World on alert Germans marching again!

[Guest Stephen927]

It's funny how rare it is for England to give a player a debut. Every player in the squad made their debut prior to 2004. Yet Ozil by comparison was playing for the U21'S against England as little as last year.

 

Is that true? Milner made his international debut 6 years ago? 

 

Like you would have missed that happening.

[Greg]

It's funny how rare it is for England to give a player a debut. Every player in the squad made their debut prior to 2004. Yet Ozil by comparison was playing for the U21'S against England as little as last year.

 

Hart - 2008

Milner - 2009

Warnock - 2008

Dawson - Still hasn't made it.

 

Probably more but I can't be arsed to look but we did have an older average squad age compared to most at this World Cup.

 

[Guest Heneage]

It's funny how rare it is for England to give a player a debut. Every player in the squad made their debut prior to 2004. Yet Ozil by comparison was playing for the U21'S against England as little as last year.

 

Is that true? Milner made his international debut 6 years ago? 

Apologies it seems bar Hart and Milner.

[TaylorJ_01]

It's funny how rare it is for England to give a player a debut. Every player in the squad made their debut prior to 2004. Yet Ozil by comparison was playing for the U21'S against England as little as last year.

 

Hart - 2008

Milner - 2009

Warnock - 2008

Dawson - Still hasn't made it.

 

Probably more but I can't be arsed to look but we did have an older average squad age compared to most at this World Cup.

 

 

Think we had the oldest overall actually...

[Wullie]

England's problem was they picked the best 11 players, not the best team.

 

Often said about England, and often valid, but this time I'm not sure there was an obvious "best team." Would have been nice to try other systems out though rather than just sticking with the old guard.

[Wullie]

It's funny how rare it is for England to give a player a debut. Every player in the squad made their debut prior to 2004. Yet Ozil by comparison was playing for the U21'S against England as little as last year.

 

Hart - 2008

Milner - 2009

Warnock - 2008

Dawson - Still hasn't made it.

 

Probably more but I can't be arsed to look but we did have an older average squad age compared to most at this World Cup.

 

 

Think we had the oldest overall actually...

 

Italy surely?

[Greg]

England's problem was they picked the best 11 players, not the best team.

 

Why was Heskey picked then?

[Dave]

It's funny how rare it is for England to give a player a debut. Every player in the squad made their debut prior to 2004. Yet Ozil by comparison was playing for the U21'S against England as little as last year.

 

Hart - 2008

Milner - 2009

Warnock - 2008

Dawson - Still hasn't made it.

 

Probably more but I can't be arsed to look but we did have an older average squad age compared to most at this World Cup.

 

 

Think we had the oldest overall actually...

 

Italy surely?

 

Ghana – 24.1

North Korea – 24.8

Germany – 25.0

Cameroon – 25.2

Spain – 25.9

Chile – 25.9

Serbia – 26.0

Slovakia – 26.1

Switzerland – 26.7

Ivory Coast – 26.7

Uruguay – 26.7

Slovenia – 26.7

South Africa – 26.9

USA – 26.9

Mexico – 27.1

Argentina – 27.1

South Korea – 27.1

Algeria – 27.2

New Zealand – 27.3

France – 27.4

Greece – 27.7

Nigeria – 27.7

Denmark – 27.7

Netherlands – 27.7

Portugal – 27.7

Japan – 27.8

Honduras – 28.1

Paraguay – 28.1

Italy – 28.2

Australia – 28.4

Brazil – 28.6

England – 28.7

[ElDiablo]

James must knock it up a good year or so.

[TaylorJ_01]

It's funny how rare it is for England to give a player a debut. Every player in the squad made their debut prior to 2004. Yet Ozil by comparison was playing for the U21'S against England as little as last year.

 

Hart - 2008

Milner - 2009

Warnock - 2008

Dawson - Still hasn't made it.

 

Probably more but I can't be arsed to look but we did have an older average squad age compared to most at this World Cup.

 

 

Think we had the oldest overall actually...

 

Italy surely?

 

England: 28.7

Australia: 28.4

Italy: 28.2

 

http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2010/the-average-age-of-all-world-cup-squads.html

 

EDIT: bloody Dave

[Wullie]

Surprised at Brazil.

