The England Thread

[Guest BooBoo]

Adam Johnson needs regular football or he'll go to waste. It's difficult to come on for ten minutes every week and look a world beater. I really rate him but as a developing player, he's probably at the wrong club.

[Sifu]

Adam Johnson needs regular football or he'll go to waste. It's difficult to come on for ten minutes every week and look a world beater. I really rate him but as a developing player, he's probably at the wrong club.

 

Agreed.

[Cronky]

I'm a bit worried about the Parker bandwagon. At a certain point, a player like that can hold a team back.

 

Barry is being written off too quickly.

 

"Hold a team back" yes like he's 'holding' us back with our 8 wins and 1 draw out of nine games since he signed and 'holding' England back with his motm performances. He wasn't good for you guys i get it but he's probably the most in form England player there is currently.

 

Well, I said 'at a certain point'. The point I was thinking of is the one where England teams often seem to get found out - knock-out stages of a tournament, up against a team which is of equal or slightly superior ability, perhaps in a spot of trouble. In that situation, a midfield player running around, exchanging 10 yard passes with his team mates 40 yards from goal is of no use. In fact, it becomes part of the problem.

 

If we have ambitions to win a tournament - which should be our aim, with a country of our size - we have to pick players who will offer us something more when we're in that position. Even the strongest teams have to pass that kind of test at some stage.

 

[Nobody]

Wouldn't we be the perfect type of club for Johnson at the moment? A step down, but not too big of a step down, playing decent football and use our wingers a lot.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Wouldn't we be the perfect type of club for Johnson at the moment? A step down, but not too big of a step down, playing decent football and use our wingers a lot.

 

Probably, but his gazillion pounds a week wages might be an issue.

[Nobody]

Maybe. Wasn't suggesting we'll sign him or even be in for him, but career wise for him, we'd be a good move. We've probably got too many wingers at the moment anyway.

[johnnypd]

I'm a bit worried about the Parker bandwagon. At a certain point, a player like that can hold a team back.

 

Barry is being written off too quickly.

 

"Hold a team back" yes like he's 'holding' us back with our 8 wins and 1 draw out of nine games since he signed and 'holding' England back with his motm performances. He wasn't good for you guys i get it but he's probably the most in form England player there is currently.

 

Well, I said 'at a certain point'. The point I was thinking of is the one where England teams often seem to get found out - knock-out stages of a tournament, up against a team which is of equal or slightly superior ability, perhaps in a spot of trouble. In that situation, a midfield player running around, exchanging 10 yard passes with his team mates 40 yards from goal is of no use. In fact, it becomes part of the problem.

 

If we have ambitions to win a tournament - which should be our aim, with a country of our size - we have to pick players who will offer us something more when we're in that position. Even the strongest teams have to pass that kind of test at some stage.

 

 

Couldn't be more wrong tbh. it's precisely that bit in bold that becomes crucially important when you face the better teams, as it's a much needed outlet for ball retention. England, more than just about any nation, struggle to hold on to the ball against the better sides, so having someone like Parker (or a better equivalent hopefully) being able to do the simple, quotidian tasks of midfield would help somewhat.

 

Having that sort of player, conversely, is of LESS use against weaker sides, as we're more likely to have the ball, need to focus less on intercepting their possession, and require more creativity to break them down. The argument that having someone who can track runners, show as an option, and play concise one-touch passing "40 yards from goal" is useless is an opinion from the stone age of English football.

[Cronky]

I'm a bit worried about the Parker bandwagon. At a certain point, a player like that can hold a team back.

 

Barry is being written off too quickly.

 

"Hold a team back" yes like he's 'holding' us back with our 8 wins and 1 draw out of nine games since he signed and 'holding' England back with his motm performances. He wasn't good for you guys i get it but he's probably the most in form England player there is currently.

 

Well, I said 'at a certain point'. The point I was thinking of is the one where England teams often seem to get found out - knock-out stages of a tournament, up against a team which is of equal or slightly superior ability, perhaps in a spot of trouble. In that situation, a midfield player running around, exchanging 10 yard passes with his team mates 40 yards from goal is of no use. In fact, it becomes part of the problem.

 

If we have ambitions to win a tournament - which should be our aim, with a country of our size - we have to pick players who will offer us something more when we're in that position. Even the strongest teams have to pass that kind of test at some stage.

