A pointless friendly that gets made even more meaningless as players are pulled from the squad at an alarming rate by their clubs............... besides, they've still got to win back my trust after the shambles last summer.
Sorry, I actually thought it was much more than a pointless friendly
1. It was played under a roof - we have a game against Wales coming up under a roof
2. It was an opportunity to see some of the players of the future like Wilshire
3. We saw some excellent performances by Wilshire, Hart, Young, Bent and Parker
4. It was a surprisingly good game that showed the future is brighter.
For me it was telling. Lumphard played better alongside Wilshire than he and Gerrard have ever done. For the first time, they seemed to get right the "I'll sit and you go forward" partnership which has never worked for him with Gerrard.
Parker showed why he won player of the year at Wet Spam. Frankly he should be a permanent fixture in the squad, if not the team now. He is clearly better at the hard tackling defensive/holding role than any other Englishman currently playing.
I agree with Bing - an enjoyable game, Wilshere looked good going forward, but playing in the Makalele role doesn't suit him - he simply doesn't look like a defensive midfielder, but the experience will do him good. On this basis England have the showings of a decent footballing side and as Bing says with no Gerrard the ball flowed through the midfield. Bent had his best game for England, as did Parker (better than Wilshere in the holding role), Ashley Young looked sharp when he came on and even Glen Johnston looked like a footballer.
Add Defoe, Carroll, Ferdinand and Gerrard to that squad and Engalnd have a decent squad and with the younger players coming through the nucleus of the next generation.
Perhaps the best player though was Christain Eriksen - playing in an attacking midfield role for Denmark.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]Sorry, I actually thought it was much more than a pointless friendly
1. It was played under a roof - we have a game against Wales coming up under a roof
2. It was an opportunity to see some of the players of the future like Wilshire
3. We saw some excellent performances by Wilshire, Hart, Young, Bent and Parker
4. It was a surprisingly good game that showed the future is brighter.
For me it was telling. Lumphard played better alongside Wilshire than he and Gerrard have ever done. For the first time, they seemed to get right the "I'll sit and you go forward" partnership which has never worked for him with Gerrard.
Parker showed why he won player of the year at Wet Spam. Frankly he should be a permanent fixture in the squad, if not the team now. He is clearly better at the hard tackling defensive/holding role than any other Englishman currently playing.
why is playing under a roof an issue - did we make sure we didnt kick the ball high up !!!!
it is like friendlies beofre a world cup - we have got Trinidad in our group, better arrange a friendly against Jamaica then. Why? If you are playing Arsenal would you book a friendly against Fulham to prepare for the game just because they are a nearby team.
[cite]Posted By: MrOneLung[/cite]why is playing under a roof an issue - did we make sure we didnt kick the ball high up !!!!
I assume you are joking? Capello specifically asked for this friendly so they could play under the roof because our next competitive game is in a similar stadium. Clearly there is a different atmosphere to get acclimatised. Very sensible preparation imho.
[cite]Posted By: MrOneLung[/cite]it is like friendlies beofre a world cup - we have got Trinidad in our group, better arrange a friendly against Jamaica then. Why? If you are playing Arsenal would you book a friendly against Fulham to prepare for the game just because they are a nearby team.
So lets not bother to have friendlies at all then? Just turn up from their clubs a few days before a big game and go straight to it.
[cite]Posted By: MrOneLung[/cite]why is playing under a roof an issue - did we make sure we didnt kick the ball high up !!!!
I assume you are joking? Capello specifically asked for this friendly so they could play under the roof because our next competitive game is in a similar stadium. Clearly there is a different atmosphere to get acclimatised. Very sensible preparation imho.
[cite]Posted By: MrOneLung[/cite]it is like friendlies beofre a world cup - we have got Trinidad in our group, better arrange a friendly against Jamaica then. Why? If you are playing Arsenal would you book a friendly against Fulham to prepare for the game just because they are a nearby team.
So lets not bother to have friendlies at all then? Just turn up from their clubs a few days before a big game and go straight to it.
I'm all for friendlies if they're not de-valued by the clubs pulling their players out of the squad every 5 minutes...........yes, it's great to see other players such as wilshire etc given a chance (but would capello have picked him/them if he had all his regulars avaliable? i think not..............
Might be wrong but I thought that there was a fifa ruling that stadiums with retractable roofs had to keep them open for the duration of the game?