[indi]

I don't think it's an either/or situation to be fair. There are a number of issues with England at the moment, there's the one we've already discussed above and then there's also the issue with our seeming inability to play as an organised team. Again, I don't know if this has already been discussed, but I thought what one of the German players said (Mueller, I think) about England having too many chiefs and not enough Indians was pretty much spot on. People have been banging on about how many "great" players we have, how they've won all these trophies and so-on, but the problem is when it comes to the crunch they don't perform as a team. There are far too many mega-egos in the England squad and almost none of them are prepared to put their own interests aside for the benefit of the team. I've been banging on for ages about how defending in particular is about organisation and tactics, not star-players - look where it got Greece in 2004! - but that also applies to what goes on on the rest of the pitch too. At the end of the day, it's all about putting the ball in the opposition's net and preventing them from doing the same to you, and there are essentially two ways of doing that; you can either do it through a brilliant piece of individual skill, or through a well worked team move. The first requires you to have players capable of pulling something like that off, and in international football, where you can't just buy one in, you either have those kind of players, or you don't. It's foolish to base your chances of success on the assumption that you're going to have those players and that they're going to be fit and on form when a major tournament comes around, yet despite England not often having that type of player and when we do them invariably being injured or out of form, we still seem to rely on it. The second is a much more logical way for a country like us to try and play. "All" you need is a group of reasonably fit, reasonably talented, players who are well organised and are prepared to work hard together to play as a team. It sounds simple and it actually would be if players were prepared to put their egos aside, think about what they were doing and make sure they did the simple things right, unfortunately our "star" players are simply not prepared to do this. It's totally impossible for a coach to get a team playing organised, cohesive, error-free, football when half his team think they're the most important person on the pitch and can do exactly what they want with no regard to whether it's in the best interests of the team. What's the point in trying to implement different tactics when you have players who won't even listen to the most basic of tactical instructions, like: "Play on the left, you thick fucking twat!"? How are you supposed to build a team from such arseholes? If you look at the England team we have either "star" players, or nobodies, nothing in between, and as Newcastle fans we should all know that that's never going to work. Even if you look at the other teams with loads of star players, like Brazil and Argentina, they're (mostly) prepared to work for the team and the coaches of those teams genuinely value their lesser players too because they know just how important they are to the team, look at how Maradona is with Jonas, for example. On the other hand, for the England manager it's all about massaging egos, how often have we heard Cappello banging on about our "star" players; Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard, Terry, etc, yet the rest never get a look-in. It's basically a clique, and if you're in, you're important, and if you're not, you're nothing. How is that going to create a good team?

 

There's not one thing wrong with the England team, there's lots of things that we could do a hell of a lot better, the real problem is that, as far as I can see, we won't, as evidenced by the Howard Wilkinson thing mentioned above.

[Wullie]

Paragraphs indi, paragraphs!

[TaylorJ_01]

Paragraphs indi, paragraphs!

 

I know, it's so rectangular.

[Guest Heneage]

England's problem was they picked the best 11 players, not the best team.

 

Why was Heskey picked then?

Because it was deemed he worked well with Rooney. Just getting the strikeforce working in a 'system' doesn't equate the team. He set up to play 4-4-2 from minute 1, the players he picked didn't work in that system, meaning he didn't pick the best team.

 

[Greg]

England's problem was they picked the best 11 players, not the best team.

 

Why was Heskey picked then?

Because it was deemed he worked well with Rooney. Just getting the strikeforce working in a 'system' doesn't equate the team. He set up to play 4-4-2 from minute 1, the players he picked didn't work in that system, meaning he didn't pick the best team.

 

 

You said he picked the best 11 players, he didn't.

[indi]

Paragraphs indi, paragraphs!

 

It's only 15 lines, but okay then, if you insist.

 

I don't think it's an either/or situation to be fair. There are a number of issues with England at the moment, there's the one we've already discussed above and then there's also the issue with our seeming inability to play as an organised team.

 

Again, I don't know if this has already been discussed, but I thought what one of the German players said (Mueller, I think) about England having too many chiefs and not enough Indians was pretty much spot on. People have been banging on about how many "great" players we have, how they've won all these trophies and so-on, but the problem is when it comes to the crunch they don't perform as a team. There are far too many mega-egos in the England squad and almost none of them are prepared to put their own interests aside for the benefit of the team.

