For the record I don't think Wilshere really merits a place particularly. I just don't think Drinkwater would actually make an awful lot of difference one way or another so I am not about to get up in arms that he didn't make the cut either.
I can understand the likes of Drinkwater being left out. Underdogs always underperforming in the Euros. Apart from Greece of course. Oh, and Denmark...
Maybe the most specious argument ever seen on CL, and that's a crowded field
Can't believe that Henderson and Sturridge are going ahead of Drinkwater. Insane. I understand Wilshere going because he offers something that no other English midfielder does but Henderson is just coming back from injury and has had an inferior season doing a very similar job to Drinkwater. Add to that Drinkwater's excellent understanding with Vardy who is currently our best attacking threat and it's just Roy's Liverpool obsession coming forward again. Sturridge has been a sulky, unfit waste all season and he's probably hardly going to feature. Did we really need five strikers?
I can understand the likes of Drinkwater being left out. Underdogs always underperforming in the Euros. Apart from Greece of course. Oh, and Denmark...
Maybe the most specious argument ever seen on CL, and that's a crowded field
And there was me thinking that some posts on here were genuinely beyond parody
Can't believe that Henderson and Sturridge are going ahead of Drinkwater. Insane. I understand Wilshere going because he offers something that no other English midfielder does but Henderson is just coming back from injury and has had an inferior season doing a very similar job to Drinkwater. Add to that Drinkwater's excellent understanding with Vardy who is currently our best attacking threat and it's just Roy's Liverpool obsession coming forward again. Sturridge has been a sulky, unfit waste all season and he's probably hardly going to feature. Did we really need five strikers?
Drinkwater's 'excellent understanding' with Vardy is mostly ''Jamie, get up there, I will pass it to Mahrez and he will give you the service.'' Sturridge on the other hand is a natural goalscorer, even when not totally fit, and a striker besides so dropping him for A.N. Other midfielder would have left us pretty light up front - we probably DO need five strikers, going with four is a real gamble that none of them get injured or suspended to me.
Honestly, if anyone SHOULD have been dropped for Drinkwater it should be Henderson, who has nothing that Drinkwater doesn't except a bigger price tag. But I really don't think Drinkwater is all that much better. He functioned very well as a cog in the Leicester machine and that does him credit. But put the same cog in a totally different machine and you won't get the same results. England don't play like Leicester did. England don't have the same players he built up an understanding with. Take that away from his game and he's pretty average, frankly.
So there's been some really good debate on here, who should drop, Barkley, Drinkwater, Sturridge, Rashford, Townsend, Sterling. We've talked formations and styles of play, and about whether form or overall ability and fitness should be deciding factors.
And somehow, in all that, we've forgotten that James Milner is going as third choice in every position, and no one has batted an eyelid. Can we all just take a second to be mad about that?!?!
It isn't about who deserves to go. It's about who the manager thinks will offer the best options. Does Danny Simpson deserve to go coz he won the league?
Who mentioned winning the league???
Danny Drinkwater has been the best English holding midfielder in the Premiership for the last 9 months.
Drinkwater had a great season, fulfilling a specific role, to fit in with a team that played in a specific way. Leicester averaged 42% possession this season (yes, as champions, only 42% average) because they played a specific way that suited Drinkwater's game. It was more direct and my hunch is that Hodgson couldn't see how Drinkwater fitted into his planned style and had plenty of more versatile options available.
Totally get the point about Wilshere though. But if he stays fit he will prove many doubters wrong. Agree though, it's a real risk taking 3 players (Wilshere, Henderson, Sturridge) who are only just recovering from injury. It really could come back to bite the manager in the rear and as we know, has frequently been England's Achilles heel in the past.
All about opinion though and in my humble one, the inclusion of Sterling ahead of Townsend is a shocker.
So there's been some really good debate on here, who should drop, Barkley, Drinkwater, Sturridge, Rashford, Townsend, Sterling. We've talked formations and styles of play, and about whether form or overall ability and fitness should be deciding factors.
And somehow, in all that, we've forgotten that James Milner is going as third choice in every position, and no one has batted an eyelid. Can we all just take a second to be mad about that?!?!
So there's been some really good debate on here, who should drop, Barkley, Drinkwater, Sturridge, Rashford, Townsend, Sterling. We've talked formations and styles of play, and about whether form or overall ability and fitness should be deciding factors.
And somehow, in all that, we've forgotten that James Milner is going as third choice in every position, and no one has batted an eyelid. Can we all just take a second to be mad about that?!?!
Milner is a good player and in on form. Never let England down and has a lot of experience - something that the squad is not overly blessed with.
Did not see that reaction coming...This is what I get for trying to get us all the agree.
I think he's alright. When he was at City he had some brilliant games playing left midfield, in that sort of shuttling role. It seemed to be in top matches (thinking of one against Arsenal and one Manchester Derby) where his movement was excellent, he made good out to in runs, and forced defenders out of position.
Whenever he's played in central midfield, for City, Liverpool, or even going back to Villa, I've never thought he was technically good enough, or good enough at reading the game. He claims it's a more natural position for him but he spent years as a winger between Leeds, Newcastle, and Villa on loan.
