Can he improve? Sure. But that's how I see him at the minute.

IMO he gets picked by Hodgson more for his defensive contribution out wide than because he's an "excellent footballer."

And you and others are severely underrating him. To say he is picked for his defensive contriution is ridiculous and an insult to him. If that were the case then Milner would be starting too, even Ashley Young can do a good job defensively on the wing for England. Just because Welbeck happens to track back and play for the team all of a sudden it is the only reason he is picked. Just like how he is tall and quick that is his only trait. Laughable really. I don't need to argue this any longer because people are obviously just choosing to ignore his footbaling abilities altogether.

I'll just wait until saturday again when any mistake or poor pass he makes is highlighted and used as an excuse for him being dropped instead of focusing on the qualities he brings to the side which are unquestionable and proven.

wadacrack wrote: »

Welbeck is not an excellant footballer. Decison making in teh finla third is not up to it atm. He is a very useful player tho. But I would start with Sterling

I'd say his decision making in the final third is excellent. His finishing is not at the highest level yet but he has all the other attriubutes and his finishing is improving all the time what more can you ask than that.
His all around play is superior to the rest of the England attacking players. Interesting how nothing has been made of Lallana's poor performances in the friendly games yet it is Welbeck who was nowhere near one of the poorer players who should be dropped. Football fans are a fickle bunch.

Smithwicks Man

Pro. F wrote: »

Since the discussion actually started with me saying that Hodgeson manages the England team poorly and doesn't select his best players, it is not a long way from the original discussion at all.

It started by you saying "Fair enough. I suspect that if they (Lennon and Adam Johnson) were sixth and seventh choice wingers for the Dutch or Italians, or somebody like that, and playing in a league other than the PL, you wouldn't hold them up as a sign of those national sides lacking depth. But I suppose we can never know."

Followed by my first post quoting that and saying "To be fair, there are plenty of players not in other squads that are better than players in the English squad." - Which I still believe is true.

Pro. F wrote: »

Since you wanted to compare players left at home to players going of the various squads, then the recently retired, former captain and one of the best CBs in the country is of course an important part of that discussion. It's not like he retired under straightforward circumstances. There was a lot of controversy around him at the time with the racist abuse court case. But you carry on pretending that there wasn't a good chance that Terry could have been convinced to play on if the manager had tried.

That's fair enough and I accept that Terry is better than the CB's that some of the other top nations brought. But the fact that he is also better than the CB's
that England brought renders your point invalid in the overall discussion of depth.

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't say that I'm not interested in anyone's opinion.

"I'm not interested in what most people's opinions are on any particular football matter. The fans, journalists and pundits who don't have a clue are in the overwhelming majority. I'm happy to form my opinions without regard to what most people think."

Sorry, you're not interested in what the vast majority think :rolleyes:

Pro. F wrote: »

Spain I agree with, for the rest I disagree. For Argentina I find the suggestion laughable.

I'm too busy at the minute to reply to this point but I'll come back to it later.

Pro. F wrote: »

You're using question marks wrong.

De Jong is a weak passer, he has an unreliable first touch and weak close control. I developed this opinion of de Jong by understanding football and watching him play it. I can argue that Britton and Cork are better than de Jong because they have better defensive positioning, infinitely better touch and control and so more reliable and creative passing. De Jong is average at the DM job.

Don't get ratty because you're failing to prove your point

You think it's laughable that I believe Argentina have a wider talent pool available than England, well I think it's hysterical that you think De Jong is a weak passer despite everything pointing to the contrary.

I watched NDJ play 50+ games this season and you can take my word for it, he is far from a poor passer of the ball and his positioning is that of an experienced international. NOw everyone is entitled to their opinion, but your opinion on him is very wrong.

Pro. F

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

It started by you saying "Fair enough. I suspect that if they (Lennon and Adam Johnson) were sixth and seventh choice wingers for the Dutch or Italians, or somebody like that, and playing in a league other than the PL, you wouldn't hold them up as a sign of those national sides lacking depth. But I suppose we can never know."

Followed by my first post quoting that and saying "To be fair, there are plenty of players not in other squads that are better than players in the English squad." - Which I still believe is true.

That's fair enough and I accept that Terry is better than the CB's that some of the other top nations brought. But the fact that he is also better than the CB's
that England brought renders your point invalid in the overall discussion of depth.

It doesn't invalidate the point, since I started the conversation by saying that Hodgeson is not bringing his best talent.
It still remains that your criticism of the English talent pool -
"To be fair, there are plenty of players not in other squads that are better than players in the English squad"
- could be said about the majority of the best teams going to the tournament.

Even if you replaced Jones/Smalling with Terry and Shaw with Cole, there would still be players going to the tournament for big sides who aren't as good as players being left at home by other sides, including England. It is a stupid way to criticise a nation's talent pool.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with.

