England

[Guest The Little Waster]

Re Sterling ; theres a modern delusion that pace is everything and whilst pace is a handy thing to have , if you can’t finish or lay on a chance for a team mate its worse than pointless ... Sterling makes a great sprinter but thats all ... and for all those quoting his goals for Man City last season - what kind of goals ? Tap ins ? Against whom did he score ? Most PL teams / defences are shite and how many chances did he have to score ? Whats his goals to chances ratio ? Does he only score 1 in 5 ? Alan Shearer said this on radio 5 live on the night of the semi final and i cant but agree with his misgivings . Id rather a slower but wiser player ... give me a Modric or ( please God ) a Beardsley type over some pacey fucker who cant score at this level and whose desicion making is consistently wrong .

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Like fuck am I reading that...

 

...but I always read yours?! 

 

(I don't  )

 

I can read as quick as I can write, you make some good points to be fair.

 

Did we have this kind of discussion at the Euros? Did we even have a sub forum for that?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

One of the biggest questions ever asked of an England player is why can’t they play like they do for their club side for their country? Sterling has been asked that a lot and although he plays a different role for England than he does for City, he is a PL player so should be able to adapt yes?

 

First of all I think it’s unfair to judge a player on how they perform for their country vs how they perform for their club because there are so many viarables and the level is quite different, but it’s a valid question nonetheless and one I feel can be found in how our players play the game as kids which makes it much harder for our players to adapt to international football and perform at that level compared to players from other nations.

 

Kids in our country when they become interested in football if they want to take it further end up in a team or at a club and as young as 5 they are taught a style of football that gives them little time on the ball and even less freedom to express themselves and that is kick and rush football.

 

Kids as young as 5 are playing games and in leagues and cups with silverware to be won or lost at the end which creates enormous pressure on them and eats away at the fun and enjoyment of playing.

 

All our players despite their academy training, elite facilities and playing at some of the biggest clubs, under the best managers and with the best players, when removed from that environment or out of a certain comfort zone, revert to type which is being unable to deal with pressure, to be unable to control and pass the ball under pressure and being unable to express themselves individually.

 

The reason we lack flair players too is because such a player as a kid would have their flair knocked out of them or become so mechanical they simply forget to enjoy, show off and express themselves as they are told to tackle, run around, work hard and get the ball forward as quick as possible because there is 3 points at stake or a trophy. This at 5 years old.

 

A young Gazza today would be told to lose weight, work harder, tackle more, stop showing off and be like others if you want to make the team.

 

And for those that are small, lack pace or strength or any real physical attributes even if they are skilful, their route into organised football is even tougher and more challenging, often overlooked for bigger, stronger and quicker lads or not a regular in a team because they don’t have those attributes.

 

Until we change all of that, at international level, no matter how the manager wants the team to play out of the back or how many Pl and CL winners are in the team or how many caps they have, they will not be able to control the ball, game or occasion in the way other nations can, do and will. As we showed against Croatia.

 

So for us to make it far we have to have other answers and that’s what Southgate has been doing, but it’s plain to see where we come up short and how our players look lost in that shirt at times which means winning a tournament is always going to be against the odds for us.

 

I’ve been reading that Southgate has been trying to get the FA to reduce goal and pitch sizes and to shorten the size of teams that take the field from 11 to whatever. It as to happen throughout kids’ football.

 

Foreign players as kids are allowed to develop their game without the kind of restrictions, obstacles and challenges that face ours or the pressures which are only external from pushy parents and win at all costs coaches. If you are a coach and in charge o a kid’ team unless you don care one iota about winning be it games of cups your are disadvantaging your players and taking away what the game should be about for them for your own ego or selfishness or the rules of you club/FA who lay down the law and rules.

 

I’m all for improving facilities and coaching standards, but as Wenger said the game is the best coach and that fits in with what Wullie is saying about players needing to play.

 

You will not find kids playing street football today which I find sad. The only route for a kid to play football if his dad or uncle or mam doesn’t take him out for a kick-about is to join a team which I find absurdly follows the professional syllabus if you like from coaching, training, matches, goal sizes, ball sizes, the lot.

 

These are kids not elite footballers. They need a ball and to be allowed to play and have fun without worrying they are too small, or slow, or if they dribble they might get tackled leading to a goal which might win the other team a cup or the league or the pressure of wining or losing. It’s too much and unfair.

 

[joeyt]

[Guest Howaythetoon]

 

 

I might make that as my avatar. Needs to be a smilie as well.

[Wullie]

I can't stand the English players not getting opportunities argument. It sounds like bullshit & excuses to me, if they're good enough, they play. Just look at Rashford, that season Man Utd paid about £50m for Martial yet Rashford started over him time and time again.

 

There's plenty of opportunities for English youth players.

 

That's just silly. How can a player be 'good enough' at 18/19 when there's a ready made alternative somewhere else in the world that a Premier League can easily afford with many years of first team football behind them? Even if they're supremely talented at that age, you still don't have the experience of having played two or three hundred games, which we saw the other night when we looked incredibly naive against the Croatians.

