Euro 2008

[Decky]

Looks like McClaren is getting something right, although the team desperately needed a Newcastle United player to get them out of a rut.

 

And an Aston Villa player to control midfield for 180 minutes.

 

Yep, and it makes you think, teams outside the top 4 and all that.

[Guest thenorthumbrian]

Owen stayed injury free for the more important games coming up for Newcastle.

But for London United to beat Russia 3-0 is a good result.

I suppose everyone thinks the sun shines out of Mclarens arse now.

Fickle bastards.

[PM]

Scotland win in the Parc des Princes!

[Dave]

The problem with Lampard is that Chelsea are set up PERFECTLY to suit his game. He can get forward at will knowing Makalele won't cross the halfway line. Alongside Gerrard this has never worked, for either player. Barry has staked his claim now as one of the central two, and IMO the choice should be who plays with him, not the other way around.

 

The problem with England is that I don't expect this to happen at all.

[Shearergol]

Owen stayed injury free for the more important games coming up for Newcastle.

But for London United to beat Russia 3-0 is a good result.

I suppose everyone thinks the sun shines out of Mclarens arse now.

Fickle bastards.

 

5 of the 11 don't play in London. None of the 3 subs do. Where does "London England" come from?

 

Wrong manager, but I'll support England regardless of who the manager is.

[Dave]

Hiddink would have been a better choice.

[KaKa]

Incidentally, I think Heskey has been excellent, too.

 

Good shout. Once you accept the fact he isn't really a goalscorer you begin to appreciate all the other things he does. If he is surrounded by other players who can score goals, he creates opportunities for them with his flick ons and his ability to hold the ball up and lay it on to others.

[Shearergol]

The problem with Lampard is that Chelsea are set up PERFECTLY to suit his game. He can get forward at will knowing Makalele won't cross the halfway line. Alongside Gerrard this has never worked, for either player. Barry has staked his claim now as one of the central two, and IMO the choice should be who plays with him, not the other way around.

 

The problem with England is that I don't expect this to happen at all.

 

Yep, agree. Based on form, Barry (along with Owen and Heskey) should be the first names on the teamsheet.

[Optimistic Nut]

Unreal result in France.

[PM]

Unreal result in France.

 

Basically means one of the WC finalists will not qualify for the finals.

 

Well, unless Scotland chuck it all away.

[Wullie]

Owen didn't mention us. Fucking twat.  >

[Dave]

 

Clearly had a NUFC shirt under that jumper though. Could tell by the way he was stood.

[Keefaz]

Is it mean to ressurect this:

 

didn't think Carrick was too bad. Thought Barry was very pedestrian when he came on, his average technique stood out a mile for me and it's something that would cause him problems if he played in a competitive match.

 

Aye, because he struggles in the Premier League, like.

 

at international level. can't see anything in barry that makes me think he can play for England. england have enough players with average technique and don't need any more of the scott parker, lee bowyer, gareth barry brigade. Carrick's in a different league to him, i'm afraid, and he is run of the mill at international level.

 

Frankly, you're talking bollocks. Germany alone have proved that you don't need to have 11 Maradona's on the pitch to progress in World Cups and Euros.

 

Even the german midfielders have movement, control and short passing that puts our lads to shame. i think barry is your typical english midfielder who only looks good playing at a helter skelter pace. so a good player for an O'Neill team. you've got to assess players on the international stage by a different set of criteria and i don't think barry has an ounce of what you need. english fans are always mystified at how players who are average in the premiership can look so good at international level, but it is a different style of game. just cos a player looks good/bad in the domestic league doesn't mean it will translate onto a different stage.

 

[Baggio]

France trying to stitch the Italians up tbh.

[chicago_shearer]

That looked like a first choice England XI to me.  Rooney, Neville & Lampard can sod off.

[johnnypd]

Is it mean to ressurect this:

 

didn't think Carrick was too bad. Thought Barry was very pedestrian when he came on, his average technique stood out a mile for me and it's something that would cause him problems if he played in a competitive match.

 

Aye, because he struggles in the Premier League, like.

 

at international level. can't see anything in barry that makes me think he can play for England. england have enough players with average technique and don't need any more of the scott parker, lee bowyer, gareth barry brigade. Carrick's in a different league to him, i'm afraid, and he is run of the mill at international level.

 

Frankly, you're talking bollocks. Germany alone have proved that you don't need to have 11 Maradona's on the pitch to progress in World Cups and Euros.

 

Even the german midfielders have movement, control and short passing that puts our lads to shame. i think barry is your typical english midfielder who only looks good playing at a helter skelter pace. so a good player for an O'Neill team. you've got to assess players on the international stage by a different set of criteria and i don't think barry has an ounce of what you need. english fans are always mystified at how players who are average in the premiership can look so good at international level, but it is a different style of game. just cos a player looks good/bad in the domestic league doesn't mean it will translate onto a different stage.

 

 

fair enough, looks like i was wrong about Barry. not convinced he'll do long-term tho, israel and russia arenn't exactly stellar opposition, and likewise, i wouldn't want Heskey in the team based on the last two games. at the moment i think hargreaves and carrick are better but barry should certainly be in the squad.

[KaKa]

The problem with Lampard is that Chelsea are set up PERFECTLY to suit his game. He can get forward at will knowing Makalele won't cross the halfway line. Alongside Gerrard this has never worked, for either player. Barry has staked his claim now as one of the central two, and IMO the choice should be who plays with him, not the other way around.

 

The problem with England is that I don't expect this to happen at all.

 

Yep, agree. Based on form, Barry (along with Owen and Heskey) should be the first names on the teamsheet.

 

Hargreaves has been excellent the last couple of years to be fair, but I guess it has to be either Barry or Hargreaves as both play the holding role.

