WCQ Results

[Boro]

Does that make it a good selection?

Depends on whether you think he should be experimental or not. You think he should, so yes it was a good selection, because he was one of the Premierships in form strikers. It also exposed him as not at the standard required, so that was good to I suppose.

I'm not saying he should be brought into the squad now (although I would rate him higher than Smith and Vassell) but he should have got an opportunity in the past.

Beattie has been given opportunities, and Sven doesn't rate him. We have plenty of better alternatives, so I don't really understand the criticism.

As for forwards, they have been a problem for years, it is only the emergence of Rooney and now Defoe that has turned that around.

So Sven picked Rooney for the Euro's, when other managerial geniuses thought he shouldn't. He doesn't get any credit from you for that? He has now picked Defoe and it was an immediate success. Still no credit? It's a bit hypocritical to condemn him for his mistakes, but give no credit for his successes.

So why bring him in for the one game? 61 minutes of football is not enough to prove anything, either he was good enough and justified his callup or he wasnt and shouldnt have got in the team.

It's fairly obvious isn't it? Thompson was bought in because we have a problem on the left hand side, and he was ripping them apart in Scotland. Sven wanted to see if he was up to it and he didn't think he was. It isn't just the game time that the players are judged on moomba, the training session will tell a manager quite a lot about the quality of a player too.

In your opinion of course. Personally I think the alternatives are there and are jsut as exciting.

Examples?

Compare them with any of the elite and they fall well short. They have the players to compete with the best, but whenever they come up against the best they look far inferior.

Far inferior? They lost in the Euro's on pens, they gave France a big scare. Not quite good enough, yes, but far inferior isn't correct. Also, it is only your opinion that we have the players to compete. imo we have no good keepers, no decent right backs and no decent left midfielders. Teams like France and Brazil have numerous options in every position. To do well in a tournament we would have to have a blessed run with injury and suspension imo. Perfectly shown by the quality of substitutions Sven was able to make at the Euro's.

Don't care about the alternatives, I just as myself the question, will England win anything with Sven in charge. Clear answer to me, no.

Well I think it is fairly important to have some quality alternatives to choose from before sacking a manager. Otherwise we'll end up with Howard Wilkinson in charge again

 

[moomba]

Depends on whether you think he should be experimental or not. You think he should, so yes it was a good selection, because he was one of the Premierships in form strikers. It also exposed him as not at the standard required, so that was good to I suppose.

I'm all for experimentation but I don't see the point in experimenting with someone that was clearly not up to international standard.

Beattie has been given opportunities, and Sven doesn't rate him. We have plenty of better alternatives, so I don't really understand the criticism.

IMO less than 2 hours is not sufficient opportunity for someone that would rate as one of the top 3 English strikers over the past 5 years. Particularly when he has done it without the benefit of having a whole lot of class players around him serving up goals on a platter.

So Sven picked Rooney for the Euro's, when other managerial geniuses thought he shouldn't. He doesn't get any credit from you for that? He has now picked Defoe and it was an immediate success. Still no credit? It's a bit hypocritical to condemn him for his mistakes, but give no credit for his successes.

No I don't credit him for picking Defoe, he should have been in the squad long before now. Rooney likewise, it's not too difficult selecting players that are obviously going to make it.

It's fairly obvious isn't it? Thompson was bought in because we have a problem on the left hand side, and he was ripping them apart in Scotland. Sven wanted to see if he was up to it and he didn't think he was. It isn't just the game time that the players are judged on moomba, the training session will tell a manager quite a lot about the quality of a player too.

45 minutes of game time plus a few training sessions to make a decision on someone, he would have been better off buying CM and making a decision based on that.

Examples?

Did I not mention several in my first post on the topic?

Far inferior? They lost in the Euro's on pens, they gave France a big scare. Not quite good enough, yes, but far inferior isn't correct. Also, it is only your opinion that we have the players to compete. imo we have no good keepers, no decent right backs and no decent left midfielders.

Well if a message board isn't about stating your opinion I don't know what it is for.

Teams like France and Brazil have numerous options in every position. To do well in a tournament we would have to have a blessed run with injury and suspension imo. Perfectly shown by the quality of substitutions Sven was able to make at the Euro's.

Where was Defoe in the Euro's when Rooney went off, surely if he is ready now he was ready 2 months ago. Oh that's right England had Heskey and Vassell to bring on Not forgetting guns like Hargreaves to come on and huff and puff for 10 minutes a game.

The quality of the substitutions roughly matched the quality of Svens squad selection.

Well I think it is fairly important to have some quality alternatives to choose from before sacking a manager. Otherwise we'll end up with Howard Wilkinson in charge again

I believe Sven is a negative influence on the squad as a whole, there are any number of managers that would do better.

