It seems as though every tournament there is this whole "lets not worry about how far we get, just blood the kids in" attitude. Sorry, but this is the WORLD CUP. Blooding young players in should be left to U21/friendly matches, not the grandest stage of them all.
If we do take a load of youngsters and they fail then people still won't be happy.
Just take the best team, as if you were preparing for a stretch of league games. All this "blooding in" is nonsense when you consider the fact that these men/kids play in the biggest league in the world week in and week out.
actually this is the first time in as long as i can remember that people have been saying this. All the other times its "this is our year, the golden generation will come good" etc. I think its refreshing not putting too much pressure on ourselves and see how we do.
Agree
One the reasons we have failed in the past is that our players have so little tournament experience. We don't take U21 or other youth tournaments seriously (unlike other countries) and so when our younger players are picked for big tournaments they don't know what to expect, they haven't played many games together or with the manager. They don't improve as the tournaments go on (unlike Germany or Italy) and we go out as soon as we play a decent side.
We have to break that cycle. Spain and Germany both looked at their failures and realised that they needed to focus on young players and future tournaments not just the next game.
Yes, it is the world cup but we aren't going to win it with Lampard, Terry, Cole etc as we didn't win it with them when they were 4, 8, 12 years younger.
What we might do is start to build a team now for Euro '16 and World Cup '18
It seems as though every tournament there is this whole "lets not worry about how far we get, just blood the kids in" attitude. Sorry, but this is the WORLD CUP. Blooding young players in should be left to U21/friendly matches, not the grandest stage of them all.
If we do take a load of youngsters and they fail then people still won't be happy.
Just take the best team, as if you were preparing for a stretch of league games. All this "blooding in" is nonsense when you consider the fact that these men/kids play in the biggest league in the world week in and week out.
actually this is the first time in as long as i can remember that people have been saying this. All the other times its "this is our year, the golden generation will come good" etc. I think its refreshing not putting too much pressure on ourselves and see how we do.
Agree
One the reasons we have failed in the past is that our players have so little tournament experience. We don't take U21 or other youth tournaments seriously (unlike other countries) and so when our younger players are picked for big tournaments they don't know what to expect, they haven't played many games together or with the manager. They don't improve as the tournaments go on (unlike Germany or Italy) and we go out as soon as we play a decent side.
We have to break that cycle. Spain and Germany both looked at their failures and realised that they needed to focus on young players and future tournaments not just the next game.
Yes, it is the world cup but we aren't going to win it with Lampard, Terry, Cole etc as we didn't win it with them when they were 4, 8, 12 years younger.
What we might do is start to build a team now for Euro '16 and World Cup '18
I agree with this in principle, but it would take a very confident manager to drop all those that are going to be too old in two or four years as there is still an expectation for performance that has an affect on the sponsorship deals.
I am not sure what impact Lampard, Cole and Gerrard would have this tournament, but there is a lot more to going to a tournament than just winning it. If the only two outcomes that are to be considered are a team wins it, or it doesn't, then, at least, two thirds of the countries in the tournament shouldn't even be allowed to go. If the likes of Costa Rica (at 2,500 to 1 to win the tournament) are allowed to turn up when they, realistically, have no chance of winning it then there must be an expectation, in their home country, that the team (and squad taken) will do their best to win every game (or draw if that is the goal). Even if their only aspiration is to keep losses to 3-0 they would be expected to take, and play, their best players.
If any nation is, openly, planning to turn up and set out to play a weakened team just for the experience of being there then, I would suggest, they should not be there. This is on top of the many thousands of pounds that fans will pay to go and watch their National team.
As I say Henry, I agree in principle, but the younger players need to be better than whom they are replacing. If the 'old guard' don't want to go and be be back-up then that's up to them, but to choose not to take them when they are the best we have is a course of action that could be unjustifiable in many people's eyes.
for me that'll do....Personally i'd have gone Ruddy for Forster, Stones for Smalling and (begrudgingly) Defoe for Welbeck but otherwise not too much to moan about...
25% of England's outfield players have less than five caps.
Would've preferred Barry over Lampard, we need one solid defensive midfielder if we ever get into a winning position against a top side. Especially with our weakness being CB.
I would have found a space for Carroll as an impact sub - probably at Lambert's expense - but most will disagree with me. And Ashley Cole would have pipped Shaw in my squad. I would have also picked Lennon instead of Milner. It doesn't matter too much as I can't see us getting through our group whoever we pick. Both England and Italy have been stitched up with their first match venue. It will take a lot out of them playing in 98% humidity and Costa Rica and Uraguay will be playing on their continent!
