Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

New Look England Squad...

124»

Comments

  • Options
    Charlie Austin's selection is a bit odd, though I'm pleased he's been given a chance.

    Picked now but when we played in Italy, Roy only took Rooney and Kane as recognised strikers? Ended up playing Walcott up front.

    Austin probably hasn't scored since then but now he's in the team.
  • Options
    edited May 2015
    Good luck to the 16 fans of Poole town who had a tenner each on Charlie Austin to score for England at 50-1 when he was still playing for them.
    I hope you collect sometime soon.
  • Options

    New inclusions show we have dropped even further.

    These would be 'B' squad players in the past, never International standard.

    I was thinking about this the other day when I was watching 'Class of 92' on Netflix which was about the 'you'll win nothing with kids' side Ferguson brought through the youth team.

    When you think back to the France '98 squad:

    GK David Seaman, Tim Flowers, Nigel Martyn
    DF Sol Campbell, Graeme Le Saux, Tony Adams, Gareth Southgate, Gary Neville, Martin Keown, Rio Ferdinand
    MF Paul Ince, David Beckham, David Batty, Steve McManaman, Darren Anderton, Paul Merson, Paul Scholes, Robert Lee
    FW Alan Shearer, Teddy Sheringham, Les Ferdinand, Michael Owen

    It is, depressingly, nearly 20 years ago now but when you think about players like Nicky Butt (don't laugh - he played in a Champions league final a year later), Gazza, Le Tissier, Fowler, Andy Cole and Wright (admittedly he was getting on a bit by then) who weren't even on the plane along with rising talents like Lampard and Gerrard, (and the perennially overlooked Richard Rufus!) it's clear we had much more depth of talent back then and even then we were never going actually win it.

    How many of the current squad would get into the 98 squad? A few maybe but not many. Old Uncle Woy is doing his best with what's available but that is the big problem now - even the current 'big names' like Wilshire and Sterling are not all that imho.
    What a squad! Real top quality players throughout.

    IMO none of the current squad would get near that 98 one, including Rooney (not fit to lace the boots of Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand or Owen in their prime!)!
  • Options
    Personally I like the current squad. I like that they're a team and not a bunch of so called superstars (Lampard, Gerrard, even Beckham).
    I'd rather see the likes of Delph racing around breaking up play and giving it to Rooney or Walcott.
  • Options
    cafctom said:

    Good luck to the 16 fans of Poole town who had a tenner on Charlie Austin to score for England at 50-1 when he was still playing for them.
    I hope you collect sometime soon.

    Ridiculously short odds considering the level Poole are at!
    My thoughts entirely. That's why bookies are rich and punters still have to get up and go to work on Monday...
  • Options

    New inclusions show we have dropped even further.

    These would be 'B' squad players in the past, never International standard.

    I was thinking about this the other day when I was watching 'Class of 92' on Netflix which was about the 'you'll win nothing with kids' side Ferguson brought through the youth team.

    When you think back to the France '98 squad:

    GK David Seaman, Tim Flowers, Nigel Martyn
    DF Sol Campbell, Graeme Le Saux, Tony Adams, Gareth Southgate, Gary Neville, Martin Keown, Rio Ferdinand
    MF Paul Ince, David Beckham, David Batty, Steve McManaman, Darren Anderton, Paul Merson, Paul Scholes, Robert Lee
    FW Alan Shearer, Teddy Sheringham, Les Ferdinand, Michael Owen

    It is, depressingly, nearly 20 years ago now but when you think about players like Nicky Butt (don't laugh - he played in a Champions league final a year later), Gazza, Le Tissier, Fowler, Andy Cole and Wright (admittedly he was getting on a bit by then) who weren't even on the plane along with rising talents like Lampard and Gerrard, (and the perennially overlooked Richard Rufus!) it's clear we had much more depth of talent back then and even then we were never going actually win it.

    How many of the current squad would get into the 98 squad? A few maybe but not many. Old Uncle Woy is doing his best with what's available but that is the big problem now - even the current 'big names' like Wilshire and Sterling are not all that imho.
    What a squad! Real top quality players throughout.

