England WC Squad

Lukker-

Wilshere has also had a poor season and injuries look to have taken their toll.

I think he's lost that yard of pace so that detracts from his dynamism. I don't think he has the skillset to control the game with his passing and he doesn't read it very well either.

I'd have Gerrard over him in the team any day.

Lukker-

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I'd start Oxlade-Chamberlain over Wilshere every day of the week. Hodgeson probably won't though.

Very odd that Gibbs hasn't been in the shakeup for LB. Far more proven than Shaw, and has had very good games against some of the best club sides in Europe as well as in the Premier League.

Shaw has played every game this season as far as I know.

How many has Gibbs played in? I rate him, but he's a crock.

EuropeanSon

Lukker- wrote: »

Shaw has played every game this season as far as I know.

How many has Gibbs played in? I rate him, but he's a crock.

He's played 39 games this season. Hardly a crock. More than most Liverpool players.

Actually, more than Shaw too. Shaw has only played 36 games.

In all competitions, for both of those stats, obviously.

Beefy78

Pro. F wrote: »

I rate Wilshire a lot. He's the only CM they've taken that I'd rate highly. But he's injury prone and just back from an injury so who knows how he will get on.

I don't know how you can watch Britton so much and think that Wilshire can do everything Britton can. Wilshire is nowhere near as good defensively as Britton.

Edit: Regarding Britton's supposedly mediocre season. When Loudrup took over he made Swansea defend deeper and that made Britton's defensive role far less important. He was still their best player for helping them play their way out of trouble. When Monk replace Loudrup he allowed Swansea to push up more when defending, so Britton went back to being the key midfielder when defending to go along with what he was doing in possession. Swansea had a poor season overall, but that was down to the club being poorly managed (mostly by Loudrup, but Monk hasn't been great either). Britton has continued to be their best and most important player and he hasn't lost any of his skill or athletic ability. He's still one of the best deep central midfielders in the league and England still haven't brought any good DCMs with them.

I was hoping to get in again before you replied I just want to stress that I don't make a point about how often I've watched Britton as if to say that that gives my opinion any more credence than yours. The point I was attempting to make there was more that I like Britton as a player, have liked him for years and would love to see him in the squad for the same reason I love to see Rickie Lambert in the squad and said on here at the time that England should have taken him in 2012. It's an amazing story and an amazing message to players in lower league clubs. But even I, from a biased standpoint, wouldn't take Britton.

Mediocre was possibly harsh but I do think he has declined as a player in the past two years. If he were to have had a chance it would have been two years ago. I think England have a number of options now.

It's all about opinions though.

Beefy78

Presuming England line up something like:

Hart

Johnson Cahill Jagielka Baines

Wilshere Gerrard Henderson

Sterling Sturridge Rooney

That would compare to our last team in 2012 which was

Hart

Johnson Terry Lescott Cole

Milner Gerrard Parker Young

Rooney Welbeck

and 2010:

James

Johnson Terry Upson Cole

Barry

Milner Gerrard Lampard

Rooney Defoe

In my biased opinion I think we're coming along quite nicely. Other than the back four anyway.

Utopia Parkway

Read today that Walcott still hasn't played at a World Cup despite going to one first when he was 17.

2006 selected but didn't play.
2010 not selected.
2014 injured.

Will be 29 when he gets his next (and maybe last) chance.

WoollyRedHat

I am pie wrote: »

Disagree strongly, but i think it's not worth taking this further if you seriously believe Britton to be a superior player. Again, the accusations you're levelling at gerrards don't hold up.

I think it's fair to say he adapted quite well to the role, I wouldn't say he excelled, considering the amount of goals conceeded... but it will be a whole different challenge for him to play this role in the England side and will be a good marker of how far he has come in the new role.