[Optimistic Nut]

Unreal result in France.

 

Basically means one of the WC finalists will not qualify for the finals.

 

Well, unless Scotland chuck it all away.

 

Will still be France & Italy. Really can't see Scotland beating Italy at Hampden.

[Keefaz]

Can't agree about Barry, mate. You might have a point with Heskey, but it's his place to lose as the minute. I don't fancy him up against top class opposition, but there's no way he should be dropped at the mo, imo.

[Dave]

What a goal by McFadden.

[KaKa]

Is it mean to ressurect this:

 

didn't think Carrick was too bad. Thought Barry was very pedestrian when he came on, his average technique stood out a mile for me and it's something that would cause him problems if he played in a competitive match.

 

Aye, because he struggles in the Premier League, like.

 

at international level. can't see anything in barry that makes me think he can play for England. england have enough players with average technique and don't need any more of the scott parker, lee bowyer, gareth barry brigade. Carrick's in a different league to him, i'm afraid, and he is run of the mill at international level.

 

Frankly, you're talking bollocks. Germany alone have proved that you don't need to have 11 Maradona's on the pitch to progress in World Cups and Euros.

 

Even the german midfielders have movement, control and short passing that puts our lads to shame. i think barry is your typical english midfielder who only looks good playing at a helter skelter pace. so a good player for an O'Neill team. you've got to assess players on the international stage by a different set of criteria and i don't think barry has an ounce of what you need. english fans are always mystified at how players who are average in the premiership can look so good at international level, but it is a different style of game. just cos a player looks good/bad in the domestic league doesn't mean it will translate onto a different stage.

 

 

fair enough, looks like i was wrong about Barry. not convinced he'll do long-term tho, israel and russia arenn't exactly stellar opposition, and likewise, i wouldn't want Heskey in the team based on the last two games. at the moment i think hargreaves and carrick are better but barry should certainly be in the squad.

 

Carrick has done absolutely nothing in the international stage when given a chance and has been rather average for Man U too. No way Carrick is better than Barry has been.

[madras]

Is it mean to ressurect this:

 

didn't think Carrick was too bad. Thought Barry was very pedestrian when he came on, his average technique stood out a mile for me and it's something that would cause him problems if he played in a competitive match.

 

Aye, because he struggles in the Premier League, like.

 

at international level. can't see anything in barry that makes me think he can play for England. england have enough players with average technique and don't need any more of the scott parker, lee bowyer, gareth barry brigade. Carrick's in a different league to him, i'm afraid, and he is run of the mill at international level.

 

Frankly, you're talking bollocks. Germany alone have proved that you don't need to have 11 Maradona's on the pitch to progress in World Cups and Euros.

 

Even the german midfielders have movement, control and short passing that puts our lads to shame. i think barry is your typical english midfielder who only looks good playing at a helter skelter pace. so a good player for an O'Neill team. you've got to assess players on the international stage by a different set of criteria and i don't think barry has an ounce of what you need. english fans are always mystified at how players who are average in the premiership can look so good at international level, but it is a different style of game. just cos a player looks good/bad in the domestic league doesn't mean it will translate onto a different stage.

 

 

fair enough, looks like i was wrong about Barry. not convinced he'll do long-term tho, israel and russia arenn't exactly stellar opposition, and likewise, i wouldn't want Heskey in the team based on the last two games. at the moment i think hargreaves and carrick are better but barry should certainly be in the squad.

 

Carrick has done absolutely nothing in the international stage when given a chance and has been rather average for Man U too. No way Carrick is better than Barry has been.

i've never seen what is so special about carrick

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Is it mean to ressurect this:

 

didn't think Carrick was too bad. Thought Barry was very pedestrian when he came on, his average technique stood out a mile for me and it's something that would cause him problems if he played in a competitive match.

 

Aye, because he struggles in the Premier League, like.

 

at international level. can't see anything in barry that makes me think he can play for England. england have enough players with average technique and don't need any more of the scott parker, lee bowyer, gareth barry brigade. Carrick's in a different league to him, i'm afraid, and he is run of the mill at international level.

 

Frankly, you're talking bollocks. Germany alone have proved that you don't need to have 11 Maradona's on the pitch to progress in World Cups and Euros.

 

Even the german midfielders have movement, control and short passing that puts our lads to shame. i think barry is your typical english midfielder who only looks good playing at a helter skelter pace. so a good player for an O'Neill team. you've got to assess players on the international stage by a different set of criteria and i don't think barry has an ounce of what you need. english fans are always mystified at how players who are average in the premiership can look so good at international level, but it is a different style of game. just cos a player looks good/bad in the domestic league doesn't mean it will translate onto a different stage.

 

 

fair enough, looks like i was wrong about Barry. not convinced he'll do long-term tho, israel and russia arenn't exactly stellar opposition, and likewise, i wouldn't want Heskey in the team based on the last two games. at the moment i think hargreaves and carrick are better but barry should certainly be in the squad.

 

Carrick has done absolutely nothing in the international stage when given a chance and has been rather average for Man U too. No way Carrick is better than Barry has been.

i've never seen what is so special about carrick

 

The biggest mystery of all is that Man United signed him then Hargreaves

[Menace]

Had £10 on Albania to win @ 23/1, Netherlands score an own goal and it gets disallowed, THEN THAT FUCKING HORSE FACED CUNT SCORES IN THE 91ST MINUTE.

 

FUCKING FUMING.

[Dave]

Had £10 on Albania to win @ 23/1, Netherlands score an own goal and it gets disallowed, THEN THAT FUCKING HORSE FACED CUNT SCORES IN THE 91ST MINUTE.

 

FUCKING FUMING.

 

What difference did RvN's goal make?