 

That's fair enough, but my argument is that they do get the opportunities at first team level, whether on loan or at their present clubs. Can you give an example of an English player who would have 'made it' but didn't get the opportunities as there were foreign players in their place? I can't think of any, hence if they're good enough, they get into their teams or get a transfer sooner than later.

 

This is a really weird question.

 

It's not worded very well, yes - but it's a perfectly reasonable question and the answer to which is probably no, there's no examples where an English youngster failed or didn't develop through lack of opportunities alone. (of course many have failed because of other reasons, but I can't see any case where it's been down to lack of opportunities to develop).

 

It's not a reasonable question, it's preposterous. Let's play your silly game then: Scott Sinclair.

 

Why is it preposterous?

 

Don't know whether Sinclair fits your criteria or not but the question is ridiculous because anybody I name, you can just say "ah not good enough anyway" because you've got the benefit of hindsight and can just claim their current ability is their ceiling. I don't know the exact reasons Player X failed to reach his potential but I do know that the quickest way to improve a player is to play them regularly.

 

The point is that footballers only improve by playing football, and neither you nor I can possibly know how an obviously talented player like Sinclair - who left Chelsea at 21 having played 5 games for them, would have fared if he'd been given the opportunity to play regularly in the top flight in the key development years of 16-21.

 

Chelsea bought Eden Hazard when he was 21, same age as Sinclair when he was binned. By that time he'd played nearly 200 games for Lille - 4 full seasons of top flight and European football. Hazard would not have been as good as he was at 21 if he'd been sat round at Lille scratching his arse as Sinclair was at Chelsea, with a month loan once a season. That's the difference, and the advantage other countries have over England because of the financial success of the Premier League, where every single club can afford to buy any player they need, ready made off the shelf. There are vastly more Italians, French, Germans and Spanish playing in their respective leagues as a percentage of the total players. You only need half a dozen of those to really blossom as a result of playing in the top flight every week to give you a big advantage at international level.

 

In 2017-18, only 203 professionals in the Premier League were eligible to feature for England. The other 390 were either foreigners or have declared for other national teams. Three talented youngsters are playing in the Bundesliga -- Jadon Sancho (18 years old, Borussia Dortmund), Keanan Bennetts (Borussia Monchengladbach, 19) Kahlen Hinds (20, Wolfsburg) -- while Jonathan Panzo (17, Monaco) is in Ligue 1, but there are no Englishmen contracted to Serie A or La Liga clubs. (Loanee players do not count.)

 

Compare that with the Bundesliga, where 49.2 percent of players -- 264, in only 18 teams -- are German; with a further 21 playing in either the Premier League, Ligue 1, Serie A or La Liga, mostly at top clubs, the pool available to Joachim Low is a whopping 38 percent bigger than that of Southgate.

 

Spain (62.6 percent Spanish players in La Liga) and France (52.3 percent French in Ligue 1) have an even more pronounced advantage. Ahead of the World Cup, then-Spain manager Julen Lopetegui had a choice of 356 professionals from La Liga, Bundesliga, Premier League, Serie A and Ligue 1; France boss Didier Deschamps could whittle down 384 first-team players, from the same five leagues, to his squad of 23.

 

A glaring example of how much playing can improve is Kieran Trippier - fucked off from Man City when he was 21 (having played zero games for them), went to Burnley and it's taken him until he's 27 to make an England squad, and arguably been the best in his position at a World Cup. How good could he have been if Man City had put their faith in him instead of buying, for example, Zabaleta? If he'd played 150 top flight games by the time he was 21 instead of 0? What if Burnley had never been promoted, just falling short? He'd probably still be faring his trade at a decent level in the Championship, like dozens of other players who came through big academies before getting the boot in their 20s, the likes of Josh McEachran, Patrick Bamford, Sam Hutchinson. McEachran was supposed to be the next big thing, an England midfielder who could pass like the Europeans. He's 25 now, a Championship regular and he's still played less first team games than Hazard had by the time he was 20. He's played in 15 top flight games. What chance did he ever stand of meeting that standard?

 

That's why you get newspapers making these daft "future England XI" teams (this one happens to include Sinclair and Hutchinson actually), and they always look ridiculous five years down the line because half the players that were so highly thought of in their teens never got a game and drifted away.

 

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/england-2007.jpg

 

I mean, good post - and I agree with a lot of stuff in there; I'm also aware of the futile nature of the initial line of questioning. The Trippier example of course feels like a good one, given how well he's played this WC. I'm pretty sure neither you nor me watched him at youth level, but what if he simply wasn't showing strong enough signs of growth or was lacking a certain key mental, physical or technical attribute at the time and City felt right to, A. not trust him at first team level, and B. let him move on? I can't see good enough reason to simplify it as - if more top clubs played their young English talent then they would develop to become better players and our pool would be expanded. There has to be a reason for a Chelsea or City to bring a youngster into their team, it can't just be done in hope they will develop - obviously - they have matches to win. So unless a player, Foden for instance is so talented that he demands recognition in a strong team, then why shouldn't those youngsters have to drop down the league, or drop to lower leagues and look to develop through games there? Because as far as I can see, that's what happens with the majority, and when certain ones fail to climb back up to the top flight they're deemed as not fulfilling their potential, and we start hearing these excuses like they weren't given the chance at top level through foreign players being in their positions - but maybe it's actually just an accurate reflection of their skill set, whether City played them for 3 years or Bury did. I'm not saying that's always the case, but it certainly has to be considered.