Is Gerrard perfectly poised to protect the defence ? We'll see over the summer, considering England will not and can not have the same counter-attacking flair that Liverpool had this season in Rio during the summer.

the incredible pudding

Gerrard doesn't really protect the defence too much in his role at pool at the moment and can't really do that job. It's more of a Pirlo type role, in that he needs players around him to be energetic enough to compensate for his own lack of mobility while he sits back, takes the ball from the defenders and pings diagonal balls to the flanks. He's always available for the pass and has become pretty good at finding space for himself and for the second half of this season he's excelled at the role.

Utopia Parkway

the incredible pudding wrote: »

Gerrard doesn't really protect the defence too much in his role at pool at the moment and can't really do that job. It's more of a Pirlo type role, in that he needs players around him to be energetic enough to compensate for his own lack of mobility while he sits back, takes the ball from the defenders and pings diagonal balls to the flanks. He's always available for the pass and has become pretty good at finding space for himself and for the second half of this season he's excelled at the role.

Henderson does a lot of the running and closing down for him at Liverpool. That said Gerrard has played well there in general. The only time I felt he was caught out of position was for Palace's 3rd goal in the 3-3 when neither himself or Lucas seemed to be sitting in front of the Liverpool penalty area when Murray came out to chest on that ball.

Gerrard does the old Alonso role really in taking the ball off the defenders and starting the attacks.

Son Of A Vidic

Mars Bar wrote: »

I'd be very surprised to see Cleverley on the plane to Brazil.

But I certainly hope he is on a plane out of United.

The Volt

Delighted for Stones. Future England Captain there.

kronsington

very interesting england squad. i know it pretty much picked itself but its great to see the likes of barkley, henderson and sterling get in above young, carrick and cleverley. defence isnt that hot and id be very wary if they lost cahill or jags. smart brining along a veteran like lamps too. i think roy got it right. theo is a massive loss for them - as he was for my beloved Gooners :mad:

Shanotheslayer

The Volt wrote: »

Delighted for Stones. Future England Captain there.

He's only back up?

NIMAN

Good to see so many youngsters in there, I would say that youth might be a good thing in the heat and humidity.

Having said that, Hodgson under no great pressure this time as I think the countrys expectations are the lowest they have ever been entering a WC. I think this team might do ok.

LuckyLloyd

SlickRic wrote: »

the squad is pretty spot-on. i'd only argue Barry should be in the squad to cover Gerrard.

it's a pity Hodgson will probably try to shoe-horn them into a system that won't work.

a team of:

---

Hart

---

Johnson

---

Jagielka

---

Cahill

---

Baines

---

Gerrard

---

---

Henderson

---

Lallana/Barkley

---

Sterling

---

Rooney

---

Sturridge

should be all kinds of exciting. pace, power, goals.

but it won't be.

The ommission of Cole is a laughable error on Hodgson's part. Mourinho may not have picked him and the media may want to pretend that he's been poor when on the pitch this year but anyone who watched him in the first leg versus Athletico and against Liverpool at Anfield would know that he is the man for the task at hand. Baines isn't a patch on him in terms of big game performances.

LuckyLloyd

GavRedKing wrote: »

Terry was never going to go, even had Hodgson pushed for his inclusion I'd say the Fa would have vetoed it.

Shame really, well for England, hes their best CB and the Cahill - Terry partnership is tried and trusted this year.

Cahill has improved his game since making the step up and Jagielka is another good CB but either of them get injured and they're fairly f**ked IMO.

The FA and Hodgson should have gone cap in hand to Sir John Terrance Lionheart and begged him to join the squad. He's enjoyed a brilliant season and is head and shoulders above the rest of their defensive options.

Annoys me that I have to argue the case of Terry and Cole tbh, but as much as you may loathe them it would be churlish not to recognise their ability to perform their best in the big games.

glued

Is Gerrard sitting deep England's best option? He had Parker playing behind him at the Euros in which he was very good. I know he plays there for Liverpool but that's with Suarez in the team.