I would have found a space for Carroll as an impact sub - probably at Lambert's expense - but most will disagree with me. And Ashley Cole would have pipped Shaw in my squad. I would have also picked Lennon instead of Milner. It doesn't matter too much as I can't see us getting through our group whoever we pick. Both England and Italy have been stitched up with their first match venue. It will take a lot out of them playing in 98% humidity and Costa Rica and Uraguay will be playing on their continent!
think your last point sums up why Milner is there. Does a very good job at protecting Johnson, holds his position well and works hard. Last thing we want is our full backs getting exposed and the winger can't get back.
I would have found a space for Carroll as an impact sub - probably at Lambert's expense - but most will disagree with me. And Ashley Cole would have pipped Shaw in my squad. I would have also picked Lennon instead of Milner. It doesn't matter too much as I can't see us getting through our group whoever we pick. Both England and Italy have been stitched up with their first match venue. It will take a lot out of them playing in 98% humidity and Costa Rica and Uraguay will be playing on their continent!
Actually I agree about Carroll even though Lambert deserves his place more. 4th choice strikers don't tend to get much game time so if a 'plan b' of hoofball is needed then I think Carroll would offer more threat.
It seems as though every tournament there is this whole "lets not worry about how far we get, just blood the kids in" attitude. Sorry, but this is the WORLD CUP. Blooding young players in should be left to U21/friendly matches, not the grandest stage of them all.
If we do take a load of youngsters and they fail then people still won't be happy.
Just take the best team, as if you were preparing for a stretch of league games. All this "blooding in" is nonsense when you consider the fact that these men/kids play in the biggest league in the world week in and week out.
actually this is the first time in as long as i can remember that people have been saying this. All the other times its "this is our year, the golden generation will come good" etc. I think its refreshing not putting too much pressure on ourselves and see how we do.
Agree
One the reasons we have failed in the past is that our players have so little tournament experience. We don't take U21 or other youth tournaments seriously (unlike other countries) and so when our younger players are picked for big tournaments they don't know what to expect, they haven't played many games together or with the manager. They don't improve as the tournaments go on (unlike Germany or Italy) and we go out as soon as we play a decent side.
We have to break that cycle. Spain and Germany both looked at their failures and realised that they needed to focus on young players and future tournaments not just the next game.
Yes, it is the world cup but we aren't going to win it with Lampard, Terry, Cole etc as we didn't win it with them when they were 4, 8, 12 years younger.
What we might do is start to build a team now for Euro '16 and World Cup '18
I agree with this in principle, but it would take a very confident manager to drop all those that are going to be too old in two or four years as there is still an expectation for performance that has an affect on the sponsorship deals.
I am not sure what impact Lampard, Cole and Gerrard would have this tournament, but there is a lot more to going to a tournament than just winning it. If the only two outcomes that are to be considered are a team wins it, or it doesn't, then, at least, two thirds of the countries in the tournament shouldn't even be allowed to go. If the likes of Costa Rica (at 2,500 to 1 to win the tournament) are allowed to turn up when they, realistically, have no chance of winning it then there must be an expectation, in their home country, that the team (and squad taken) will do their best to win every game (or draw if that is the goal). Even if their only aspiration is to keep losses to 3-0 they would be expected to take, and play, their best players.
If any nation is, openly, planning to turn up and set out to play a weakened team just for the experience of being there then, I would suggest, they should not be there. This is on top of the many thousands of pounds that fans will pay to go and watch their National team.
As I say Henry, I agree in principle, but the younger players need to be better than whom they are replacing. If the 'old guard' don't want to go and be be back-up then that's up to them, but to choose not to take them when they are the best we have is a course of action that could be unjustifiable in many people's eyes.
yes, we shouldn't just pick players because they are young and you need a G B of Y and E but the default should be about long term ie 2 to 4 years not 2 to 4 weeks.
The announced squad is fine IMO. The young players are there but there is experience if needed.
I agree it is more about just winning. For Costa Rica success would be a decent showing. Getting out the group would make the manager and players national heroes.
For England success would be a semi-final. We are around number 10 in the world so a quarter-final is OK. To do more than just OK we need to get passed the quarters IMO, something we have done only twice at the WC.
To improve we need to be better than we have been at playing tournaments.
After South Africa the common view was "they're all rubbish, get rid and play the kids" but we didn't. So the kids still aren't experienced and Lalana (sp) is about 26.