 

I know what you're saying with the experience factor though, obviously what separates equally talented players is often match experience and football maturity. You raise Hazard as an example of someone who by 21 had 200 appearances for Lille. Well Marcus Rashford, at one of the biggest clubs in the world will almost certainly have around that many appearances by the time he's 21 too. So clearly, it does happen. Hazard and Rashford are also supremely talented players, who despite the fact they would have had downsides to their games at 17/18 year old, we're so talented that they still warranted starting and playing matches despite their deficiencies, and thus end up with a large amount of appearances by 21 say. They also play attacking, wide roles which often require less tactical discipline. Then you take McEachran or Swift for example, who as central midfielders, would have had to show immense maturity tactically at 17/18 along with their technical qualities in order for Chelsea to justify playing them as much as a Rashford or a Hazard. Is that Chelsea's fault then for not giving them game time to develop, and thus having them drop down leagues? Absolutely not, yet those, and players alike often get grouped into these conversations where people claim top clubs don't provide opportunities. Well maybe it's not that simple. What position the player plays seems a fairly substantial factor that has to be considered imo.

 

I agree about Rashford, he's one of very few examples of a player really getting a chance but you're wrong to compare him to Hazard because Hazard was in Ligue 1. A less talented player than Hazard, or a young central midfielder, is still going to get an earlier opportunity in France for a variety of reasons - same in Germany, hence players like Sancho heading to one of Europe's biggest clubs in Dortmund, and getting a game, where the chances of that happening in Manchester are much slimmer. They'd rather sign Mahrez for £60m than give their own talent an opportunity.

 

These lack of opportunities don't just happen at the top clubs in the Premier League, that's the point, they happen across the whole league for a variety of reasons. Premier League clubs don't risk taking a chance on young players because the financial implications are too big if they get it wrong, and because their incomes are so high that they don't need to. A mid-table club in Ligue 1 or the Bundesliga are the complete opposite - they can't afford not to. Not only are so many of their business models now based on trying to sell players to the Premier League who pay way over the odds, and so they need to develop them, clubs like Eibar/Guingamp/Mainz simply can't afford to buy players off the shelf. Most of them won't turn into Eden Hazard, but some will, and they play so many of their own players in the top flight that it gives the national manager a much wider pool of capable and experienced players to choose from.

[Dinho lad]

Re Sterling ; theres a modern delusion that pace is everything and whilst pace is a handy thing to have , if you can’t finish or lay on a chance for a team mate its worse than pointless ... Sterling makes a great sprinter but thats all ... and for all those quoting his goals for Man City last season - what kind of goals ? Tap ins ? Against whom did he score ? Most PL teams / defences are shite and how many chances did he have to score ? Whats his goals to chances ratio ? Does he only score 1 in 5 ? Alan Shearer said this on radio 5 live on the night of the semi final and i cant but agree with his misgivings . Id rather a slower but wiser player ... give me a Modric or ( please God ) a Beardsley type over some pacey fucker who cant score at this level and whose desicion making is consistently wrong .

 

so the only goals that count are ones you want? lets take back all of Shearer's tap ins.

 

lay on a chance for a team mate its worse than pointless .

 

He also got 11 assists. I'm sure you know more than Pep though, that he's "just a sprinter".

 

Scored against Napoli twice, Spurs Twice, Us. Guess all the PL defences are shite though so we should take away every goal that is scored by anyone ever.

 

Great shots, they were.

[Carlito]

 

 

Rashford is rubbish though. We just have a pretty average pool of players to choose from. Sterling is quality for Man City.

 

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances.

 

Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal.

 

I still don't understand what Sterling is doing to justify starting every single game. Can't beat a man, can't shoot, can't pass, can't even find a team-mate from 3 yards.

 

 

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane?

 

Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team.

 

How many assists does he have in this tournament? One?

How many shots did we have on target against Croatia?

How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition?

 

I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances?

Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role.

 

I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament.

 

He's very unfashionable, sadly.

Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all.

 

Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game.

 

Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances?

 

I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all.

 

Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree because I can't relate to that outlook on what Sterling did vs what Vardy did even in the slightest.

 

Right, you've said all sterling did was give the ball away. Lets have a look at him performing well:

 

His pass completion percentages were as follows:

 

50,75, 60.

 

Sterling's lowest?  78%. In every game he played. So your assertion that he's constantly giving away the ball and "cant pass 3 yards to a team mate is simply not true. And if you want Vardy to come in, he's gonna give the ball away at a rate miles above Sterling.

 

Did you watch him today, or against Croatia, or against Colombia? He couldn't find Delph today from 3 yards, and literally lost the ball pretty much every other time he had it. Statistically in the other games he may have completed a bunch of small meaningless sideways passes to the midfield or a few when we brought it back into the defense, but going forwards he offered absolutely nothing outside of the 1 assist.