Hart
Smalling Cahill Terry Cole
Jones Henderson
Gerrard
Sterling Rooney Sturridge

Jones has done really well as a holding player for United and was spectacular against Real Madrid last season (I'm struggling for alternatives bar Barry who doesn't have the legs for that job). I'd have Smalling at RB just because England need to be solid defensively. The trio of Jones, Henderson and Gerrard (just in front of the other two) would work well together. Then England would be set up to break on the counter with Sterling and Sturridge out wide with Gerrard supplying the main ball.

If England want to go out an attack the bigger sides then they will be screwed IMO. They don't have the players.

Beefy78

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The ommission of Cole is a laughable error on Hodgson's part

It isn't laughable. I think it is a mistake but it is a mistake that a lot of people would have made by the looks of the reaction from fans and pundits. I still think Cole is the best left back but Baines has had a great few seasons and is ready.

The hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

bucketybuck

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Annoys me that I have to argue the case of Terry and Cole tbh, but as much as you may loathe them it would be churlish not to recognise their ability to perform their best in the big games.

The thing about performing in bigger games is irrelevant to be honest, England aren't winning the world cup or winning the bigger games whether Terry is there or not. I suspect privately Hodgson knows this, which is why he has gone for the younger players where he can.

GBXI

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The ommission of Cole is a laughable error on Hodgson's part. Mourinho may not have picked him and the media may want to pretend that he's been poor when on the pitch this year but anyone who watched him in the first leg versus Athletico and against Liverpool at Anfield would know that he is the man for the task at hand. Baines isn't a patch on him in terms of big game performances.

The omission isn't laughable at all. Very few people are even mentioning it, and any ones that are talking about it are saying they'd have brought Cole instead of Shaw as back-up for Baines. Baines is England's first choice LB for some time now, he is more of a threat going forward, is excellent from set-pieces, and is 4 years Cole's junior. The argument for bringing Cole rather than Shaw is a fair one but Shaw is unlikely to play poorly in the even more unlikely event that Baines gets injured/suspended.

Beefy78

GBXI wrote: »

Baines is England's first choice LB for some time now,

Not sure about that... Cole started the first two qualifiers of this season. He was then injured for the two games at Wembley so Baines got in and Cole has started two of the three friendlies since (the most recent two).

Shanotheslayer

Beefy78 wrote: »

Not sure about that... Cole started the first two qualifiers of this season. He was then injured for the two games at Wembley so Baines got in and Cole has started two of the three friendlies since (the most recent two).

Well Cole is hardly first choice if he's not going to World Cup...

Beefy78

And Baines has hardly been England's first choice "for some time" if Cole has been picked over him pretty much every time they've both been oicked this season.

Obviously Baines is first choice now.

LuckyLloyd

Beefy78 wrote: »

It isn't laughable. I think it is a mistake but it is a mistake that a lot of people would have made by the looks of the reaction from fans and pundits. I still think Cole is the best left back but Baines has had a great few seasons and is ready.

The hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

GBXI wrote: »

The omission isn't laughable at all. Very few people are even mentioning it, and any ones that are talking about it are saying they'd have brought Cole instead of Shaw as back-up for Baines. Baines is England's first choice LB for some time now, he is more of a threat going forward, is excellent from set-pieces, and is 4 years Cole's junior. The argument for bringing Cole rather than Shaw is a fair one but Shaw is unlikely to play poorly in the even more unlikely event that Baines gets injured/suspended.

Fans and pundits are wrong and blindly share the same incorrect view shocker.

bucketybuck wrote: »

The thing about performing in bigger games is irrelevant to be honest, England aren't winning the world cup or winning the bigger games whether Terry is there or not. I suspect privately Hodgson knows this, which is why he has gone for the younger players where he can.

It's the World Cup. They are all huge games and the attitude within the English camp should be that they can get out of the group and give anyone a rattle. If it isn't the manager is squarely to blame.

GBXI

Beefy78 wrote: »

Not sure about that... Cole started the first two qualifiers of this season. He was then injured for the two games at Wembley so Baines got in and Cole has started two of the three friendlies since (the most recent two).