 

 

Couldn't be more wrong tbh. it's precisely that bit in bold that becomes crucially important when you face the better teams, as it's a much needed outlet for ball retention. England, more than just about any nation, struggle to hold on to the ball against the better sides, so having someone like Parker (or a better equivalent hopefully) being able to do the simple, quotidian tasks of midfield would help somewhat.

 

Having that sort of player, conversely, is of LESS use against weaker sides, as we're more likely to have the ball, need to focus less on intercepting their possession, and require more creativity to break them down. The argument that having someone who can track runners, show as an option, and play concise one-touch passing "40 yards from goal" is useless is an opinion from the stone age of English football.

 

Have to agree to differ on that. The idea that you need more creativity to break down a weaker side doesn't seem logical.

[johnnypd]

I'm a bit worried about the Parker bandwagon. At a certain point, a player like that can hold a team back.

 

Barry is being written off too quickly.

 

"Hold a team back" yes like he's 'holding' us back with our 8 wins and 1 draw out of nine games since he signed and 'holding' England back with his motm performances. He wasn't good for you guys i get it but he's probably the most in form England player there is currently.

 

Well, I said 'at a certain point'. The point I was thinking of is the one where England teams often seem to get found out - knock-out stages of a tournament, up against a team which is of equal or slightly superior ability, perhaps in a spot of trouble. In that situation, a midfield player running around, exchanging 10 yard passes with his team mates 40 yards from goal is of no use. In fact, it becomes part of the problem.

 

If we have ambitions to win a tournament - which should be our aim, with a country of our size - we have to pick players who will offer us something more when we're in that position. Even the strongest teams have to pass that kind of test at some stage.

 

 

Couldn't be more wrong tbh. it's precisely that bit in bold that becomes crucially important when you face the better teams, as it's a much needed outlet for ball retention. England, more than just about any nation, struggle to hold on to the ball against the better sides, so having someone like Parker (or a better equivalent hopefully) being able to do the simple, quotidian tasks of midfield would help somewhat.

 

Having that sort of player, conversely, is of LESS use against weaker sides, as we're more likely to have the ball, need to focus less on intercepting their possession, and require more creativity to break them down. The argument that having someone who can track runners, show as an option, and play concise one-touch passing "40 yards from goal" is useless is an opinion from the stone age of English football.

 

Have to agree to differ on that. The idea that you need more creativity to break down a weaker side doesn't seem logical.

 

Huh? Are you winding me up? at least spend 10 seconds thinking about something before hitting the post button.

 

A weaker team comes and parks the bus and is well drilled defensively. In that case there's less need for a defensive midfielder to break down opposition attacks and help maintain ball retention, because this side are not going to dominate possession or attack that much. On the other hand because they will commit themselves less you won't have the same attacking space to exploit, and with two banks of four defenders sitting solid in front of the keeper, you need that extra bit of vision to break them down and create openings. We've had plenty of homes games like this in the past, nil nil against fulham and what not. this is basic, very basic, football common sense.

[ponsaelius]

Parker and Barry 

[johnnypd]

Parker and Barry 

 

Depressing isn't it?

[Darth Crooks]

I'm a bit worried about the Parker bandwagon. At a certain point, a player like that can hold a team back.

 

Barry is being written off too quickly.

 

"Hold a team back" yes like he's 'holding' us back with our 8 wins and 1 draw out of nine games since he signed and 'holding' England back with his motm performances. He wasn't good for you guys i get it but he's probably the most in form England player there is currently.

 

Well, I said 'at a certain point'. The point I was thinking of is the one where England teams often seem to get found out - knock-out stages of a tournament, up against a team which is of equal or slightly superior ability, perhaps in a spot of trouble. In that situation, a midfield player running around, exchanging 10 yard passes with his team mates 40 yards from goal is of no use. In fact, it becomes part of the problem.

 

If we have ambitions to win a tournament - which should be our aim, with a country of our size - we have to pick players who will offer us something more when we're in that position. Even the strongest teams have to pass that kind of test at some stage.