    IMO none of the current squad would get near that 98 one, including Rooney (not fit to lace the boots of Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand or Owen in their prime!)!
    It was a quality squad - but Rooney would get in that squad ahead of Sheringham and Les Ferdinand....
  • Options

    colthe3rd said:

    And since then? Or I suppose we'll overlook that given that he has done quite well and focus on the cluster fuck of a world cup where it was always going to be the case given the lead up to it.

    Yeah, he's done fine since then, rolling over San Marino, Estonia and Lithuania, but when it mattered at the World Cup he knobbed it right up. I don't dislike Roy but saying you can't argue with his results after that pitiful World Cup performance is just wrong
    How is it wrong? We haven't lost a game.7 wins out of 8 and 5 clean sheets.
  • Options

    I was one of the privileged few at Wemberleee who witnessed that classic England midfield combination of Henderson, Delph and Jones struggling against the might of Macedonia, or Lichtenstein or Micronesia or whoever the hell it was, whose name was on the other half of the £86-50 souvenir scarf (100% polyester/made by under-aged slaves in Bangladesh as part of the FA fair play in sport initiative).

    I wouldn't even allow those three to watch that France 98 team on the telly.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    colthe3rd said:

    colthe3rd said:

    And since then? Or I suppose we'll overlook that given that he has done quite well and focus on the cluster fuck of a world cup where it was always going to be the case given the lead up to it.

    Yeah, he's done fine since then, rolling over San Marino, Estonia and Lithuania, but when it mattered at the World Cup he knobbed it right up. I don't dislike Roy but saying you can't argue with his results after that pitiful World Cup performance is just wrong
    How is it wrong? We haven't lost a game.7 wins out of 8 and 5 clean sheets.
    It's wrong because we were terrible in the World Cup. The bit that actually mattered
  • Options

    colthe3rd said:

    colthe3rd said:

    And since then? Or I suppose we'll overlook that given that he has done quite well and focus on the cluster fuck of a world cup where it was always going to be the case given the lead up to it.

    Yeah, he's done fine since then, rolling over San Marino, Estonia and Lithuania, but when it mattered at the World Cup he knobbed it right up. I don't dislike Roy but saying you can't argue with his results after that pitiful World Cup performance is just wrong
    How is it wrong? We haven't lost a game.7 wins out of 8 and 5 clean sheets.
    It's wrong because we were terrible in the World Cup. The bit that actually mattered
    And I wrote you can't argue with the results since the world cup. Apparently that's wrong.
  • Options

    colthe3rd said:

    colthe3rd said:

    And since then? Or I suppose we'll overlook that given that he has done quite well and focus on the cluster fuck of a world cup where it was always going to be the case given the lead up to it.

    Yeah, he's done fine since then, rolling over San Marino, Estonia and Lithuania, but when it mattered at the World Cup he knobbed it right up. I don't dislike Roy but saying you can't argue with his results after that pitiful World Cup performance is just wrong
    How is it wrong? We haven't lost a game.7 wins out of 8 and 5 clean sheets.
    It's wrong because we were terrible in the World Cup. The bit that actually mattered
    The results were poor, I thought the performances were ok, particularly against Italy - very unfortunate to lose that, and unfortunate in general to be in a tough group.

    Contrast that to the previous World Cup, where the "Golden Generation" scraped through the group stages with draws against USA and Algeria and a narrow win against Slovenia.

    Think Hodgson's doing a good job. Unfortunately, England supporters need to realise that we are now on a par with the likes of Switzerland, Ukraine, Sweden and Denmark and judge performances on that basis, rather than how we compare to France, Italy, Spain, Germany, etc.
  • Options
    We've always been on that level, it's only now we are starting to realise it.
  • Options
    Hoping for and very much looking forward to Jack Grealish securing himself to England, think the boy has a raw natural talent. Hopefully stays at Villa for a bit longer before moving and jeopardising any progression on the field.
  • Options
    cafctom said:

    New inclusions show we have dropped even further.

    These would be 'B' squad players in the past, never International standard.

    I was thinking about this the other day when I was watching 'Class of 92' on Netflix which was about the 'you'll win nothing with kids' side Ferguson brought through the youth team.