 

He was all over the place today, and when he went off we converted more chances into shots, had more possession, more free kicks, and more corners. Against Croatia we had 1 shot on target I believe, and were under pressure for just about the entire 2nd half.

 

Vardy played around 1/3 of the time Sterling did, and in the one start he was given he was able to create just as many chances for others around him, and also win possession back when pressuring defenders with his pace and work-rate more than Sterling could. Vardy for what it's worth also covered just under half of the ground that Sterling did, given that he was given significantly less time on the field.

 

I'm not sure where you got your stats from, or how many passes he attempted per game, or throughout the entire tournament (it says he completed 115 overall on FOX Sports) but I'm sorry, if you couldn't see him losing possession when trying to run at defenders and falling over like a dog on ice, or getting muscled off the ball then you need glasses. How many of those 115 passes created chances for us as an attacking threat? How many times was he able to go past defenders without losing possession?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

The financial side of our game is to blame mainly. French clubs don’t have as much money to spend on players or wages as our clubs so they build a team from their youth set up or take players from another club much more often which creates a turnover of players that either way get games and a bigger pool of plays for the national manager to look at and pick and choose from.

 

And then a PL club comes along and takes them if they are even half decent. Rinse and repeat for them though. Who is in the final tomorrow?

 

I won’t mind, but despite our wealth and facilities and everything else, our PL teams haven’t done as well in Europe as they should do.

 

Again I’d like to see a rule that forces all clubs in this country play a number of homegrown nationals a percentage of league games over the course of a season and be rewarded somehow the more players that get games or start or whatever.

 

A few years back I couldn’t give a fuck about the England team so didn’t care how the PL effected it, but now I do care. It’s the ultimate level of the game and for years it’s played second fiddle to club football, especially for England players and the clubs themselves who don’t care either. They should because as the European competitions have shown, it can’t be bought like the PL.

 

For NUFC I’d rather we honestly spent more than what we have on our record buy which people are clamouring for on the academy and youth because that’s where clubs like us will benefit from, especially in the future.

 

And so will the National team.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Between USA 94 and France 98 (4 years, 2 tournaments) the pool of strikers an England manager could look at, try, choose between and take to a tournament consisted of the following who were in the main leading the line and scoring goals for their club side:

 

Shearer

Sutton

Sheringham

Cole

Wright

Ferdinand

Owen

Fowler

Collymore

Beardsley

Le Tissier

Armstrong

Dublin

Holdsworth

 

Even Julian Joachim got 14 PL goals in one season for Villa during those years.

 

A good number of them would walk into the current side and the others would have valid arguments as to why they should be included or at least looked at in friendlies. Indeed most actually won senior caps or caps at B and under 21 level.

 

Compare that list to today.

 

Serious question, would a 17-18 year old Owen get regular games for Liverpool today?

 

Would a 17 old Alan Shearer get a game for Southampton at that age today?

 

Would the class of 92 for Man Utd get into Mourinho’s team today or become the bedrock of that team?

 

The Southampton Alan Shearer would probably get snapped up by Chelsea and benched, ending up on loan somewhere before settling at a Burnley (or us ).

 

If Man Utd get Macguire it’s a great move, but only if he becomes the mainstay of their defence. Rashford needs to move as does Lingard and if Stones doesn’t get regular games at City he does too.

 

They’ve done well this tournament, but I’m sure Southgate would prefer them playing week in week out even if it isn’t for a Man Utd or a Chelsea or whoever.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

It’s a daft argument anyway because Vardy would be akin to a square peg in a round hole in this system, either he or the team would have to drastically alter the way they play for him to be effective. Wellbeck over Sterling would have been a better replacement if we are talking about that. Sterling actually didn’t do too badly, his running, pace and so on was key to our game and us doing well. Better finishing with a few goals and no-one would be calling for him to be dropped. Long-term, question marks remain mind and I’m not convinced.

[Carlito]

 

 

Rashford is rubbish though. We just have a pretty average pool of players to choose from. Sterling is quality for Man City.

 

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances.

 

Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal.

 

I still don't understand what Sterling is doing to justify starting every single game. Can't beat a man, can't shoot, can't pass, can't even find a team-mate from 3 yards.

 

 

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane?

 

Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team.

 

How many assists does he have in this tournament? One?

How many shots did we have on target against Croatia?

How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition?

 

I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances?

Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role.

 

I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament.

 

He's very unfashionable, sadly.

Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all.

 

Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game.

 

Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances?

 

I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all.

 

Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree because I can't relate to that outlook on what Sterling did vs what Vardy did even in the slightest.

 

Right, you've said all sterling did was give the ball away. Lets have a look at him performing well:

 

His pass completion percentages were as follows:

 

50,75, 60.

 

Sterling's lowest?  78%. In every game he played. So your assertion that he's constantly giving away the ball and "cant pass 3 yards to a team mate is simply not true. And if you want Vardy to come in, he's gonna give the ball away at a rate miles above Sterling.