'Some time now' is incorrect, your right. Cole did start a good few qualifiers but Baines started the more recent ones. I think the vast majority of pundits and fans would pick Baines ahead of Cole, then it was a shout between Cole and Shaw - 6 of one, half a dozen of the other for me. Nice to see a young up-and-coming player get picked though.

bucketybuck

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's the World Cup. They are all huge games and the attitude within the English camp should be that they can get out of the group and give anyone a rattle. If it isn't the manager is squarely to blame.

Thats the attitude of the jingoistic English media, but any objective assessment clearly indicates that England don't have anywhere near the quality to make an impact at this world cup.

Any team can hope that they could pull of a Greece and go on an amazing cup run, and it may even happen, but I would have no issue with Hodgson privately realising that it probably isn't going to happen and picking his squad appropriately. Ie: with the long term in mind.

Picking Cole and Terry with the aim of maybe winning one of those "big" games is ultimately futile, and in my opinion Hodgson has done the right thing.

glued

GBXI wrote: »

'Some time now' is incorrect, your right. Cole did start a good few qualifiers but Baines started the more recent ones. I think the vast majority of pundits and fans would pick Baines ahead of Cole, then it was a shout between Cole and Shaw - 6 of one, half a dozen of the other for me. Nice to see a young up-and-coming player get picked though.

Qualifiers:

Player|Apps|Mins
Baines|7| 567
Bertrand|1| 17
Cole|4| 316
Shaw|0|0
Gibbs |0|0

After the Qualifiers England played 3 friendlies:

Player |Apps| Mins
Baines|1|90
Bertrand|0|0
Cole|1|98
Shaw|1|45
Gibbs|1|37

eh i dunno

Just saw Spain announced their squad. Wow compared to the England squad

Beefy78

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats the attitude of the jingoistic English media, but any objective assessment clearly indicates that England don't have anywhere near the quality to make an impact at this world cup.

Any team can hope that they could pull of a Greece and go on an amazing cup run, and it may even happen, but I would have no issue with Hodgson privately realising that it probably isn't going to happen and picking his squad appropriately. Ie: with the long term in mind.

Picking Cole and Terry with the aim of maybe winning one of those "big" games is ultimately futile, and in my opinion Hodgson has done the right thing.

That's the attitude that had Ireland turn up at Euro 2012 for a holiday.

I never want to see England go into a tournament not doing everything they can to win the thing. There may be 20 better sides. There may be 30 better sides. But get through the group and it is a knock-out cup competition. Ride your luck there, be good at penalties and who knows what might happen.

Any manager of any of the 32 countries not trying to win the thing should be slung out of their job.

There's nothing bigger than a World Cup and there's no point at all in building to a future, inferior, tournament but I don't think Hodgon is doing that anyway. He just happens to be in a position where the bulk of players under serious consideration are a little younger.

rob316

eh i dunno wrote: »

Just saw Spain announced their squad. Wow compared to the England squad

Its ridiculous, so much experience and a huge winning streak for club and country in most of that squad. 7 have to be dropped from that still!

bucketybuck

Beefy78 wrote: »

That's the attitude that had Ireland turn up at Euro 2012 for a holiday.

I never said turn up for a holiday.

Ireland at Euro 2012 are a good example actually. Trap went with all the older players that he felt loyal towards, they still didn't achieve f*ck all and the whole experience was a wasted opportunity. They were never going to win it, and bringing the older, more experienced and supposedly better players didn't change that one jot.

Ireland as a team would have been better served by different selections for that tournament, so I can't really get too worked up about Hodgson taking a different approach.

Beefy78

Regardless of whether Trap had picked the old players or the kids it wouldn't have made any difference because he, the squad, the media and the fans were all just happy to be there. It was a horrible attitude to have, in my opinion.

These tournaments don't necessarily come around very often.

McGrath5

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The ommission of Cole is a laughable error on Hodgson's part. Mourinho may not have picked him and the media may want to pretend that he's been poor when on the pitch this year but anyone who watched him in the first leg versus Athletico and against Liverpool at Anfield would know that he is the man for the task at hand. Baines isn't a patch on him in terms of big game performances.