I just dont see the difference in playing with the roof closed or open.
less wind/no rain should mean easier to play.
I wasnt slagging off freindlies per se, I was commenting on the fact that each time we are due to play against a team from Caribean/Africa in a tournament we book to play a neighbouring country as if that had some kind of relevance.
If i was manager I would request that friendlies are only against the top 20 ranked teams.
This would give better understanding of where the team is at, and we would be less afraid of them when we met in the tournaments.
[cite]Posted By: MrOneLung[/cite]I wasnt slagging off freindlies per se, I was commenting on the fact that each time we are due to play against a team from Caribean/Africa in a tournament we book to play a neighbouring country as if that had some kind of relevance.
I understand that but who should we play then or doesn't it matter because its more about us than them?
I don't really understand what the substance with your beef actually is. I think that every team plays a different way and so when chosing internationals we could
1. Play the best teams in the world (if they would play us) because we want to test ourselves against the best?
2. Play teams in similar environmental conditions - e.g at altitude, ground conditions temperature or humidity?
3. Play a team who have some similar characteristics to teams we are going to play in tournaments?
4. Play some cannon fodder so that our strikers can get used to scoring goals, and our defense used to clean sheets?
5. Play anyone/anywhere because it doesn't matter?
Seems to me that our International friendlies are generally chosen for the first three reasons, two of which at least, applied to the Denmark game. At least that is better than the last two criteria, which is all you have left.
Comments
That was my point...... No one was interested!
1. It was played under a roof - we have a game against Wales coming up under a roof
2. It was an opportunity to see some of the players of the future like Wilshire
3. We saw some excellent performances by Wilshire, Hart, Young, Bent and Parker
4. It was a surprisingly good game that showed the future is brighter.
For me it was telling. Lumphard played better alongside Wilshire than he and Gerrard have ever done. For the first time, they seemed to get right the "I'll sit and you go forward" partnership which has never worked for him with Gerrard.
Parker showed why he won player of the year at Wet Spam. Frankly he should be a permanent fixture in the squad, if not the team now. He is clearly better at the hard tackling defensive/holding role than any other Englishman currently playing.
Add Defoe, Carroll, Ferdinand and Gerrard to that squad and Engalnd have a decent squad and with the younger players coming through the nucleus of the next generation.
Perhaps the best player though was Christain Eriksen - playing in an attacking midfield role for Denmark.
why is playing under a roof an issue - did we make sure we didnt kick the ball high up !!!!
it is like friendlies beofre a world cup - we have got Trinidad in our group, better arrange a friendly against Jamaica then. Why? If you are playing Arsenal would you book a friendly against Fulham to prepare for the game just because they are a nearby team.
I assume you are joking? Capello specifically asked for this friendly so they could play under the roof because our next competitive game is in a similar stadium. Clearly there is a different atmosphere to get acclimatised. Very sensible preparation imho.
So lets not bother to have friendlies at all then? Just turn up from their clubs a few days before a big game and go straight to it.
I'm all for friendlies if they're not de-valued by the clubs pulling their players out of the squad every 5 minutes...........yes, it's great to see other players such as wilshire etc given a chance (but would capello have picked him/them if he had all his regulars avaliable? i think not..............
Might be wrong but I thought that there was a fifa ruling that stadiums with retractable roofs had to keep them open for the duration of the game?
less wind/no rain should mean easier to play.
I wasnt slagging off freindlies per se, I was commenting on the fact that each time we are due to play against a team from Caribean/Africa in a tournament we book to play a neighbouring country as if that had some kind of relevance.
If i was manager I would request that friendlies are only against the top 20 ranked teams.
This would give better understanding of where the team is at, and we would be less afraid of them when we met in the tournaments.
I understand that but who should we play then or doesn't it matter because its more about us than them?
I don't really understand what the substance with your beef actually is. I think that every team plays a different way and so when chosing internationals we could
1. Play the best teams in the world (if they would play us) because we want to test ourselves against the best?
2. Play teams in similar environmental conditions - e.g at altitude, ground conditions temperature or humidity?
3. Play a team who have some similar characteristics to teams we are going to play in tournaments?
4. Play some cannon fodder so that our strikers can get used to scoring goals, and our defense used to clean sheets?
5. Play anyone/anywhere because it doesn't matter?
Seems to me that our International friendlies are generally chosen for the first three reasons, two of which at least, applied to the Denmark game. At least that is better than the last two criteria, which is all you have left.