 

Did you watch him today, or against Croatia, or against Colombia? He couldn't find Delph today from 3 yards, and literally lost the ball pretty much every other time he had it. Statistically in the other games he may have completed a bunch of small meaningless sideways passes to the midfield or a few when we brought it back into the defense, but going forwards he offered absolutely nothing outside of the 1 assist.

 

He was all over the place today, and when he went off we converted more chances into shots, had more possession, more free kicks, and more corners. Against Croatia we had 1 shot on target I believe, and were under pressure for just about the entire 2nd half.

 

Vardy played around 1/3 of the time Sterling did, and in the one start he was given he was able to create just as many chances for others around him, and also win possession back when pressuring defenders with his pace and work-rate more than Sterling could. Vardy for what it's worth also covered just under half of the ground that Sterling did, given that he was given significantly less time on the field.

 

I'm not sure where you got your stats from, or how many passes he attempted per game, or throughout the entire tournament (it says he completed 115 overall on FOX Sports) but I'm sorry, if you couldn't see him losing possession when trying to run at defenders and falling over like a dog on ice, or getting muscled off the ball then you need glasses. How many of those 115 passes created chances for us as an attacking threat? How many times was he able to go past defenders without losing possession?

 

Right, so now the stats have proven you wrong, and that Vardy was way more wasteful you've changed the goalposts? I don't need glasses, you're just consistently changing what you are saying. First its he cant pass 3 yards, he gives it away all the time. When that's proven wrong, Oh well they are just sideways passes

 

Yeah no shit, players lose possession when they take players on, otherwise you'd have the most perfect footballer of all time. The stats are from whoscored, which incidentally says he had a key pass every single game bar colombia.  And yes we turned to shit when he went off actually, so yeah I did watch him.

 

Vardy made zero interceptions statistically, and made two tackles against a reserve belgium team in 90 mins. So he didn't do any of those things you're saying he did. Just because you don't agree with the stats doesn't mean you can then change the argument around.

 

 

 

I'm not moving the goal posts at all. My point is he never learned from his mistakes throughout the tournament. He constantly tried to take people on and was tackled or muscled off the ball, or he took too long in possession and lost it. He created little to no chances in the box and took way too much time on the ball before losing it.

 

How the hell could we "turn to shit" if we created more chances and won more set-piece opportunities (which are clearly the biggest strength with this team) after he went off? We even had less possession when he was on the field man :lol:

 

Vardy made an interception against Belgium that was able to set Rashford up for a chance he curled wide. Go and watch the game again, or even the 2-minute highlights. He used his pace to win back possession for us on a number of occasions. He "made two tackles against a reserve Belgium side in 90 minutes", meanwhile Sterling got one assist, outside of the box, against the worst team in the tournament, in 454 minutes.

 

How many times did Sterling win back possession for us per game?

 

Who gave possession away more than Sterling per game or overall in the tournament?

 

It’s a daft argument anyway because Vardy would be akin to a square peg in a round hole in this system, either he or the team would have to drastically alter the way they play for him to be effective. Wellbeck over Sterling would have been a better replacement if we are talking about that. Sterling actually didn’t do too badly, his running, pace and so on was key to our game and us doing well. Better finishing with a few goals and no-one would be calling for him to be dropped. Long-term, question marks remain mind and I’m not convinced.

 

Again, my issues aren't with his pace or his running/movement off the ball.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

 

 

Rashford is rubbish though. We just have a pretty average pool of players to choose from. Sterling is quality for Man City.

 

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances.

 

Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal.

 

I still don't understand what Sterling is doing to justify starting every single game. Can't beat a man, can't shoot, can't pass, can't even find a team-mate from 3 yards.

 

 

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane?

 

Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team.

 

How many assists does he have in this tournament? One?

How many shots did we have on target against Croatia?

How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition?

 

I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances?

Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role.

 

I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament.

 

He's very unfashionable, sadly.

Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all.

 

Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game.

 

Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances?

 

I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all.

 

Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree because I can't relate to that outlook on what Sterling did vs what Vardy did even in the slightest.

 

Right, you've said all sterling did was give the ball away. Lets have a look at him performing well:

 

His pass completion percentages were as follows:

 

50,75, 60.

 

Sterling's lowest?  78%. In every game he played. So your assertion that he's constantly giving away the ball and "cant pass 3 yards to a team mate is simply not true. And if you want Vardy to come in, he's gonna give the ball away at a rate miles above Sterling.

 

Did you watch him today, or against Croatia, or against Colombia? He couldn't find Delph today from 3 yards, and literally lost the ball pretty much every other time he had it. Statistically in the other games he may have completed a bunch of small meaningless sideways passes to the midfield or a few when we brought it back into the defense, but going forwards he offered absolutely nothing outside of the 1 assist.

 

He was all over the place today, and when he went off we converted more chances into shots, had more possession, more free kicks, and more corners. Against Croatia we had 1 shot on target I believe, and were under pressure for just about the entire 2nd half.