You have to break that cycle so that the like of Lallana, at 26 are playing their third big tournament. Hopefully Shaw etc will play and so learn.
Games not played on paper, quite like the "kids" being taken. Less primadonna's in the change room. Also, having the young players there will be less other countries will know as they havent seen them as much. If you get a roll you never know what could happen.
Even if Townsend was fit, he wouldnt have gone. He's not good enough. Walker is injured and I'm not convinced he's played well enough this year to warrant inclusion.
Cant fault Roy's squad. Pretty much spot on. Really pleased for Lambert, he deserves it.
Would have taken Butland over Forster for experience seeing as Forster is number 3. Defence is as expected, only real dilemma was Shaw or Cole. 1 right back with 2 being able to cover. Only change in Midfield I would have liked is Barry for Lampard as a specialist DM. Strikers as expected. Wont do much but the squad is best we can do at this moment.
Comments
Manager is @Viewfinder with @MSE7 as his assistant.
One the reasons we have failed in the past is that our players have so little tournament experience. We don't take U21 or other youth tournaments seriously (unlike other countries) and so when our younger players are picked for big tournaments they don't know what to expect, they haven't played many games together or with the manager. They don't improve as the tournaments go on (unlike Germany or Italy) and we go out as soon as we play a decent side.
We have to break that cycle. Spain and Germany both looked at their failures and realised that they needed to focus on young players and future tournaments not just the next game.
Yes, it is the world cup but we aren't going to win it with Lampard, Terry, Cole etc as we didn't win it with them when they were 4, 8, 12 years younger.
What we might do is start to build a team now for Euro '16 and World Cup '18
5 years ago he was playing for Bristol Rovers. He's worked hard, improved parts of his game and from his interviews its like he is living the dream.
Real Roy of the Rovers stuff. Love it.
I am not sure what impact Lampard, Cole and Gerrard would have this tournament, but there is a lot more to going to a tournament than just winning it. If the only two outcomes that are to be considered are a team wins it, or it doesn't, then, at least, two thirds of the countries in the tournament shouldn't even be allowed to go. If the likes of Costa Rica (at 2,500 to 1 to win the tournament) are allowed to turn up when they, realistically, have no chance of winning it then there must be an expectation, in their home country, that the team (and squad taken) will do their best to win every game (or draw if that is the goal). Even if their only aspiration is to keep losses to 3-0 they would be expected to take, and play, their best players.
If any nation is, openly, planning to turn up and set out to play a weakened team just for the experience of being there then, I would suggest, they should not be there. This is on top of the many thousands of pounds that fans will pay to go and watch their National team.
As I say Henry, I agree in principle, but the younger players need to be better than whom they are replacing. If the 'old guard' don't want to go and be be back-up then that's up to them, but to choose not to take them when they are the best we have is a course of action that could be unjustifiable in many people's eyes.
1 Celtic
1 West Brom
2 Man City
3 Everton
2 Chelsea
5 Liverpool
4 Man Utd
3 Southampton
2 Arsenal
Would've preferred Barry over Lampard, we need one solid defensive midfielder if we ever get into a winning position against a top side. Especially with our weakness being CB.
The announced squad is fine IMO. The young players are there but there is experience if needed.
I agree it is more about just winning. For Costa Rica success would be a decent showing. Getting out the group would make the manager and players national heroes.
For England success would be a semi-final. We are around number 10 in the world so a quarter-final is OK. To do more than just OK we need to get passed the quarters IMO, something we have done only twice at the WC.
To improve we need to be better than we have been at playing tournaments.
After South Africa the common view was "they're all rubbish, get rid and play the kids" but we didn't. So the kids still aren't experienced and Lalana (sp) is about 26.
You have to break that cycle so that the like of Lallana, at 26 are playing their third big tournament. Hopefully Shaw etc will play and so learn.
shockingly spain are 6/1.
Cant fault Roy's squad. Pretty much spot on. Really pleased for Lambert, he deserves it.
actually to be fair Id rather a non existing Mountakil then smalling
Defence is as expected, only real dilemma was Shaw or Cole. 1 right back with 2 being able to cover.
Only change in Midfield I would have liked is Barry for Lampard as a specialist DM.
Strikers as expected.
Wont do much but the squad is best we can do at this moment.
Reckon the England Squad announced today (If it can be mostly kept together on form etc...) will be dangerous @ France 2016 and Russia 2018
Gonna be awkward for them if we win lol!
I wouldn't have picked Lampard but will defer to Mr Hodgson on that one. It's certainly not an inclusion that will make or break a World Cup.