My feeling with him for England is, "haven't we moved past this?" But then when I try to think who you'd want in a wide position in a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 defending a lead or against a big side, he'd still be at or near top of the list.
So there's been some really good debate on here, who should drop, Barkley, Drinkwater, Sturridge, Rashford, Townsend, Sterling. We've talked formations and styles of play, and about whether form or overall ability and fitness should be deciding factors.
And somehow, in all that, we've forgotten that James Milner is going as third choice in every position, and no one has batted an eyelid. Can we all just take a second to be mad about that?!?!
I like Milner, and he's in good form so no problem with him going.
I've got a much bigger issue with showpony Barkley.
Can't really argue with the Milner inclusion, precisely BECAUSE he's a third choice in every position which is actually a potential lifesaver if we need to just shore things up or one or another player goes down with cramp or a niggle in the 80th minute. Just stick Jimmy Milner in there and you know he'll plug away and do his part. He's something of a jack of all trades but that's no bad thing in my book.
Barkley I also agree with. Far too often when people are hyping him up they talk about his 'potential' instead of anything he's actually DONE. He's had good patches in several seasons but not yet has he had an entire good season consistently so far as I can remember. I would honestly rather have seen Townsend over him.
My feeling with him for England is, "haven't we moved past this?" But then when I try to think who you'd want in a wide position in a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 defending a lead or against a big side, he'd still be at or near top of the list.
And there you've hit the nail on the head. You feel like we should have better than Milner, but we don't. That is partly because, I think, Milner is a bit under-rated and is a better player than he is often credited with being, but also because, despite our depth of talent improving over the last 4 years, we're still not blessed with multiple top drawer players in every position.
Essentially his competition for the central midfield places was Drinkwater and a half fit Henderson and Wilshire. Then there is the likes of Delph (injured), Shelvey, Noble etc and the fact Rooney is slowly migrating into midfield.
Drinkwater should be there imo and a fit Wilshire is a better player than Milner, but of the rest are any significantly better? I'd argue no, especially assuming Rooney will still play in advanced roles for England, plus with Milner you know what you will get and he covers more positions than anyone else in the squad.
As you say, if we need to see out a game he is a great option to have on the bench - he'll work hard, do the job the manager asks of him and can be used to shore up a flank in the way no-one else in the squad can, unless you bring a full back on out of position.
He's a bit more than just a steady eddy, but every coach needs a few players he knows he can rely on for a 7/10 minimum every match. Milner is one of those for England.
My feeling with him for England is, "haven't we moved past this?" But then when I try to think who you'd want in a wide position in a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 defending a lead or against a big side, he'd still be at or near top of the list.
And there you've hit the nail on the head. You feel like we should have better than Milner, but we don't. That is partly because, I think, Milner is a bit under-rated and is a better player than he is often credited with being, but also because, despite our depth of talent improving over the last 4 years, we're still not blessed with multiple top drawer players in every position.
Essentially his competition for the central midfield places was Drinkwater and a half fit Henderson and Wilshire. Then there is the likes of Delph (injured), Shelvey, Noble etc and the fact Rooney is slowly migrating into midfield.
Drinkwater should be there imo and a fit Wilshire is a better player than Milner, but of the rest are any significantly better? I'd argue no, especially assuming Rooney will still play in advanced roles for England, plus with Milner you know what you will get and he covers more positions than anyone else in the squad.
As you say, if we need to see out a game he is a great option to have on the bench - he'll work hard, do the job the manager asks of him and can be used to shore up a flank in the way no-one else in the squad can, unless you bring a full back on out of position.
He's a bit more than just a steady eddy, but every coach needs a few players he knows he can rely on for a 7/10 minimum every match. Milner is one of those for England.
All very good points. I feel like Milner fluctuates between being under and overrated depending on his immediate form. But yes, in a 23 man squad a versatile player makes a lot of sense, and as mentioned above I was partly playing devil's advocate.
A really good read from F365. I agree that having Drinkwater there or not there is very unlikely to make a difference, though their argument for Townsend over Barkley is a good one
Squad full of injury prone and half-fit, overrated players and midfielders that can just about pass the ball forward. Oh, and Roy Hodgson is somehow still manager after that embarrassment of a World Cup. Not a chance.
I'm not been his biggest fan previously, but currently Milner is in some of the best form of his life, and finished the season very strongly; as of mid April he was the top assist provider in the PL during 2016 ahead of Mesut Ozil. He's also done well in the Europa League.
Barkely is the player who's luckiest to make it, as his form in the last few months has been poor. I would have taken Townsend.
Not sure about taking Barkley one bit. Been in poor form and in my opinion was never that good in the first place, lacks any footballing intelligence. Yet Drinkwater doesn't make the cut?! We have Alli, Rooney, Lallana, Sterling who can all play in Barkley's position but Drinkwater? He offers something different and could work very well along side Dier if Wilshere was not deemed fit enough.