 

 

Couldn't be more wrong tbh. it's precisely that bit in bold that becomes crucially important when you face the better teams, as it's a much needed outlet for ball retention. England, more than just about any nation, struggle to hold on to the ball against the better sides, so having someone like Parker (or a better equivalent hopefully) being able to do the simple, quotidian tasks of midfield would help somewhat.

 

Having that sort of player, conversely, is of LESS use against weaker sides, as we're more likely to have the ball, need to focus less on intercepting their possession, and require more creativity to break them down. The argument that having someone who can track runners, show as an option, and play concise one-touch passing "40 yards from goal" is useless is an opinion from the stone age of English football.

 

Have to agree to differ on that. The idea that you need more creativity to break down a weaker side doesn't seem logical.

 

Huh? Are you winding me up? at least spend 10 seconds thinking about something before hitting the post button.

 

A weaker team comes and parks the bus and is well drilled defensively. In that case there's less need for a defensive midfielder to break down opposition attacks and help maintain ball retention, because this side are not going to dominate possession or attack that much. On the other hand because they will commit themselves less you won't have the same attacking space to exploit, and with two banks of four defenders sitting solid in front of the keeper, you need that extra bit of vision to break them down and create openings. We've had plenty of homes games like this in the past, nil nil against fulham and what not. this is basic, very basic, football common sense.

 

Surely that's a strong defensive side then a 'weaker' one though? It's a bit of a battle of semantics.

[johnnypd]

I'm a bit worried about the Parker bandwagon. At a certain point, a player like that can hold a team back.

 

Barry is being written off too quickly.

 

"Hold a team back" yes like he's 'holding' us back with our 8 wins and 1 draw out of nine games since he signed and 'holding' England back with his motm performances. He wasn't good for you guys i get it but he's probably the most in form England player there is currently.

 

Well, I said 'at a certain point'. The point I was thinking of is the one where England teams often seem to get found out - knock-out stages of a tournament, up against a team which is of equal or slightly superior ability, perhaps in a spot of trouble. In that situation, a midfield player running around, exchanging 10 yard passes with his team mates 40 yards from goal is of no use. In fact, it becomes part of the problem.

 

If we have ambitions to win a tournament - which should be our aim, with a country of our size - we have to pick players who will offer us something more when we're in that position. Even the strongest teams have to pass that kind of test at some stage.

 

 

Couldn't be more wrong tbh. it's precisely that bit in bold that becomes crucially important when you face the better teams, as it's a much needed outlet for ball retention. England, more than just about any nation, struggle to hold on to the ball against the better sides, so having someone like Parker (or a better equivalent hopefully) being able to do the simple, quotidian tasks of midfield would help somewhat.

 

Having that sort of player, conversely, is of LESS use against weaker sides, as we're more likely to have the ball, need to focus less on intercepting their possession, and require more creativity to break them down. The argument that having someone who can track runners, show as an option, and play concise one-touch passing "40 yards from goal" is useless is an opinion from the stone age of English football.

 

Have to agree to differ on that. The idea that you need more creativity to break down a weaker side doesn't seem logical.

 

Huh? Are you winding me up? at least spend 10 seconds thinking about something before hitting the post button.

 

A weaker team comes and parks the bus and is well drilled defensively. In that case there's less need for a defensive midfielder to break down opposition attacks and help maintain ball retention, because this side are not going to dominate possession or attack that much. On the other hand because they will commit themselves less you won't have the same attacking space to exploit, and with two banks of four defenders sitting solid in front of the keeper, you need that extra bit of vision to break them down and create openings. We've had plenty of homes games like this in the past, nil nil against fulham and what not. this is basic, very basic, football common sense.

 

Surely that's a strong defensive side then a 'weaker' one though? It's a bit of a battle of semantics.

 

Indeed, though it's usually the inferior side overall who park the bus or resort to negative tactics. anyway, the point of my post wasn't so much that you "need" either/or in a particular match, as i don't particularly rate the pair of them. more that knowing the kind of approach Spain or Germany/Netherlands can take to matches, and our enduring weakness in terms of holding on to the ball, or even getting it in the first place, i'd rather have someone with the attributes of a Parker than a Barry. There's less need for a DM when you're playing against poorer teams, or at least there should be.

 

Would still be interested in seeing Wilshere and Cleverley playing together, as they have the kind of nous on the ball that English players, and probably Parker and Barry, tend to lack.