 

[moomba]

You can't blame the guy, look at the players he had in front of him and how many times the ball was coming down at him. Look at Robinson's form when Leeds were doing OK, or even a few years back when Martyn was injued and you won't see many mistakes. IMHO he's been impressive for Tottenham so far as well.

If anything Robinson should be given a fair go because he's young and if he does settle in, the goalkeeping problem will be solved for many a year to come.

I am not talking about the large number of goals he conceded, if you cast your mind back to last season (you may have erased that particular 9 months from your memory bank) there were plenty of howlers that the defence can't really be faulted for. One in particular that comes to mind was just as bad as the James one from last weekend.

I don't have a problem with Robinson getting a go, he is young and he is a better long term option. I also don't think there is a great deal between him and James in terms of where they are at right now. I do have a problem with the fact that Robinson hasn't really had a proper introduction to International football through friendlies (good one Sven), and I do have a concern about his increasing tendency to eat pies (may affect mobility and potential for injuries if it continues).

 

[Shinboners]

I do have a concern about his increasing tendency to eat pies (may affect mobility and potential for injuries if it continues).

Mark Bosnich ver. 2.0?

 

[Boro]

45 minutes of game time plus a few training sessions to make a decision on someone, he would have been better off buying CM and making a decision based on that.

It was plenty of time to work out he's not good enough. Just like 1 game was enough for Lee Hendrie, Michael Ricketts etc etc

Rooney likewise, it's not too difficult selecting players that are obviously going to make it.

You never know if a player will be up to international class untill they are in that enviroment. Ronney's success was way beyond the expectations of everyone, and Sven has to take some credit for that.

Did I not mention several in my first post on the topic?

Not really. You threw up Beattie, Thompson and Barry. Not all that exciting to me and certainly not good enough to turn England into the world beaters you believe they should be.

Who should be RB? GK? etc

Well if a message board isn't about stating your opinion I don't know what it is for.

Did I say it wasn't? I'm not in a "contest" moomba, just trying to see where you are coming from, and if you have any legitimate points.

there are any number of managers that would do better.

Such as?

 

[Falchoon]

Moldova 0 - 1 Italy

Good away result by Italy over the country that Tom from the Panel made up

 

[GoalsFrom50Out]

I do have a concern about his increasing tendency to eat pies (may affect mobility and potential for injuries if it continues).

It's those ttttiiiiiiiight Kappa kits.

You never know if a player will be up to international class untill they are in that enviroment.

Depending on who you ask, international class is now inferior to club class. I have no doubts whatsoever that Arsenal, Chelsea and maybe United would beat England. Surely, as far as a playing standard is concerned, the Champions League is superior to Euro 2004? I certainly think so.

 

[Paris75]

I am not talking about the large number of goals he conceded, if you cast your mind back to last season (you may have erased that particular 9 months from your memory bank) there were plenty of howlers that the defence can't really be faulted for. One in particular that comes to mind was just as bad as the James one from last weekend.

True but consider that when one is playing in a team of ******** then there's going to be a lot more pressure on him mentally and he will be required to make a lot more saves, hence a greater chance of mistakes like the one you speak of. Having said that he's not perfect but I fail to see any benefit from playing James over him at the moment.

and I do have a concern about his increasing tendency to eat pies (may affect mobility and potential for injuries if it continues).

Think it's a combination of him having put a bit on and those tight tops.

 

[moomba]

It was plenty of time to work out he's not good enough. Just like 1 game was enough for Lee Hendrie, Michael Ricketts etc etc

I disagree, Sven has made the judgement already that they may be international standard by selecting them. 45 minutes is nowhere near enough to change an opinion one way or the other. BTW I think Sven's initial judgement was flawed on all three.

You never know if a player will be up to international class untill they are in that enviroment. Ronney's success was way beyond the expectations of everyone, and Sven has to take some credit for that.

Garbage, he selected a player that people were talking about as a once in a generation. He was always going to be an England player, picking him (although Sven did do it earlier than I would of) was a no-brainer. The credit has to go to Rooney.

Not really. You threw up Beattie, Thompson and Barry. Not all that exciting to me and certainly not good enough to turn England into the world beaters you believe they should be.

err. I am pretty sure I saw the names Defoe & SWP in the original post.

Who should be RB? GK? etc

Gary Neville, James or Robinson.

Did I say it wasn't? I'm not in a "contest" moomba, just trying to see where you are coming from, and if you have any legitimate points.

What are you on about? You seem to have an obsession with contests lately. I stated my opinion that England is far inferior than the elite. That is not something that needs to be justified, it's just my opinion.