 

I've been banging on for ages about how defending in particular is about organisation and tactics, not star-players - look where it got Greece in 2004! - but that also applies to what goes on on the rest of the pitch too. At the end of the day, it's all about putting the ball in the opposition's net and preventing them from doing the same to you, and there are essentially two ways of doing that; you can either do it through a brilliant piece of individual skill, or through a well worked team move.

 

The first requires you to have players capable of pulling something like that off, and in international football, where you can't just buy one in, you either have those kind of players, or you don't. It's foolish to base your chances of success on the assumption that you're going to have those players and that they're going to be fit and on form when a major tournament comes around, yet despite England not often having that type of player and when we do them invariably being injured or out of form, we still seem to rely on it.

 

The second is a much more logical way for a country like us to try and play. "All" you need is a group of reasonably fit, reasonably talented, players who are well organised and are prepared to work hard together to play as a team. It sounds simple and it actually would be if players were prepared to put their egos aside, think about what they were doing and make sure they did the simple things right, unfortunately our "star" players are simply not prepared to do this.

 

It's totally impossible for a coach to get a team playing organised, cohesive, error-free, football when half his team think they're the most important person on the pitch and can do exactly what they want with no regard to whether it's in the best interests of the team. What's the point in trying to implement different tactics when you have players who won't even listen to the most basic of tactical instructions, like: "Play on the left, you thick fucking twat!"? How are you supposed to build a team from such arseholes? If you look at the England team we have either "star" players, or nobodies, nothing in between, and as Newcastle fans we should all know that that's never going to work. Even if you look at the other teams with loads of star players, like Brazil and Argentina, they're (mostly) prepared to work for the team and the coaches of those teams genuinely value their lesser players too because they know just how important they are to the team, look at how Maradona is with Jonas, for example. On the other hand, for the England manager it's all about massaging egos, how often have we heard Cappello banging on about our "star" players; Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard, Terry, etc, yet the rest never get a look-in. It's basically a clique, and if you're in, you're important, and if you're not, you're nothing. How is that going to create a good team?

 

There's not one thing wrong with the England team, there's lots of things that we could do a hell of a lot better, the real problem is that, as far as I can see, we won't, as evidenced by the Howard Wilkinson thing mentioned above.

[Guest Heneage]

England's problem was they picked the best 11 players, not the best team.

 

Why was Heskey picked then?

Because it was deemed he worked well with Rooney. Just getting the strikeforce working in a 'system' doesn't equate the team. He set up to play 4-4-2 from minute 1, the players he picked didn't work in that system, meaning he didn't pick the best team.

 

 

You said he picked the best 11 players, he didn't.

Who would have gone ahead of Heskey then? If you check after the first two games Germany including, he picked the 'best 11' he didn't look at how those players worked in the system he wanted to play.

 

Gerrard is the epitome of this. 4-4-2 requires disciplined two banks of four. Gerrard is too pig headed, that's why Liverpool play him in advanced role, because it means he can do pretty much what he wants, drift across the pitch and basically 'pop up'. A few of BBC's pundits mainly Liverpool players said that it's because he's not left footed. It's bollocks, Quaresma, and even Jonas have played on opposing flanks to their strongest foot. It's about discipline and Gerrard lacks it. A lot of England's players do, Rooney is another one lacking in discipline. England lost the game more from the flanks than anywhere IMO.

[Cajun]

Who would he have picked ahead of Heskey ability wise? Best, Defoe, Crouch, Agbonlahor, Derbyshire, Beattie, Kevin Davies...

[Wullie]

Who would he have picked ahead of Heskey ability wise? Best, Defoe, Crouch, Agbonlahor, Derbyshire, Beattie, Kevin Davies...

 

Shola.

[Guest Stephen927]

Who would he have picked ahead of Heskey ability wise? Best, Defoe, Crouch, Agbonlahor, Derbyshire, Beattie, Kevin Davies...

 

Best plays for the Irish you idiot.

[Gash]

James must knock it up a good year or so.

28.1 if we swapped him for say Ben Foster

[Cajun]

Fuck, meant Bent.

[Guest Stephen927]

Fuck, meant Bent.

 

I thought it was one of those "Best is good really" kinda jokes.

[Cajun]

ALL the signs point to him being god awful but I genuinely think for some reason Best will have a good season

 

It won't be amazing or anything but people will change their opinion from "fuck me, worst striker ever" to "he's decent".