[Cronky]

I'm a bit worried about the Parker bandwagon. At a certain point, a player like that can hold a team back.

 

Barry is being written off too quickly.

 

"Hold a team back" yes like he's 'holding' us back with our 8 wins and 1 draw out of nine games since he signed and 'holding' England back with his motm performances. He wasn't good for you guys i get it but he's probably the most in form England player there is currently.

 

Well, I said 'at a certain point'. The point I was thinking of is the one where England teams often seem to get found out - knock-out stages of a tournament, up against a team which is of equal or slightly superior ability, perhaps in a spot of trouble. In that situation, a midfield player running around, exchanging 10 yard passes with his team mates 40 yards from goal is of no use. In fact, it becomes part of the problem.

 

If we have ambitions to win a tournament - which should be our aim, with a country of our size - we have to pick players who will offer us something more when we're in that position. Even the strongest teams have to pass that kind of test at some stage.

 

 

Couldn't be more wrong tbh. it's precisely that bit in bold that becomes crucially important when you face the better teams, as it's a much needed outlet for ball retention. England, more than just about any nation, struggle to hold on to the ball against the better sides, so having someone like Parker (or a better equivalent hopefully) being able to do the simple, quotidian tasks of midfield would help somewhat.

 

Having that sort of player, conversely, is of LESS use against weaker sides, as we're more likely to have the ball, need to focus less on intercepting their possession, and require more creativity to break them down. The argument that having someone who can track runners, show as an option, and play concise one-touch passing "40 yards from goal" is useless is an opinion from the stone age of English football.

 

Have to agree to differ on that. The idea that you need more creativity to break down a weaker side doesn't seem logical.

 

Huh? Are you winding me up? at least spend 10 seconds thinking about something before hitting the post button.

 

A weaker team comes and parks the bus and is well drilled defensively. In that case there's less need for a defensive midfielder to break down opposition attacks and help maintain ball retention, because this side are not going to dominate possession or attack that much. On the other hand because they will commit themselves less you won't have the same attacking space to exploit, and with two banks of four defenders sitting solid in front of the keeper, you need that extra bit of vision to break them down and create openings. We've had plenty of homes games like this in the past, nil nil against fulham and what not. this is basic, very basic, football common sense.

 

Well I understand where you’re coming from a bit better, but I think your reasoning is a bit crude. In practice, you’re going to need at least as much creativity to score against a strong side where you’re not going to get as much possession and you need to make best use of what you’ve got. Against the stronger sides, you’re also going to need skilful players who can control and pass the ball under the greater pressure that the opposition will put on you.

 

Besides, I wasn’t talking about the challenge of breaking down a weaker side who only sets out to defend. It’s when we’re up against the stronger sides in tournaments and we need to raise our game that we tend to come unstuck. 

 

In situations like that, it would be a real bonus if all our outfield players had sufficient technical ability to make a contribution, because your two or three opportunities to shoot or pick out a telling pass might not fall to a Wilshere or a Rooney. They might land at the feet of a defender or a defensive midfielder. What often separates us from the better international sides is the technical ability that those defensive players from the continent can still call upon.

 

So I don’t want to see a player like Parker run backwards to pick the ball off the toes of a central defender. I want to see the defender move forward with the ball, and try to pick out Parker’s run forward into space. Similarly, when Parker gets the ball, it’s important that he’s able to take quick advantage of what might be fleeting opportunities to play it forward. Running in a circle or knocking it back so that we’ve kept possession isn’t enough at the very top level, and the opposition defence then gets more of a chance to settle into position.

 

You could say that it’s enough for Parker to just give the ball to the more skilful player so that he can do the creative passing, but I’d like to see a midfield player in Parker’s position actually have the ability to get the ball to that other player when his team-mate is in a threatening position further forward. The way we play in international tournaments often ends up looking really ponderous and predictable. Too many players don’t have the confidence or skill to really make something happen.

 

If Parker was the only option, fair enough, but I’d pick Barry, for his greater ability on the ball. The anchor man sees a lot of possession, and it’s important that he can use it well.

 

[Tiresias]

There's less need for a DM when you're playing against poorer teams, or at least there should be.