Such as?

For £4m a year I think the FA could take the pick of the crop, I am sure they would have no problem finding a suitable manager. Or for a few million £ a year less they could choose a Premier League based English manager (Allardyce and Curbishley come to mind) that I am sure would improve both the style and the substance of the national game. Probably the ideal situation is a combination of the two, English manager foreign assistant with plenty of international experience.

 

[Boro]

Depending on who you ask, international class is now inferior to club class. I have no doubts whatsoever that Arsenal, Chelsea and maybe United would beat England. Surely, as far as a playing standard is concerned, the Champions League is superior to Euro 2004? I certainly think so.

It's a tough one goals. i think England and Arsenal would be fairly evenly matched over say 10 games, probably Arsenal slightly better. England would beat ManU probably 7 out of 10 imo. However you are talking about probably the best club side in the world (apologies to Real and Milan) against about the 10th or so best nation. How do you think Arsenal would go against Brazil over 10 games? I'd back Brazil

I'm not sure you can say the Champions League is higher quality than a World or Euro cup either. The main reason being is there are too many average sides that make it from 3rd and 4th place in their leagues. There are always some very high quality games in the Champions League, but I wouldn't think they are neccessarily better in quality than the Euro's were.

 

[moomba]

True but consider that when one is playing in a team of ******** then there's going to be a lot more pressure on him mentally and he will be required to make a lot more saves, hence a greater chance of mistakes like the one you speak of. Having said that he's not perfect but I fail to see any benefit from playing James over him at the moment.

I agree, but I also don't overreact to goalkeeper mistakes as much as many. Personally I think James is a better keeper, but there is not as much in it so that I am bothered either way. As mentioned previously Robinsons is a better bet long term, although I wonder if having a younger keeper in possession fo the shirt will block the progress of Kirkland if he ever gets himself fit.

What I don't like is the press coverage of the last week which has been disgraceful, and I don't like the way that media has participated in James removal.

Think it's a combination of him having put a bit on and those tight tops.

I think there is one or two Yorkshire pies under that Kappa shirt. He was showing a bit last year.

 

[GoalsFrom50Out]

It's a tough one goals. i think England and Arsenal would be fairly evenly matched over say 10 games, probably Arsenal slightly better. England would beat ManU probably 7 out of 10 imo. However you are talking about probably the best club side in the world (apologies to Real and Milan) against about the 10th or so best nation. How do you think Arsenal would go against Brazil over 10 games? I'd back Brazil

At full strength I think we'd be able to contain Brazil, and their defence is nothing to brag about and hence us being able to slot more than one or two passed Dida or Marcos. Entertaining to watch though. Who gets Gilberto though? Arsenal or Brazil?

However Valencia (who IMO are the best going around excl. Arsenal) would beat Brazil in more than half of those games. Brazil wouldn't be able to keep them out because their defending is pretty average and Valencia can 'go Italian' with the best of them.

I'm not sure you can say the Champions League is higher quality than a World or Euro cup either. The main reason being is there are too many average sides that make it from 3rd and 4th place in their leagues. There are always some very high quality games in the Champions League, but I wouldn't think they are neccessarily better in quality than the Euro's were.

I wouldn't say last season's Champions League was anything spectacular (although 8-3 in Monaco, 4-0 in La Coruna and 5-1 in Milan were some great matches) but Euro 2004 was completely rubbish. Only one decent match - Netherlands vs. Czech Republic - compared to several excellent matches in the Champions League. But I think this seasons Champions League will be the best ever, there's so many class teams instead of rubbish teams like Rangers, Celta Vigo, Real Sociedad, Marseille (who were pretty rubbish last year), Club Brugge and Lazio.

Some of the teams that finished third and fourth are pretty bloody good though. Juventus, Inter, Deportivo and Real Madrid all finished third/fourth, ya know

 

[Boro]

However Valencia (who IMO are the best going around excl. Arsenal) would beat Brazil in more than half of those games. Brazil wouldn't be able to keep them out because their defending is pretty average and Valencia can 'go Italian' with the best of them.

Valencia were great last season, but I wonder how they will go under Ranieri?

 

[GoalsFrom50Out]

They didn't really lose anyone from their squad last season, and did gain Fiore, Corradi, and Di Vaio from Serie A. They definitely have enough to retain La Liga, but it's Barca's turn again me thinks.

 

[Borgsta]

Sven is an interesting one but I dont think he can be given credit for Rooney or Defoe, they were both always going to make it. Like moomba i cant understand the point of having Heskey at the Euro's and not selecting Defoe. Similarly how on Earth did he start Smith ahead of Defoe for the Austria game. I know im a Spurs fan but surely Defoe over Smith is a no brainer.

