Decky Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PM Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Scotland win in the Parc des Princes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Hiddink would have been a better choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Unreal result in France. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PM Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Unreal result in France. Basically means one of the WC finalists will not qualify for the finals. Well, unless Scotland chuck it all away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Owen didn't mention us. Fucking twat. > Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Clearly had a NUFC shirt under that jumper though. Could tell by the way he was stood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 France trying to stitch the Italians up tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 That looked like a first choice England XI to me. Rooney, Neville & Lampard can sod off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 What a goal by McFadden. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now