Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,071
It must be a sign of a good team, play absolutly ***** and still be unbeaten going into the second round
I can't wait till we have a good game
I can't wait till we have a good game
Big Kev said:COME ON ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!
I just hope McLaren has the balls to pick players that are playing well rather than pick the big names and squeeze them in to a formation that won't suit them.daz said:If he had scored 20 goals at Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea or Arsenal he would be there....
JohnnyG said:How are you mate?
Gooner14 said:I don't see the problem in taking Walcott, but he should be playing. However we could be going in to the 2nd phase with a half fit Rooney and a striker who is a forward (according to Liverpool fans)
Great
Weebull said:I don't think anyone can really say Walcott is crap, because unless they're hardcore Southampton fans that went to all the reserve games, I don't think he's played nearly enough for anyone to make a fair assesment of how good he is.
But that's the problem too. If all he's really played are said reserve matches, and now he's so highly rated to deserve an England place, why isn't he playing? Because we can see the abilities of Defoe/Bent/Others when we watch the prem, and to take Theo over them must therefore mean to Sven that he's better than those guys. And if that's the case, why not play him, because Defoe or Bent would have been just as good an option as Crouch to bring on when he did.
Silliness. But yeah, I might be a tiny bit glad he's getting the experience out there anyway.
memphisto said:1: Owen Injured. In a no threat game (were going through no mater the result) doesnt bring on walcott. (hardly going to bring him on in the final)
Needed to get a goal to be better for the rest of the tournament
2: Brings on crouch, who although admitedly plays a different type of midfield to Striker in the hole role, plays the same role as rooney.
Agreed should have brough Walcott on
3: Leaves beckham on the pitch who has been and was woeful.
He wasnt that bad!
4: brings off rooney who was trying and provided the only real spark and replaces with a midfielder.
He's nowhere near fully fit. He didnt exactly set the world alight. As you said it was a nothing game so why risk one of our best players just back from injury for 90mins.
5: gerrard came on and did well no doubt and i think the decision had to be made either to bring walcott on for crouch, lennon for Beckham or Gerrard for beckham, bringing rooney off was a non issue and in ehe end made us too defensive.
Erm no If he brough walcott on for Owen he could have swapped Crouchy for Rooney.
but credit is due and i got to say I though hargreaves was the best england player on the pitch, mopping up and doing the donkey work in midfield.
He wasnt that good.
BoomAM said:I see that a few people are starting to see why Hargreaves is thought of highly everywhere but here.
I personally thought that today, he was Englands best midfielder. He was everywhere, and battling for everything, tracking back, ect;
Just like i said, give him a full game, in his prefered position, and he'll perform more times than not.