    When you think back to the France '98 squad:

    GK David Seaman, Tim Flowers, Nigel Martyn
    DF Sol Campbell, Graeme Le Saux, Tony Adams, Gareth Southgate, Gary Neville, Martin Keown, Rio Ferdinand
    MF Paul Ince, David Beckham, David Batty, Steve McManaman, Darren Anderton, Paul Merson, Paul Scholes, Robert Lee
    FW Alan Shearer, Teddy Sheringham, Les Ferdinand, Michael Owen

    It is, depressingly, nearly 20 years ago now but when you think about players like Nicky Butt (don't laugh - he played in a Champions league final a year later), Gazza, Le Tissier, Fowler, Andy Cole and Wright (admittedly he was getting on a bit by then) who weren't even on the plane along with rising talents like Lampard and Gerrard, (and the perennially overlooked Richard Rufus!) it's clear we had much more depth of talent back then and even then we were never going actually win it.

    How many of the current squad would get into the 98 squad? A few maybe but not many. Old Uncle Woy is doing his best with what's available but that is the big problem now - even the current 'big names' like Wilshire and Sterling are not all that imho.
    What a squad! Real top quality players throughout.

    IMO none of the current squad would get near that 98 one, including Rooney (not fit to lace the boots of Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand or Owen in their prime!)!
    It was a quality squad - but Rooney would get in that squad ahead of Sheringham and Les Ferdinand....
    Agreed, Rooney is the one obvious one who would get in. Suspect Joe Hart would at least be in the 3 keepers too, although probably not ahead of Seaman. The one thing the 98 side did lack was a bit of width so, although I think he's currently over hyped, Sterling would probably get in or maybe a Walcott or Oxlade-Chamberlain. Probably not a lot between someone like Cahill and Southgate or Le Saux and Baines (when fit) either but Rooney is probably the only one with a realistic shout of being in the starting XI.

  • Options
    Cahill would definitely get in. I think he's class.
  • Options
    MrLargo said:

    colthe3rd said:

    colthe3rd said:

    And since then? Or I suppose we'll overlook that given that he has done quite well and focus on the cluster fuck of a world cup where it was always going to be the case given the lead up to it.

    Yeah, he's done fine since then, rolling over San Marino, Estonia and Lithuania, but when it mattered at the World Cup he knobbed it right up. I don't dislike Roy but saying you can't argue with his results after that pitiful World Cup performance is just wrong
    How is it wrong? We haven't lost a game.7 wins out of 8 and 5 clean sheets.
    It's wrong because we were terrible in the World Cup. The bit that actually mattered
    The results were poor, I thought the performances were ok, particularly against Italy - very unfortunate to lose that, and unfortunate in general to be in a tough group.

    Contrast that to the previous World Cup, where the "Golden Generation" scraped through the group stages with draws against USA and Algeria and a narrow win against Slovenia.

    Think Hodgson's doing a good job. Unfortunately, England supporters need to realise that we are now on a par with the likes of Switzerland, Ukraine, Sweden and Denmark and judge performances on that basis, rather than how we compare to France, Italy, Spain, Germany, etc.
    We started well for 5 mins against Italy but apart from that Thy had the whole match under control. Pirlo's ridiculous free kick was nearly 3. There was no way we deserved any more points than the single point we managed in that group. It was an embarrassment.
  • Options
    In spite of all the class players we had in previous squads they very rarely performed and the football was dire at times. This squad selected looks ok and the proof of the pudding etc etc
  • Options
    Through the 90s our tournament performance was a bit up and down for sure - Euro 92 and Euro 2000 were both disasters and USA 94 never even happened, but Italia 90 - semis, Euro 96 - semis, France 98 - we got a tough draw and went out on pens to the always decent Argies courtesy of Beckham's moment of madness and the Sol Campbell goal that never was but we could easily have gone further in that tournament.

    We still didn't win anything and I think it's fair to say we could have done better but the point is the talent was there, I'm not sure it is now although Woy may well be able to build a more solid unit that plays for each other as a result.