 

Vardy played around 1/3 of the time Sterling did, and in the one start he was given he was able to create just as many chances for others around him, and also win possession back when pressuring defenders with his pace and work-rate more than Sterling could. Vardy for what it's worth also covered just under half of the ground that Sterling did, given that he was given significantly less time on the field.

 

I'm not sure where you got your stats from, or how many passes he attempted per game, or throughout the entire tournament (it says he completed 115 overall on FOX Sports) but I'm sorry, if you couldn't see him losing possession when trying to run at defenders and falling over like a dog on ice, or getting muscled off the ball then you need glasses. How many of those 115 passes created chances for us as an attacking threat? How many times was he able to go past defenders without losing possession?

 

Right, so now the stats have proven you wrong, and that Vardy was way more wasteful you've changed the goalposts? I don't need glasses, you're just consistently changing what you are saying. First its he cant pass 3 yards, he gives it away all the time. When that's proven wrong, Oh well they are just sideways passes

 

Yeah no shit, players lose possession when they take players on, otherwise you'd have the most perfect footballer of all time. The stats are from whoscored, which incidentally says he had a key pass every single game bar colombia.  And yes we turned to shit when he went off actually, so yeah I did watch him.

 

Vardy made zero interceptions statistically, and made two tackles against a reserve belgium team in 90 mins. So he didn't do any of those things you're saying he did. Just because you don't agree with the stats doesn't mean you can then change the argument around.

 

 

 

I'm not moving the goal posts at all. My point is he never learned from his mistakes throughout the tournament. He constantly tried to take people on and was tackled or muscled off the ball, or he took too long in possession and lost it. He created little to no chances in the box and took way too much time on the ball before losing it.

 

How the hell could we "turn to shit" if we created more chances and won more set-piece opportunities (which are clearly the biggest strength with this team) after he went off? We even had less possession when he was on the field man :lol:

 

Vardy made an interception against Belgium that was able to set Rashford up for a chance he curled wide. Go and watch the game again, or even the 2-minute highlights. He used his pace to win back possession for us on a number of occasions. He "made two tackles against a reserve Belgium side in 90 minutes", meanwhile Sterling got one assist, outside of the box, against the worst team in the tournament, in 454 minutes.

 

How many times did Sterling win back possession for us per game?

 

Who gave possession away more than Sterling per game or overall in the tournament?

 

I don’t particularly want to get involved in your two’s debate, but you have to ask yourself one question: Would Vardy starting over Sterling help the team more?

 

You can say well he had more shots or didn’t lose the ball more when he came on as a sub, but that is being selective.

 

I love Vardy me, but the way we are set up and play, playing him from the start wouldn’t make sense. He was brought along as a plan B IMO when the game is stretched late on or in extra time where his pace and pressing could come in handy.

 

Sterling didn’t excel at all and his finishing was poor, but he played a key role in the team that enabled us to get to where we did with his running, wide play, dropping deep, work-rate and him drawing a marker on him constantly.

 

For me, he didn't look relaxed at all and was too tense and tried too hard at times. I think the pre tournament media crap weighed on him heavily. He’s never been a great finisher because if he was he’d be one of the best players in the world, but the lad can finish and some of his chances he would usually bury for City.

 

Although I’m not convinced he is the answer for us in this team going forward, he has played a part at Russia and it would have been stupid to drop him. Southgate had to stick with him because if he had clicked, bingo. Vardy most certainly isn’t the answer and never was.

 

I’d like to see him and the likes of Young, Jones and Cahill among others phased out, same with Dier who I think is bang average. No point using Vardy if you’re not gonna start him, may as well look at younger more suitable players like Solanke or the Everton youngster even though they haven’t exactly looked that promising.

 

 

[Guest The Little Waster]

Re Sterling ; theres a modern delusion that pace is everything and whilst pace is a handy thing to have , if you can’t finish or lay on a chance for a team mate its worse than pointless ... Sterling makes a great sprinter but thats all ... and for all those quoting his goals for Man City last season - what kind of goals ? Tap ins ? Against whom did he score ? Most PL teams / defences are shite and how many chances did he have to score ? Whats his goals to chances ratio ? Does he only score 1 in 5 ? Alan Shearer said this on radio 5 live on the night of the semi final and i cant but agree with his misgivings . Id rather a slower but wiser player ... give me a Modric or ( please God ) a Beardsley type over some pacey fucker who cant score at this level and whose desicion making is consistently wrong .

 

so the only goals that count are ones you want? lets take back all of Shearer's tap ins.

 

lay on a chance for a team mate its worse than pointless .

 

He also got 11 assists. I'm sure you know more than Pep though, that he's "just a sprinter".

 

Scored against Napoli twice, Spurs Twice, Us. Guess all the PL defences are shite though so we should take away every goal that is scored by anyone ever.

 

Great shots, they were.

 

Read what i wrote ... At this level ... international level ...

[Carlito]

 

 

Rashford is rubbish though. We just have a pretty average pool of players to choose from. Sterling is quality for Man City.

 

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances.

 

Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal.

 

I still don't understand what Sterling is doing to justify starting every single game. Can't beat a man, can't shoot, can't pass, can't even find a team-mate from 3 yards.

 

 

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane?