Smithwicks Man

Pro. F wrote: »

It doesn't invalidate the point, since I started the conversation by saying that Hodgeson is not bringing his best talent.
It still remains that your criticism of the English talent pool -
"To be fair, there are plenty of players not in other squads that are better than players in the English squad"
- could be said about the majority of the best teams going to the tournament.

Even if you replaced Jones/Smalling with Terry and Shaw with Cole, there would still be players going to the tournament for big sides who aren't as good as players being left at home by other sides, including England. It is a stupid way to criticise a nation's talent pool.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with.

I never even saw your post saying that so explain to me how the conversation started on that note.

Spain - Valdes, Carvajal, Thiago, Isco, Jesús Navas, Llorente, Negredo

Brazil - Miranda, Marquinhos, Lucas Moura, Pato, Damiao

Italy - Marchetti, Maggio, Ranocchia, Florenzi, G. Rossi, El Shaarawy

France - Mandanda, Adil Rami, Kondogbia, Nasri, Gourcoff

Argentina - Banega, Sosa, Lamela, Tevez


There's a few of the top of my head for some of the bigger nations, not including injured players like Ribery, Falcao and Montolivo, and I'm sure there's many more.


Each of the players in bold would be good enough to make the England team imo but fair enough, it is an unfair way of comparing the talent pools.

That being said, I think it's evident that the other top nations have a higher quality of player both at the tournament and not making the cut.

Even comparing the starting XI of the teams would show this, but if you think that England have a similar amount talent available to these countries then you're mistaken imo.

Pro. F

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I never even saw your post saying that so explain to me how the conversation started on that note.

Read it yourself.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Spain - Valdes, Carvajal, Thiago, Isco, Jesús Navas, Llorente, Negredo

Brazil - Miranda, Marquinhos, Lucas Moura, Pato, Damiao

Italy - Marchetti, Maggio, Ranocchia, Florenzi, G. Rossi, El Shaarawy

France - Mandanda, Adil Rami, Kondogbia, Nasri, Gourcoff

Argentina - Banega, Sosa, Lamela, Tevez


There's a few of the top of my head for some of the bigger nations, not including injured players like Ribery, Falcao and Montolivo, and I'm sure there's many more.

Each of the players in bold would be good enough to make the England team imo but fair enough, it is an unfair way of comparing the talent pools.

It's a dumb and ineffective way to compare the talent pools. And yet you are persisting with doing it for I don't know how many posts at this stage.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

That being said, I think it's evident that the other top nations have a higher quality of player both at the tournament and not making the cut.

Even comparing the starting XI of the teams would show this, but if you think that England have a similar amount talent available to these countries then you're mistaken imo.

Hodgeson is miles away from selecting his best starting 11 so comparing the starting XIs is not a good indicator either.

pavb2

Might be stating the obvious here but for me England's success depends upon the performances of Oxlade c (if fit) berkely and sterling.

The likes of Gerard Rooney lampard Sturridge etc etc while important I think how the above 3 perform will dictate how well England do.

Corholio

K4t wrote: »

His all around play is superior to the rest of the England attacking players. Interesting how nothing has been made of Lallana's poor performances in the friendly games yet it is Welbeck who was nowhere near one of the poorer players who should be dropped. Football fans are a fickle bunch.

Noone played that well last night but Lallana looked the only one who might have done something. Welbeck, besides 1 stepover, was pretty poor in fairness. It's Ecuador and Honduras, while two ok sides, these are the teams that the 'excellent' footballers should be excelling against. Plenty of actual 'excellent' footballers didn't play well last night too by the way, just in case you think I'm only mentioning Welbeck. As someone mentioned he's not good enough to be starting for a top tier team, or even close really. A 2nd tier team, working hard and being effective, is where he will probably end up.

Smithwicks Man

Pro. F wrote: »

Read it yourself.

Right. And explain to me how our discussion started on that note if I I'm only seeing that post now? I never argued anything about Hodgson not bringing the best English players available.

Pro. F wrote: »

It's a dumb and ineffective way to compare the talent pools. And yet you are persisting with doing it for I don't know how many posts at this stage.

Well how do you suggest you compare them? You don't want to compare the WC squads, or the starting XI's or the players that haven't been brought so in other words you don't want to compare them at all.

I think it's fairly obvious to most that those 5 teams have better players available than England, you haven't said anything to suggest otherwise.

Pro. F wrote: »

Hodgeson is miles away from selecting his best starting 11 so comparing the starting XIs is not a good indicator either.

What do you think is England's best XI then out of every man, woman and child available to Hodgson?

Smithwicks Man

MarkY91 wrote: »

this thread would could do with a poll. id love to see a couple of hundred votes and see the poll then.

nobody on tv/papers/internet is giving spain any hope at all. ive backed them and the inclusion of costa and young players like koke should at least be getting the respect they deserve

I'll be backing Spain myself at 13/2.

Can understand the hype around Brazil who have a strong XI and subs as well as having home advantage but to write Spain off is silly.