Totally agree, leaving Cole out is a big mistake imo.

Does anybody else feel that Danny Welbeck is doing very well to be included?

bucketybuck

Beefy78 wrote: »

Regardless of whether Trap had picked the old players or the kids it wouldn't have made any difference because he, the squad, the media and the fans were all just happy to be there. It was a horrible attitude to have, in my opinion.

These tournaments don't necessarily come around very often.

Then I'm not sure what you are arguing against, because I am not trying to say that England should just be happy to be there. Whatever squad they pick will rightly go there to play to their maximum.

I saying that their chances of success are marginal at best, so picking the young players over the old will actually have little to no effect on those chances of success anyway. So the right choice is to pick the younger players.

bucketybuck

McGrath5 wrote: »

Does anybody else feel that Danny Welbeck is doing very well to be included?

No, Wellbeck should be a definite inclusion in my opinion, he has the ability there to be an important player for England in more than one role if required.

Phil Jones and Chris Smalling on the other hand are two very lucky boys, their performances in no way merit a world cup spot.

Shanotheslayer

bucketybuck wrote: »

No, Wellbeck should be a definite inclusion in my opinion, he has the ability there to be an important player for England in more than one role if required.

Phil Jones and Chris Smalling on the other hand are two very lucky boys, their performances in no way merit a world cup spot.

Welbeck shouldn't get a look in. If Sturridge/Rooney are to be subbed off, Lambert is the man you want. I'd of had Carroll ahead of Welbeck. How Smalling/Jones got ahead of Stones is beyond me.

bucketybuck

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Welbeck shouldn't get a look in. If Sturridge/Rooney are to be subbed off, Lambert is the man you want. I'd of had Carroll ahead of Welbeck. How Smalling/Jones got ahead of Stones is beyond me.

Lambert is who you want if it was the seventies and you just want somebody in the box. But it isn't the seventies, and you don't want Andy Carroll playing out on the wing in a support role, or Lambert trying to counter attack from his own half. Instead you want Wellbeck, who can do all of those things.

Shanotheslayer

bucketybuck wrote: »

Lambert is who you want if it was the seventies and you just want somebody in the box. But it isn't the seventies, and you don't want Andy Carroll playing out on the wing in a support role, or Lambert trying to counter attack from his own half. Instead you want Wellbeck, who can do all of those things.

He can do all of those things brutally. He's terrible. He's not a striker and he's not a winger, he's a filler. He's a hail Mary. Just off the top of my head, one on one with Neuer(One of beat goalkeepers in world) and he tries to dink him? Just bury the thing, he's awful. With Carroll they'd have an option to cross for decent header and as many say Lambert is a good finished and can take a Penalty. If England got into Penos. Who would you want Welbeck or Lambert? One on One situation Welbeck or Lambert? As for Welbeck on the wing? Oxy,Milner,Sterling,Lallana. He won't get a look in. And if formation was changed, Baines/Johnson can always go LWB and RWB

Lukker-

Welbeck is a player who can do a job, nothing more.

extra gravy

Not a Welbeck fan either. There seems to be this theory that he's an "instinctive" finisher i.e. that if he has too much time to think about it then he'll fcuk it up. That just says to me that he hasn't got a footballing brain. I think he's a limited player who's very lucky to be playing international football at all never mind going to a world cup.

Beefy78

Welbeck or Carroll/Welbeck or Lambert isn't 'like-for-like' anyway. If Welbeck plays it won't be through the middle, it'll be out wide in a three man attack.

Welbeck has done well for Hodgson and scored a few important goals.

gucci

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The ommission of Cole is a laughable error on Hodgson's part. Mourinho may not have picked him and the media may want to pretend that he's been poor when on the pitch this year but anyone who watched him in the first leg versus Athletico and against Liverpool at Anfield would know that he is the man for the task at hand. Baines isn't a patch on him in terms of big game performances.