 

Disagree really, they have their place in maintaining possession further up the pitch, and in a 3 man midfield allow the other midfielders to push further up the pitch, however would say that against weaker teams there's no sense in having a pure destroyer there, you want someone who can spray passes out to the flanks and can do his part in keeping possession. We parked the bus against spain, because we are a much worse team, and I was pleasantly surprised we were able to. The only team I really see capable of taking on Spain is Germany (their 3-0 win over holland was impressive, even if friendly they looked scary in how they played)

 

Very intrigued by Cleverly Wilshere, but then again wary of Cleverly being overhyped, still think Wilshere coming back will be a huge boost to the team atm. To me one of the big problems is that players are no where near able to play their league level internationally it seems, apart from a few, it's like City in champions league atm, the bigger stage dazzles them. I'd much prefer a team of less expensive players really going for it than that band of overpaid useless idiots who obviously didn't give a damn.

[Guest]

Everytime I've seen Adam Johnson he's looked unstoppable, is there any reason he isn't getting picked for City or England?

 

Is it not just the case they simply have better players? Would probably excel at anybody else in the country.

[Ridman]

Draw for the Euro 2012 group stages will take place tomorrow in Kiev, Ukraine at 18:00CET

 

Pot 1: Spain, Netherlands, Poland, Ukraine

Pot 2: Germany, Italy, England, Russia

Pot 3: Croatia, Greece, Portugal, Sweden

Pot 4: Denmark, France, Czech Republic, Republic of Ireland

 

Already booked my flight and hotels for the trip next summer. Really hoping to draw England or Germany!

The atmosphere will be absolutely murderous in Warsaw if we get the Nazis.

 

 

 

 

[ponsaelius]

WTF, the draw for this is tomorrow too?!

[BottledDog]

England?

 

Meh.

 

 

It's all about Team GB hot trotting it to two thousand and twelve baby. Yeeaaaah!

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

http://www.footballsite.co.uk/Images/Photos/EASY%20-%20250.jpg

 

 

[Sifu]

http://www.footballsite.co.uk/Images/Photos/EASY%20-%20250.jpg

 

 

 

CRINGE.

[Sifu]

Fabio Capello may stay past Euro 2012 - Trevor Brooking

 

Page last updated at 10:58 GMT, Thursday, 1 December 2011

 

Sir Trevor Brooking says Fabio Capello could stay on as England manager after Euro 2012.

 

Capello's £6m-a-year contract expires in the summer and the 65-year-old has already been linked with other jobs.

 

But Brooking, the Football Association's director of football development, told BBC Radio 5 live that the Italian may be asked to continue.

 

"Fabio's contract ends in the summer and the mindset is for change but you never say never," Brooking said.

 

Tottenham manager Harry Redknapp, 64, is the current favourite to take over.

 

"If we could get someone home-grown it would send out the right message," Brooking added. "It would launch a new era and we do want a system where we have an English coach.

 

"But we don't want to lock it in - how many candidates are there? I am sure Harry Redknapp would be high in the betting but we will look at it on merit at the time."

 

Capello has consistently said he would leave his post as England boss after Euro 2012, but a good performance from England in Poland and Ukraine next summer may trigger a change of view.

 

Brooking added: "We are certainly hoping to do better this summer [in Euro 2012] than we did in South Africa [at the 2010 World Cup]."

 

England, who were beaten 4-1 by Germany in the last 16 of the World Cup 17 months ago, will find out on Friday who their group opponents will be at Euro 2012.

 

Capello's side, who will be based in the Polish city of Krakow, are in the pot of second seeds, along with Germany, Italy and Russia.

 

The former AC Milan, Juventus, Roma and Real Madrid boss has been in charge of England since December 2007, succeeding Steve McClaren.

 

Capello has already been linked with other coaching positions after Euro 2012, including a lucrative post with big-spending Russian club Anzhi Makhachkala and a return to Italy with Inter Milan.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15981863.stm

 

Good god, no!

 

This better not happen.

[Ronaldo]

At least it'll keep Owen outside of the picture until not even the likes of Shearer and Pearce etc are stupid enough to select him.

[Foluwashola]

Nearly got to 7.30pm without a Shearer dig. Try and make it to the end of Corrie tomorrow, I dare ya!!

[Disco]

It's all those people calling for Shearer to get the England job man Fo'sho ya deaf dafty.