The Drinkwater omission is a clear mistake - Wilshire will get injured early in the tournament most probably. Milner is interesting. I have been known to be critical of him recently, but Klopp has given him a role that has shown what he can offer. He isn't a fancy player but can pick a killer ball and puts in a shift. If I was Hodgson, I'd say thank you Jurgen and give Milner his Liverpool role in the side.
I'd also find a place for Rooney - those that say he isn't good enough, I actually have the desire to fight. Not because I have any affinity with Rooney, but because they put their dislikes above the success of the team. To have a successful tournament you need goals in as many positions as you can - Lallana is a good player but doesn't supply enough of them! Henderson needs to improve in that area too - very good midfielder but no composure in front of goal - Alli will be a massive player for us!
Squad full of injury prone and half-fit, overrated players and midfielders that can just about pass the ball forward. Oh, and Roy Hodgson is somehow still manager after that embarrassment of a World Cup. Not a chance.
Squad full of injury prone and half-fit, overrated players and midfielders that can just about pass the ball forward. Oh, and Roy Hodgson is somehow still manager after that embarrassment of a World Cup. Not a chance.
Comments
AN ABSOLUTE F'N DISGRACE.
Honestly, if anyone SHOULD have been dropped for Drinkwater it should be Henderson, who has nothing that Drinkwater doesn't except a bigger price tag. But I really don't think Drinkwater is all that much better. He functioned very well as a cog in the Leicester machine and that does him credit. But put the same cog in a totally different machine and you won't get the same results. England don't play like Leicester did. England don't have the same players he built up an understanding with. Take that away from his game and he's pretty average, frankly.
He was really good in Europe,which would have boosted his score.
The rankings of other players are interesting too, Bertrand was by far the highest full back,
And somehow, in all that, we've forgotten that James Milner is going as third choice in every position, and no one has batted an eyelid. Can we all just take a second to be mad about that?!?!
Totally get the point about Wilshere though. But if he stays fit he will prove many doubters wrong. Agree though, it's a real risk taking 3 players (Wilshere, Henderson, Sturridge) who are only just recovering from injury. It really could come back to bite the manager in the rear and as we know, has frequently been England's Achilles heel in the past.
All about opinion though and in my humble one, the inclusion of Sterling ahead of Townsend is a shocker.
I like Milner, and he's in good form so no problem with him going.
I've got a much bigger issue with showpony Barkley.
I think he's alright. When he was at City he had some brilliant games playing left midfield, in that sort of shuttling role. It seemed to be in top matches (thinking of one against Arsenal and one Manchester Derby) where his movement was excellent, he made good out to in runs, and forced defenders out of position.
Whenever he's played in central midfield, for City, Liverpool, or even going back to Villa, I've never thought he was technically good enough, or good enough at reading the game. He claims it's a more natural position for him but he spent years as a winger between Leeds, Newcastle, and Villa on loan.
My feeling with him for England is, "haven't we moved past this?" But then when I try to think who you'd want in a wide position in a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 defending a lead or against a big side, he'd still be at or near top of the list.
Barkley I also agree with. Far too often when people are hyping him up they talk about his 'potential' instead of anything he's actually DONE. He's had good patches in several seasons but not yet has he had an entire good season consistently so far as I can remember. I would honestly rather have seen Townsend over him.
Essentially his competition for the central midfield places was Drinkwater and a half fit Henderson and Wilshire. Then there is the likes of Delph (injured), Shelvey, Noble etc and the fact Rooney is slowly migrating into midfield.
Drinkwater should be there imo and a fit Wilshire is a better player than Milner, but of the rest are any significantly better? I'd argue no, especially assuming Rooney will still play in advanced roles for England, plus with Milner you know what you will get and he covers more positions than anyone else in the squad.
As you say, if we need to see out a game he is a great option to have on the bench - he'll work hard, do the job the manager asks of him and can be used to shore up a flank in the way no-one else in the squad can, unless you bring a full back on out of position.
He's a bit more than just a steady eddy, but every coach needs a few players he knows he can rely on for a 7/10 minimum every match. Milner is one of those for England.
A really good read from F365. I agree that having Drinkwater there or not there is very unlikely to make a difference, though their argument for Townsend over Barkley is a good one
http://www.football365.com/news/drinkwater-not-missed-but-townsend-maybe
Barkely is the player who's luckiest to make it, as his form in the last few months has been poor. I would have taken Townsend.
Yet Drinkwater doesn't make the cut?! We have Alli, Rooney, Lallana, Sterling who can all play in Barkley's position but Drinkwater? He offers something different and could work very well along side Dier if Wilshere was not deemed fit enough.
I'd also find a place for Rooney - those that say he isn't good enough, I actually have the desire to fight. Not because I have any affinity with Rooney, but because they put their dislikes above the success of the team. To have a successful tournament you need goals in as many positions as you can - Lallana is a good player but doesn't supply enough of them! Henderson needs to improve in that area too - very good midfielder but no composure in front of goal - Alli will be a massive player for us!
other than that it looks ok to me, can't wait for it to start
got us down to beat russia and slovakia and draw with wales
got us going out in the semi to spain.
heading out to marseille next friday and have tickets to russia game and out there for wales game cant wait.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36321045