 

Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team.

 

How many assists does he have in this tournament? One?

How many shots did we have on target against Croatia?

How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition?

 

I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances?

Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role.

 

I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament.

 

He's very unfashionable, sadly.

Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all.

 

Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game.

 

Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances?

 

I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all.

 

Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree because I can't relate to that outlook on what Sterling did vs what Vardy did even in the slightest.

 

Right, you've said all sterling did was give the ball away. Lets have a look at him performing well:

 

His pass completion percentages were as follows:

 

50,75, 60.

 

Sterling's lowest?  78%. In every game he played. So your assertion that he's constantly giving away the ball and "cant pass 3 yards to a team mate is simply not true. And if you want Vardy to come in, he's gonna give the ball away at a rate miles above Sterling.

 

Did you watch him today, or against Croatia, or against Colombia? He couldn't find Delph today from 3 yards, and literally lost the ball pretty much every other time he had it. Statistically in the other games he may have completed a bunch of small meaningless sideways passes to the midfield or a few when we brought it back into the defense, but going forwards he offered absolutely nothing outside of the 1 assist.

 

He was all over the place today, and when he went off we converted more chances into shots, had more possession, more free kicks, and more corners. Against Croatia we had 1 shot on target I believe, and were under pressure for just about the entire 2nd half.

 

Vardy played around 1/3 of the time Sterling did, and in the one start he was given he was able to create just as many chances for others around him, and also win possession back when pressuring defenders with his pace and work-rate more than Sterling could. Vardy for what it's worth also covered just under half of the ground that Sterling did, given that he was given significantly less time on the field.

 

I'm not sure where you got your stats from, or how many passes he attempted per game, or throughout the entire tournament (it says he completed 115 overall on FOX Sports) but I'm sorry, if you couldn't see him losing possession when trying to run at defenders and falling over like a dog on ice, or getting muscled off the ball then you need glasses. How many of those 115 passes created chances for us as an attacking threat? How many times was he able to go past defenders without losing possession?

 

Right, so now the stats have proven you wrong, and that Vardy was way more wasteful you've changed the goalposts? I don't need glasses, you're just consistently changing what you are saying. First its he cant pass 3 yards, he gives it away all the time. When that's proven wrong, Oh well they are just sideways passes

 

Yeah no shit, players lose possession when they take players on, otherwise you'd have the most perfect footballer of all time. The stats are from whoscored, which incidentally says he had a key pass every single game bar colombia.  And yes we turned to shit when he went off actually, so yeah I did watch him.

 

Vardy made zero interceptions statistically, and made two tackles against a reserve belgium team in 90 mins. So he didn't do any of those things you're saying he did. Just because you don't agree with the stats doesn't mean you can then change the argument around.

 

 

 

I'm not moving the goal posts at all. My point is he never learned from his mistakes throughout the tournament. He constantly tried to take people on and was tackled or muscled off the ball, or he took too long in possession and lost it. He created little to no chances in the box and took way too much time on the ball before losing it.

 

How the hell could we "turn to shit" if we created more chances and won more set-piece opportunities (which are clearly the biggest strength with this team) after he went off? We even had less possession when he was on the field man :lol:

 

Vardy made an interception against Belgium that was able to set Rashford up for a chance he curled wide. Go and watch the game again, or even the 2-minute highlights. He used his pace to win back possession for us on a number of occasions. He "made two tackles against a reserve Belgium side in 90 minutes", meanwhile Sterling got one assist, outside of the box, against the worst team in the tournament, in 454 minutes.

 

How many times did Sterling win back possession for us per game?

 

Who gave possession away more than Sterling per game or overall in the tournament?

 

I don’t particularly want to get involved in your two’s debate, but you have to ask yourself one question: Would Vardy starting over Sterling help the team more?

 

You can say well he had more shots or didn’t lose the ball more when he came on as a sub, but that is being selective.

 

I love Vardy me, but the way we are set up and play, playing him from the start wouldn’t make sense. He was brought along as a plan B IMO when the game is stretched late on or in extra time where his pace and pressing could come in handy.

 

Sterling didn’t excel at all and his finishing was poor, but he played a key role in the team that enabled us to get to where we did with his running, wide play, dropping deep, work-rate and him drawing a marker on him constantly.

 

For me, he didn't look relaxed at all and was too tense and tried too hard at times. I think the pre tournament media crap weighed on him heavily. He’s never been a great finisher because if he was he’d be one of the best players in the world, but the lad can finish and some of his chances he would usually bury for City.

 

Although I’m not convinced he is the answer for us in this team going forward, he has played a part at Russia and it would have been stupid to drop him. Southgate had to stick with him because if he had clicked, bingo. Vardy most certainly isn’t the answer and never was.

 

I’d like to see him and the likes of Young, Jones and Cahill among others phased out, same with Dier who I think is bang average. No point using Vardy if you’re not gonna start him, may as well look at younger more suitable players like Solanke or the Everton youngster even though they haven’t exactly looked that promising.

