Geordie Boot Boy

No surprise, a captaincy power struggle caused by the media sticking their noses in and getting Terry sacked. Blame the players, blame the lack of coaches, blame Capello, but if that Terry story didn't leak and wasn't made such a meal out of we could still be there now. Or if Terry wasn't such a destable crybaby little prat?

Perhaps he's using the language thing as a way of just simply avoiding having to answer certain questions. I think that's what Thespence is getting at.

In the interests of balance, Owen could have scored goals if he was there TBF. I reckon, if his reputation is anything near what it was in the likes of Algeria and Slovenia, he'd have at least made more space for Rooney to operate in who might just have done something. Imagine him with Heskey's chances or Wright-Phillips' chance or Defoe's second chance. It's entirely plausible we would still be in the competition if a fit and in form Michael Owen played as Rooney's strike partner. Or maybe he would have fallen over, twisted his ankle and ruined our game plan in the very first game.

I'm not sure we would have beaten Uruguay (although I know that wasn't the point you were making).

Magic. You just know the first question from her when they get home is "do you think I am over weight then ?" Have to give my man the benefit of the doubt. He looked absolutely piss drunk. The entire plan was misguided from the start. We need to see this clip, man!

Kind of. Isnt that why Managers get sacked? I think that he's just made too many mistakes, which some will be difficult to rectify. Nobody can deny some of his decision making has been baffling. Or maybe I'm being to harsh on Capello? Just interested to what people think really. Managers get sacked, I think, because they make a mess of the job and the directors lose faith in their ability to turn it around. The mistakes are seen as symptomatic of a problem. I still believe in him as a coach and would like to see him stay. If the mistakes have made you lose faith in him, then fair enough. Some of his decision making has been baffling though. I agree on that. Bringing on Heskey today was absurd. Even taking Wright-Phillips was questionable, never mind that he actually made it onto the field.

So you think he should go to punish him for making mistakes. Is that a fair assessment of your OP?

And Gerrard as good as said his head (and presumably others' heads) dropped after the third went in, so it really was hugely important not to let the lad continue the move.

He is.............just a rubbish one. And remarkably slow.

Disagree. We're too quick to label someone a failure and move on these days. The experience he'll have gained from this and his improved knowledge of how we English respond to the pressures of tournament football will stand him in good stead to build a squad who can challenge in two years time. Why start all over? The cup manager thing is a simplistic sound byte of an answer which I don't buy in to. Capello's a winner. If he wants to stay, I think we'd be mad to get rid of him.

I think Gerrard has had a fairly good World Cup. He's going to get stick from people who enjoy making sweeping statements, just like Ashley Cole will. The truth is, IMO, those two players deserved better from the people around them.

Yes, but not during a single game. I don't think he made changes which influenced the course of a game once this tournament did he?

I agree. Woodgate is far more naturally gifted than Terry.

Silver lining is they didn't get a fifth. 5-1 would have been even more gutting.

Ironically, your post is just as exaggerated a view of the game as his, just in the other direction.

Our midfield was also poor and allowed the Germans through, it wasn't just the defence. I agree that, as a defensive unit, the team were appalling, which is largely the midfield as well as the defence but, going forward, I don't think the midfield were too bad. They've been far worse.

They weren't, like.. there was about 25 minutes before and after the break when we were competing, but by and large they outthought and easily outpassed us. Scoring on the break doesn't mean they're clueless and desperate; scoring on the break three times means they were in good physical shape and mentally alert enough to know when to go for it. They were bloody brilliant*, and while I agree that goals change games (and as such there's no point speculating what would have happened if we'd gone in 2-2), the comprehensive and clinical defeat was anything but lucky and anything but purely counterattacking. ** edit: bloody brilliant considering they were thought to be a bunch of up and coming bairns Why would i ignore the refs decisions when my argument is that we were simply unlucky. Thats the whole point. He wasnt offside either, so on another day its 4-4. We came far close to scoring ours than they did any of the other chances they had. Even if Defoe's effort went in, it wouldn't have counted so whether it hit the bar or not is irrelevant. If you want to cite it as evidence of bad luck, its the offside decision that was wrong. And then you'd have to mention that he didn't score anyway, so it's two levels of bad luck in this way of looking at it. You've probably got a point TBF IMO. The performance probably wasn't quite as bad (apart from in defence) as people are making out but I think you're overdoing it a bit. We were outclassed and unlucky that we weren't a million miles away from matching them.

Ronaldo. And even then his quality has been very fleeting. That's it. Yeah, I suppose. That's pretty impressive from Nike, mind!

2 off the bar? Defoe was ruled offside. If you ignore the referee's decisions, we only lost 4-2.

Has anyone in that Nike "Write the Future" advert not had a stinker?

Yes, it made no sense whatsoever. Taking off Defoe was fine but not for Heskey.

You say that but at 2-1 down with another half an hour to go we shouldn't have been attacking like that. Dont disagree. Doesnt change the fact that we wouldnt have been if we'd had what we deserved either. The defending was awful though yes. It still changes the entire game. If we come back from 2-0 the momentum is completely with us & Germany have to push out more again. Would have opened up a lot more chances. Shocking call. I know what you mean but I'm resisting the urge to think about it like that. It almost leads to letting the players off the hook and blaming the officials. The players showed depressingly little heart. Judging from comments so far, I doubt many people will agree with this but the only outfield players who really looked like they were trying with everything they had, for me, were Gerrard and A Cole.

I'm really surprised about how this tournament has gone. I thought Capello's class would make a difference. I can't understand where the confidence went. We sailed through the qualifiers, won (or at least didn't lose) most of the friendlies and didn't suffer from injuries to our supposed best attacking players. We even scored within minutes of the first game! Yet, if anything, that was the high point of the whole tournament for us.

You say that but at 2-1 down with another half an hour to go we shouldn't have been attacking like that.

Agreed. The Germans were the better team but they would have never scored two goals like they if you guys hadn't pushed up so much. They probably would have scored because they were playing well, but nonetheless, if the second half starts at 2-2 it's a whole different match. Yeah, but there was no way we were going much further in this competition. I pretty much accepted that when their second goal came in. In a way, the way they played in the group games set the tone, did they really believe they could saunter to the final? Only Cole and Gerrard of the outfield players looked any good first half and even they looked garbage in the second half.