I agree with Moomba on a lot of things, particularly with Sven's lack of imagination during friendlies. This caused Ledley King to be chucked in the deep end in Portugal without playing too much and now Robinson against Poland.

I do like his recent introduction of the cole and bridge partnership but that has been called for by the public for the past year or so.

 

[Boro]

This caused Ledley King to be chucked in the deep end in Portugal without playing too much and now Robinson against Poland.

I don't think Sven could legislate for the loss of Ferdinand, Southgate, Woodgate and then Terry. Robinson has also had plenty of game time in friendlies, and has spent plenty of time in the squad. He is a professional and would have been as ready as possible to play against Poland. He wasn't thrown into the deep end.

 

[The Hitman]

I'm not sure you can say the Champions League is higher quality than a World or Euro cup either. The main reason being is there are too many average sides that make it from 3rd and 4th place in their leagues.

Did you see who won Euro 2004?

The Hitman

 

[Boro]

Did you see who won Euro 2004?

The Hitman

Yes I did. Did you see who made the final of the CL last season? Who do you think would win in a match between Greece and Monaco or Porto in the form they were both in last season? It would be interesting.

I'm not saying International football is better than club football on the whole. I just think the very best country (Brazil) is capable of beating the very best club side more often than not. Thats just my opinion.

 

[GoalsFrom50Out]

Yeah, but that's one country. You play these matches:

Valencia vs. Italy
Arsenal vs. Argentina
Chelsea vs. France
Barcelona vs. Greece
Milan vs. Spain

the club side would win every time. And Brazil aren't that good either.

 

[Boro]

Yeah, but that's one country. You play these matches:

Valencia vs. Italy
Arsenal vs. Argentina
Chelsea vs. France
Barcelona vs. Greece
Milan vs. Spain

the club side would win every time. And Brazil aren't that good either.

I'd pick Italy, Argentina, France, Draw and Milan. At the moment I think Arsenal would probably beat most national sides more often than not apart from Brazil and Argentina who I think are the two best sides atm. We'll never no i guess, but they would be great matches.

Another question goals. As a tournament, which do you think is better as a spectacle. World Cup or a season of CL? I'd rather watch a World Cup anytime. I try and stay awake for every game in the Euro and World Cups, even to watch Korea play Colombia, but I will rarely get up for a CL game.

 

[GoalsFrom50Out]

I'd pick Italy, Argentina, France, Draw and Milan. At the moment I think Arsenal would probably beat most national sides more often than not apart from Brazil and Argentina who I think are the two best sides atm. We'll never no i guess, but they would be great matches.

I disagree entirely. Especially on France, who are complete crap at the moment. France and Italy are going by reputation and nothing else, both are utterly useless. Italy are nothing special and Valencia are more than capable of scoring a sudden goal from a set piece and going into lockdown mode.

I watched France vs. Israel on a stream. Les Bleu were horrible (and they were pretty rubbish against, of all teams, Faroe Islands!). No cohesion, players playing out of position, a completely wrong set up to begin with: Henry is NOT a target man, when will they learn this? But can you say that about Chelsea? You can't. Very well oiled team so far who'd quite easily score one against France and shut them out, although they can do that themselves quite easily.

Italy are a bunch of has beens. Del Piero isn't any good anymore and even their once great defending isn't anything to brag about. I'd back Valencia, especially at the Mestalla.

Another question goals. As a tournament, which do you think is better as a spectacle. World Cup or a season of CL? I'd rather watch a World Cup anytime. I try and stay awake for every game in the Euro and World Cups, even to watch Korea play Colombia, but I will rarely get up for a CL game.

CL. It won't be too long until winning the CL becomes a player's highest accolade possible.

 

[Shinboners]

CL. It won't be too long until winning the CL becomes a player's highest accolade possible.

I don't agree with this one.

Give a player a choice between a World Cup winners medal or a CL winners medal and I reckon that nearly everyone of them will take the WC medal.

For one thing, the World Cup only comes around every 4 years. You have about a month of football with the best talent on display, and on that basis, in the minds of soccer fans and the public will always put this tournament on a pedestal. There are so many people out there who don't follow soccer, but who will take a keen interest in the World Cup finals.

 

[GoalsFrom50Out]

Give a player a choice between a World Cup winners medal or a CL winners medal and I reckon that nearly everyone of them will take the WC medal.

Just ask Pat Vieira what he'd rather win.

 

[Shinboners]

Just ask Pat Vieira what he'd rather win.

I did post, "nearly every one of them"

 

[GoalsFrom50Out]

True, you did.