 

 

 

I genuinely believe Vardy would help the team, because he did everything Sterling did in the time he was given. He works just as hard off the ball, is just as fast, and has a better eye for goal. Even if he has to sacrifice goals for the way the team plays, he's very capable of doing that in my opinion.

 

I may be criticizing Sterling for his carelessness on the ball here, and his finishing, but I'm not calling for him to be dropped from the squad. I can see the potential there with him but there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out what he's been doing wrong. I just don't think he brought enough to the team in terms of key passes, assists, or goals, to justify being started in every game bar the Belgium one in the groups, and being on the field for 80 or 90 odd minutes. Had Vardy started more games then he may have gotten a couple of goals or assists to his name. He should have had at least one assist where he played Rashford in on goal. Vardy brings more to the team than just running in behind the back line.

 

I'd honestly say it's the other way around, that it should be Sterling who is used as the impact player off the bench to run at people when they're tired, because having him do that from the start simply hasn't worked for him in this world cup. Maybe then he'd be getting those key passes into the penalty area, or be able to take a chance when he's through on goal.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Fair enough 

 

Going forward I’d replace him as a starter personally, but if GS sticks with him and he and the team click, it would be the best outcome because he is probably our best individual player alongside Kane. Deli Ali would be my biggest concern and the one with the most question marks about his place and role in the starting 11.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Talking of talent, what happened to Ravel Morrison?

 

Are there none diminutive silky Spanish 10s with English ancestors we can poach?

[Wullie]

Talking of talent, what happened to Ravel Morrison?

 

Last seen on loan in Mexico.

[Dinho lad]

Re Sterling ; theres a modern delusion that pace is everything and whilst pace is a handy thing to have , if you can’t finish or lay on a chance for a team mate its worse than pointless ... Sterling makes a great sprinter but thats all ... and for all those quoting his goals for Man City last season - what kind of goals ? Tap ins ? Against whom did he score ? Most PL teams / defences are shite and how many chances did he have to score ? Whats his goals to chances ratio ? Does he only score 1 in 5 ? Alan Shearer said this on radio 5 live on the night of the semi final and i cant but agree with his misgivings . Id rather a slower but wiser player ... give me a Modric or ( please God ) a Beardsley type over some pacey fucker who cant score at this level and whose desicion making is consistently wrong .

 

so the only goals that count are ones you want? lets take back all of Shearer's tap ins.

 

lay on a chance for a team mate its worse than pointless .

 

He also got 11 assists. I'm sure you know more than Pep though, that he's "just a sprinter".

 

Scored against Napoli twice, Spurs Twice, Us. Guess all the PL defences are shite though so we should take away every goal that is scored by anyone ever.

 

Great shots, they were.

 

Read what i wrote ... At this level ... international level ...

 

Okay, I'll pass that to ManDoon.

[Stottie]

From his effort at the Trippier free kick, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that their keeper was still injured. He should have been tested, even from distance, to see how injured.

 

The non-attempts at diving in the final only seem to confirm this. Playing a keeper known to have been injured in the previous match and not testing him is piss-poor management.

 

England have taken injured players into big matches before, Rooney etc., and it was seen as a sign of incompetence that was rightly punished by the other team.

[Guest]

Between USA 94 and France 98 (4 years, 2 tournaments) the pool of strikers an England manager could look at, try, choose between and take to a tournament consisted of the following who were in the main leading the line and scoring goals for their club side:

 

Shearer

Sutton

Sheringham

Cole

Wright

Ferdinand

Owen

Fowler

Collymore

Beardsley

Le Tissier

Armstrong

Dublin

Holdsworth

 

Even Julian Joachim got 14 PL goals in one season for Villa during those years.

 

A good number of them would walk into the current side and the others would have valid arguments as to why they should be included or at least looked at in friendlies. Indeed most actually won senior caps or caps at B and under 21 level.

 

Compare that list to today.

 

Serious question, would a 17-18 year old Owen get regular games for Liverpool today?

 

Would a 17 old Alan Shearer get a game for Southampton at that age today?

 

Would the class of 92 for Man Utd get into Mourinho’s team today or become the bedrock of that team?

 

The Southampton Alan Shearer would probably get snapped up by Chelsea and benched, ending up on loan somewhere before settling at a Burnley (or us ).

 

If Man Utd get Macguire it’s a great move, but only if he becomes the mainstay of their defence. Rashford needs to move as does Lingard and if Stones doesn’t get regular games at City he does too.

 

They’ve done well this tournament, but I’m sure Southgate would prefer them playing week in week out even if it isn’t for a Man Utd or a Chelsea or whoever.

 

Would that list look so great if the Premier League had, for instance, peak Weah, Batistuta, Bierhoff playing at the top clubs, and we had some of the best defenders from around the world here?

 

The league was predominantly British then, if it was the same now then the likes of Welbeck would look way better. Doesn’t mean they’d be good enough still.

[The College Dropout]

Wenger ruined Welbs. 

 

I would have him here.

[Infinitely Content]

Wenger ruined Welbs. 

 

I would have him here.

 

I'd take him as well, not a bad player at all.

[54]

Southgate going to be offered a new contract apparently.

[Anderson]

Vardy's retired from international football.