Likewise you could argue that in the second leg Vs Athletico he was poor, which may have been because he was a)targeted as a weak point or b)hadnt the fitness in the tank to do the 3 big games in a 7/8 days, which is the sort of condition he would have been required to be in at a world cup.

Paully D

It's not too far away from the best they could bring IMO.

The changes I'd make - I'd have brought Curtis Davies, who has been immense for Hull this season, instead of Chris Smalling. Phil Jones shouldn't be in there either but he can be average across the back four so that's why Hodgson is bringing him. I'd have also left out Rickie Lambert for Andy Carroll. On his performances alone Lambert deserves to be going, but I'd look at it from the perspective that neither will start barring a catastrophe and Carroll is the better option to bring on if chasing the game, needing to change it up a bit and lump the ball forward. I'd have left out Lampard for someone who can protect the back four, so Barry or Carrick.

From what is available of what Hodgson picked I'd go:

Hart

Johnson Jagielka Cahill Baines

Gerrard Henderson

---

Lallana

---

Sterling

---

Sturridge

Rooney

I think England will get out of their group. They play Italy in the first game in one of the hottest areas of Brazil, a slow, boring 0-0 or 1-1 draw will be the order of the day there IMO. Uruguay are vastly overrated apart from their striking options, definite point there for England at least and they'll win by a couple of goals against Costa Rica. 5 points would probably be enough to get out of the group as I think Italy will beat Uruguay and Costa Rica, but England could well get 6 or 7 IMO.

Last 16 they'd face the winner/runner-up of group D which would be Colombia, Japan, Greece or Ivory Coast. I like Colombia and tip them to well in this tournament, but England have nothing to fear against any of those possible opponents. QF's are a different story as they start coming into contact with Spain, Brazil and Holland.

Lots of hypotheticals there obviously.

TL;DR - the England squad is close to being the best that Hodgson could have picked. Their group is not as tough as is being made out IMO and if they progress from their group they face a relatively kind last 16 game. They'll likely bow out at the QF stage which is consistent with the standard of their team.

jdooley28

I wouldn't fancy thier chances at right back anyway, can actually see Milner ending up playing in the RB slot at some stage over the 3/4 games, Johnson will be found out and Jones/Smalling offer littler going forward at RB

Liam O

extra gravy wrote: »

Not a Welbeck fan either. There seems to be this theory that he's an "instinctive" finisher i.e. that if he has too much time to think about it then he'll fcuk it up. That just says to me that he hasn't got a footballing brain. I think he's a limited player who's very lucky to be playing international football at all never mind going to a world cup.

Yeah it's not like he's shown that he can perform in a big tournament in the past and shown this season that he can get goals off the bench which he may have to do. I'd say he might push Sterling for a place but if he's going with the Liverpool approach Sterling would obviously be the better option.

keeponhurling

But do England have any forwards better than Welbeck?

Not really, Welbz scored goals when played up front by United this season, and for England in the past. But he's good if you play on the counter attack.

I reckon his inclusion is a no-brainer.

Shanotheslayer

keeponhurling wrote: »

But do England have any forwards better than Welbeck?

Not really, Welbz scored goals when played up front by United this season, and for England in the past. But he's good if you play on the counter attack.

I reckon his inclusion is a no-brainer.

Sturridge,Rooney?

Skylinehead

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Sturridge,Rooney?

I assume he means not in the squad.

Gringo180

Ive had a nice bet on England finishing last in there group at 10/1. Probably the worst Enhland squad I have ever laid eyes on. 2 defeats and a draw v Costa Rica I reckon.

Pro. F

Gringo180 wrote: »

Ive had a nice bet on England finishing last in there group at 10/1. Probably the worst Enhland squad I have ever laid eyes on. 2 defeats and a draw v Costa Rica I reckon.

You really fancy Costa Rica to do better than England in the group? I don't know much about Costa Rica at all myself. Have you been watching them?