England Squad.

[S-Clarke]

Well, it's not like Alpine to get it horribly wrong, is it?

[The Kraken]

Well, it's not like Alpine to get it horribly wrong, is it?

 

I don't know why he cares actually; he so often says he doesn't actually support the national side.

[The9]

I'll probably get hammered for this but you do realise its about building a team to compete in tournements? However good lambert might be the reality is he's going to be 32 at the next tournament and this will probably be the only one he has any chance of playing in. International football isn't just about throwing the most in form 11 players in the country on a pitch and hoping they perform, then doing the same 3 months later, right the way through to a tournemment final.As much as I rate Rickie I wouldn't pick him either.

 

Quite. He has a tiny chance of getting a call up even if he scores 25 goals this season, which he won't.

 

FWIW I wouldn't pick Carroll either, I think he was abysmal during the Euros with anything below waist height and also offers limited options.

 

Makes sense to choose the young players at big clubs with big game experience who can score goals and grow into the team for me.

 

Of course the long and short of it is many of them are not really interested in doing anything for England and simply don't try hard enough when on international duty - but who's to say whether players of lesser ability in good form who ARE motivated might not be a better option ? The media would be on Hodgson's case immediately if he tried anything like that though.

Edited 4 October, 2012 by The9

[alpine_saint]

No, he really hasn't

 

 

 

Of course he played it conservative. He would rightly have been utterly rinsed by choosing a new batch of players he'd barely even seen and had playing for him. who are the amazing young players he's left out?

 

 

Carroll was always going to get a call-up; it was either him or Crouch. I personally wouldn't ever pick Crouch for turning his back on England during the summer, so I've got no bother with that. Though I wouldn't have minded seeing one extra striker called to the 4 there now, and RL would be a prime candidate.

 

This post is just so much rubbish.

 

In my opinion he has been a disaster for England, in yours he hasnt. Impasse. Lets see if England qualify for Rio and how they perform when they get there to see who has proven right.

 

I dont get why playing conservative is so bloody obvious in your mind. He was brought in at the last minute due to months of FA procrastination, there was absolutely no expectation, he was shielded from the fall-out of a poor tournament performance. We were never going to win it, the current crop of players have failed so many times and also would be long-in-the-tooth by Rio, he had NOTHING to lose.

 

Another exercise about something being so obvious in your mind re Carroll. Why was he always going to ge the call up ? Because he played for a top 4 (maybe that should read top 15) club ? Its his sort of limited thinking (and yours) that holds the England team back.

 

I havent got anything "horribly wrong" - I do find it hillarious when S-Clarke makes these statements when actually he is absolutely clueless; I especially enjoyed his sneering over the summer about stopping the bedwetting because our new defence MUST be on the way.

 

Oh, and maybe if the England team selection was based on MERIT rather than club affiliation, it might get my support (and probably that of many others) back; I would have thought that point was dazzlingly obvious.

[The Kraken]

What a strange and angry rant.

[THEVMAN]

I surpose a small crumb of comfort is the near fit Jack Wilshire coming back hopefuly to replace part of an ailing centre midfield and add something different.

[max_saints]

I'll probably get hammered for this but you do realise its about building a team to compete in tournements? However good lambert might be the reality is he's going to be 32 at the next tournament and this will probably be the only one he has any chance of playing in. International football isn't just about throwing the most in form 11 players in the country on a pitch and hoping they perform, then doing the same 3 months later, right the way through to a tournemment final.As much as I rate Rickie I wouldn't pick him either.

 

not trying to hammer you or anything but lambert is 30 this year and will only be 32 come 2014. I understand your point of building of a team for the future but right now England should be looking at building a team for 2014 and if so why not rickie? I'm sure Spain and Italy did not say lets not pick senna and pirlo for their respective euro tournaments and they did exceptional at ages of 32 and 33! that's not to say rickie is at their standard but neither is the likes of Carroll and wellbeck?

 

building a team, especially in this early stage, should be about having a good idea of eho are the better players from the entire pool of players you can pick from and then work on the team aspect closer to the tournament. so at this early stage, with a game against San Marino, it is reasonable to say rickie deserves a chance to show what he can provide to this team building process?

[tajjuk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19830762

 

Interesting comments from Holt and I think he has got it spot on. England selection policy is very narrowed and picking the supposed 'big names' when they are unfit or not in form has continually failed to be anything but average. We have in every major tournament got about as far as we probably should have. Leaving Ricky Lambert aside, Nathan Dyer is a good example, he had a good season last year and has started this season brilliantly, yet Milner who isn't a regular for his club and wasn't last year gets in, despite the fact he has done f-all in an England shirt.

 

Whilst Roy hasn't been a 'disaster' as Alpine put it, he has done pretty much the same as every England manager before him and pick the same players who fail to do much, and pretty much restricts his selections to the top 6 unless injuries force him to look elsewhere. Alpine is also correct that Euro 2012 was an opportunity missed, he had 'carte blanche', no expectations, late into the job, no way he was going to be sacked. Yet same old faces, same boring style, same standard england result.

 

I'll probably get hammered for this but you do realise its about building a team to compete in tournements? However good lambert might be the reality is he's going to be 32 at the next tournament and this will probably be the only one he has any chance of playing in. International football isn't just about throwing the most in form 11 players in the country on a pitch and hoping they perform, then doing the same 3 months later, right the way through to a tournemment final.As much as I rate Rickie I wouldn't pick him either.

 

The presence of Frank Lampard (34) Steven Gerrard (32) Carrick (31) Cole (31) and Defoe (30 in two days) kind of destroys your point. None of these players are likely going to be able to play in Euro 2016, it's debatable that a 34 four year old Gerrard or a 36 year old lampard at 2014 is a good idea. Yet they are part of our qualifying team, if the team was full of sub-30 year olds then maybe, but if the likes of Carrick and Defoe are going to be part of the team for 2014, despite never really doing that well there is no argument that a 30 year old Rickie Lambert couldn't be part of that team.

 

Teddy Sheringham went to the world cup in 2002 at 36, he started his international career at 27 and didn't become a regular until he was 29-30 yet went on to win 51 caps. There are quite a few similarities in style between Sheringham and Lambert in my opinion and seeing as like SHeringham, Lambert has no real pace his game won't really diminish with age, in fact at the age of 30 he is clearly getting better, there is no real reason to think that he still couldn't be good (or even better) at 34.

Edited 5 October, 2012 by tajjuk

[Dangermouth]

^

 

So obvious, you wonder why no one else has made the point on the BBC page where so many are slating Holt until you realise it's because they're all Manc/LFC fans or just idiots brought up on a diet of MOTD highlights.

 

Really can't see why people think that as soon as you hit 30 you're over the hill. Footballer's legs used to be considered 'gone' at about 33/4 so they retired then but that's since increased as we all know and didn't even WGS play up until he was knocking on 40?

 

Absolutely no reason to have not tried the 30 year olds in friendlies/brought them along in an increased squad and seen what they can do. Otherwise, with the "thinking" most seem to portray England should always be in a stage of development until they have 11 25-29 year olds and then they've 'arrived' and then they win (because they're England) and then they go to the knacker's yard. It's a bit like the argument that players have to earn loads while they're a footballer because they won't be forever, but funnily enough it's not as though they retire and then die - in which case they don't need the cash anyway - so after they retire they'll just have to get a job like the rest of the world. Personally in terms of movement and linking play, RL has more to offer than many who've played for England or who are now eligible. That's ignoring his scoring ability and surely Saints' fans should know more about him than other clubs' fans who probably will just see him as a big lump who wins headers aka Andy Carroll?