They're the best value price out of any team imo.

MarkY91

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I'll be backing Spain myself at 13/2.

Can understand the hype around Brazil who have a strong XI and subs as well as having home advantage but to write Spain off is silly.

They're the best value price out of any team imo.

im glad SOMEONE agrees with me. family, friends, media all giving spain no hope. it just dont understand it!

ive signed up with boylesports to get their double the odds special. thinking of doing argentina at 9/1

eh i dunno

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I'll be backing Spain myself at 13/2.

Can understand the hype around Brazil who have a strong XI and subs as well as having home advantage but to write Spain off is silly.

They're the best value price out of any team imo.

my only bet for the tournament too. Best squad

Kirby

Agreed. I think it will be a European team, for the first time ever. I always like the Germans, but I'm backing Spain. I would have liked to see Navas playing out wide but that isn't going to happen.

Even so, I think they'll win it.

MarkY91

i will be a little worried for spain if they stick with their older players and not give the young guns a few starts. im concerned that costa will hobble off the pitch as i doubt hes 100% recovered yet

Pro. F

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Right. And explain to me how our discussion started on that note if I I'm only seeing that post now? I never argued anything about Hodgson not bringing the best English players available.

Well how do you suggest you compare them? You don't want to compare the WC squads, or the starting XI's or the players that haven't been brought so in other words you don't want to compare them at all.

I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through the start of the discussion. If you can't follow it yourself then that's your loss.

If you were interested in an honest discussion about comparing the relative strengths of the talent pools you could work out a sensible way of doing it yourself. But you obviously aren't interested in doing that so I'm not going to waste my time by explaining the obvious to you.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I think it's fairly obvious to most that those 5 teams have better players available than England, you haven't said anything to suggest otherwise.

I disagree. I think most of those five teams (plus the Netherlands and Germany) will perform better than England at this and every world cup, but I think that comes down to the fact that the preferred strategy in English football is, and has always been, extremely poor.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

What do you think is England's best XI then out of every man, woman and child available to Hodgson?

Not a chance am I getting into discussing that with you. We completely disagree on the quality of de Jong and as I said before, that shows to me that we aren't going to agree on many midfielders. Any 11 that I suggest for England you would think is idiotic and vice versa.

Smithwicks Man

The possession-based style that Spain play, as boring as it can be sometimes, should also help to conserve energy for the later stages of the tournament as well.

It's a pity Navas isn't with them, think he would've offered more than Torres who I would have behind Costa and Villa in the pecking order for attack.

Smithwicks Man

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through the start of the discussion. If you can't follow it yourself then that's your loss.

Right well I went and looked through the posts and the discussion was not started with the post you thought it was so you're wrong there and you can go and look for yourself.

Pro. F wrote: »

If you were interested in an honest discussion about comparing the relative strengths of the talent pools you could work out a sensible way of doing it yourself. But you obviously aren't interested in doing that so I'm not going to waste my time by explaining the obvious to you.

How can we possibly have a discussion when you refuse to use any possible means of comparing the squads? I'm guessing that this is because you have realised you can't prove your point because it is wrong and that's fine, but please just accept that.

Pro. F wrote: »

I disagree. I think most of those five teams (plus the Netherlands and Germany) will perform better than England at this and every world cup, but I think that comes down to the fact that the preferred strategy in English football is, and has always been, extremely poor.

Germany is another team i forgot who have much more talent available than England. The Netherlands, not so much.

You're telling me that the reason England don't perform as well as the other teams mentioned is solely because of the strategy employed and not because they don't have as good of a selection of players? Fair enough, I disagree.

Pro. F wrote: »

Not a chance am I getting into discussing that with you. We completely disagree on the quality of de Jong and as I said before, that shows to me that we aren't going to agree on many midfielders. Any 11 that I suggest for England you would think is idiotic and vice versa.

Well this is hilarious. If you had any sort of material to back up your point then you'd be typing it instead of saying you won't get into a discussion about it.

I honestly doubt that I would find the England XI you suggest idiotic. My point was never about who should or shouldn't be starting for England, it's that they don't have the abundance of talent available that the other top nations do. A fairly reasonable statement.

I think my knowledge of De Jong surpasses yours seeing as I have seen every game he has played this year (50+) and I'm guessing you watched him play a handful of times, if even.

But then again, I don't see how anybody could take you seriously when you continually have called him a terrible passer of the ball despite everything pointing to the opposite.

Any player playing in the top leagues with a pass accuracy of 91.4% couldn't be a terrible passer of the ball. And if you had watched him play as much a I have, you'd also know that he doesn't just pass it backwards or complete 2 yards passes - he regularly sets up attacks and picks out solid medium-ranged passes every game.

I honestly have never seen somebody argue their points so much with such little weight to back them up :eek:

Corholio

Will Aguero be a certain starter for Argentina, does he usually play with or instead of Higuain?