    You have to question, though, if the much heralded academy system is doing its job. I suspect the pool of talent at 14 to 18 is better than it used to be, but we are wholly failing to convert that into a pool of talent at 20 to 30 years of age. It strikes me (and I know I'm far from the first to suggest this) that a system which is allowing the likes of Chelsea & Man City to cherry pick 14/15/16 year olds from a club like ours and smaller still and then lock them away in their youth teams, never seeing first team action until they are shipped all around the houses on loan where they never get to settle and eventually discarding them is not at all good for the national team. At least at Utd and Arsenal there seems to be some kind of pathway to the first team for youngsters and even more so at places like Spurs (recently at least), Southampton and Everton but it's not enough.

    If anything we seem to have it the wrong way around - why not the FA give financial assistance to Football League clubs to help run their academies and employ top (and more) coaches and build better facilities. Introduce rules to the football league around the number of young English players in a squad - it's less ruthlessly competitive and clubs will probably be more willing to adopt them. Give those clubs more protection to prevent players being picked off too soon and for too little. I'm sure in the long run having more young players playing more competitive football, albeit at a slightly lower standard, before graduating to the premiership better prepared for it, would benefit the national team and wouldn't necessarily be to the detriment of the Premiership's globally saleable 'product'. We have, probably, the highest quality second tier football in the world and we could use it to our advantage more than we do, imo. It could be a great proving ground for young talent to play in. It already is to an extent with the loan system but there is a lack of incentive for a club like Charlton to work really hard on developing a player who will only be around for a few months and some players need a settled environment in which to grow more slowly than others and I don't think being stuck in a big club's massive youth team and out on loan to 5 different teams in 3 seasons is the best thing for those lads. I'm sure as a result there are players who could be great who just don't fulfill their potential.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options

    Through the 90s our tournament performance was a bit up and down for sure - Euro 92 and Euro 2000 were both disasters and USA 94 never even happened, but Italia 90 - semis, Euro 96 - semis, France 98 - we got a tough draw and went out on pens to the always decent Argies courtesy of Beckham's moment of madness and the Sol Campbell goal that never was but we could easily have gone further in that tournament.

    We still didn't win anything and I think it's fair to say we could have done better but the point is the talent was there, I'm not sure it is now although Woy may well be able to build a more solid unit that plays for each other as a result.

    You have to question, though, if the much heralded academy system is doing its job. I suspect the pool of talent at 14 to 18 is better than it used to be, but we are wholly failing to convert that into a pool of talent at 20 to 30 years of age. It strikes me (and I know I'm far from the first to suggest this) that a system which is allowing the likes of Chelsea & Man City to cherry pick 14/15/16 year olds from a club like ours and smaller still and then lock them away in their youth teams, never seeing first team action until they are shipped all around the houses on loan where they never get to settle and eventually discarding them is not at all good for the national team. At least at Utd and Arsenal there seems to be some kind of pathway to the first team for youngsters and even more so at places like Spurs (recently at least), Southampton and Everton but it's not enough.

    If anything we seem to have it the wrong way around - why not the FA give financial assistance to Football League clubs to help run their academies and employ top (and more) coaches and build better facilities. Introduce rules to the football league around the number of young English players in a squad - it's less ruthlessly competitive and clubs will probably be more willing to adopt them. Give those clubs more protection to prevent players being picked off too soon and for too little. I'm sure in the long run having more young players playing more competitive football, albeit at a slightly lower standard, before graduating to the premiership better prepared for it, would benefit the national team and wouldn't necessarily be to the detriment of the Premiership's globally saleable 'product'. We have, probably, the highest quality second tier football in the world and we could use it to our advantage more than we do, imo. It could be a great proving ground for young talent to play in. It already is to an extent with the loan system but there is a lack of incentive for a club like Charlton to work really hard on developing a player who will only be around for a few months and some players need a settled environment in which to grow more slowly than others and I don't think being stuck in a big club's massive youth team and out on loan to 5 different teams in 3 seasons is the best thing for those lads. I'm sure as a result there are players who could be great who just don't fulfill their potential.

    "Oh yes - very good" (said in the voice of Simon Harwood in W1A).

    Spot on in fact, but will never happen while the tail wags the dog viz a viz the Premier League/FA, the press insist the England manager must be English (with the support of a lot of fans) and "the man on the street" agrees with 16 year old players moving from Charlton to West Ham reserves because "everyone would, wouldn't they". Often the same "man on the street" and lot of fans moaning about how crap the England team is...
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!