Wullie Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I only saw the first half and the last 15 minutes, but what I saw was Eriksson-tastic, so incredibly dull. Wright Phillips was woeful, his game seems to be about pace and little else. I can't believe so many people criticise Milner when this bloke (£17m was it?) could play all night and not put a decent cross in. The amount of times he would face up to the full-back and just do nothing with it (reminded me hugely of Duff this season actually) was incredible, and every time I thought "Milner would step over that twice, leave the defender on his arse and get the ball in". Never seen the fuss over Carrick either, very average looking player. Decent passer, not much else. Lampard as well, fucking hell, as if he's still getting a game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniatmoko Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 the problem of england team is really SWP... every time he get the ball... he lost it ... he is s***.... i think the problem of england national team is having manager that always have mental illness for having an overhyped player..... it's like england manager just select player for media feeding. McClaren just show himself as technically dull.... i mean ffs... SWP has been not effective since minute play on and he still keep SWP on until 2nd half btw.. carrick play good... and because lampard and swp played so dull.. people said carrick is s***... and about crouch... he is just averange striker with plus added height ... not clinicall enough and the goal might be not conceded if Mr. Phil "I'm afraid of the Ball" Neville charge down iniesta not just jump clueless and not watching of the ball... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ridzuan Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 England was poor yesterday and they deserved to lose.I agree that SWP was poor yesterday,and so was Crouch.I thought Dyer had a good game.I can see he is trying his best to impress Steve.Forster had a good game too apart from the goal,which he could do nothing about it.Steve McClaren made too many changes in the second half,maybe it is because he wants to see which player suits his style of play the most.But again,that is no reason why the perform so poor yesterday.Yesterday match also shows the importance of having players like Rooney and Terry who can make a big difference to the team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Toon Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Decent performance from Dyer, but he faded badly towards the end, and really should have been subbed - I would have taken him off instead of SWP. Woodgate looked pretty good, but I think his injuries have taken away a little bit of his sharpness - he used to have tremedous pace and acceleration, but now he seems to back off a lot more to give himself a bit more time. Still way better than anything we've got mind! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I can't believe so many people criticise Milner when this bloke (£17m was it?) £23m as i recall? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellious Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Carrick miss placed every pass. He was woeful. Dyer, Woodgate and Rio played well. I was no fan of Lampard at the WorldCup but he played better than Gerrard once he got into his own position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 With regards to Milner, he is a very good premiership footballer, but his first touch isn't good enough for international level. Against good defenders, he is therefore unable to create enough time and space for himself. However, this applies for quite a few of our attacking players right now such as Lampard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I can't believe so many people criticise Milner when this bloke (£17m was it?) £23m as i recall? Class listening to Ian Wright going on about how a "£21m player should be getting a game every week at Chelsea", seemingly oblivious to the fact that a fair price for SWP's abilities is a lot closer to £5m. Tit that he is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Surely that game must be the final straw for SWP. If by some miraculous reason he didn't realise he's sliding FAST then he should now. The sad thing is he still got picked and started. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 i think some ofthe criticism of lampard and swp has been unfair. Lampard played well in the first-half at least, despite playing out of position. i think he does the basic footballing jobs better than gerrard too, for instance if you are comparing both players' first touch last night, gerrard's was horrific, while lampard's was very good at times, his anticipation buying him time and space regularly. SWP i thought was very bright and a lot of our best stuff went down his side. yes his end product was lacking but he hardly ever plays so you would expect him to be raw and lacking edge. if anything last night reiterated his innate talent, but showed that it is going to waste at chelsea. i'd have him here and i'd play him over milner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hagler Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Class listening to Ian Wright going on about how a "£21m player should be getting a game every week at Chelsea", seemingly oblivious to the fact that a fair price for SWP's abilities is a lot closer to £5m. Tit that he is. he was on talk sport the other day crying about the same thing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 No way we qualify with the ginger knob as manager, yeah okay he has players missing but I do not want to hear our international manager whinging about it. Only Dyer and SWP had any drive at all, Richards tokk it to them when he came on but appart form those three the rest looked happy to just stroll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 If not qualifying meant getting rid of tithead, it mightn't be the worst thing in the world. Let's face it, even if they do qualify they're unlikely to get past the group stage/quarters, so what's the point if it means McClaren keeps his job for the World Cup. The bloke was never good enough for this job, and got it off the back of a run in the UEFA Cup. The Zulte Waregem manager has had a run in the UEFA Cup ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 If not qualifying meant getting rid of tithead, it mightn't be the worst thing in the world. Let's face it, even if they do qualify they're unlikely to get past the group stage/quarters, so what's the point if it means McClaren keeps his job for the World Cup. The bloke was never good enough for this job, and got it off the back of a run in the UEFA Cup. The Zulte Waregem manager has had a run in the UEFA Cup ffs. aye and half that season boro were close to the relegation zone and getting thumped regularly. still, when things are going bad for england, at least McLaren can bring on Massimo Maccarone! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smoggeordie Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Thought that Ferdinand and Woodgate were superb, Dyer was good too. The rest of them were f****** s****. As much as I think Woodgate is a class CB, he was caught hopelessly out of position when Morientes blasted that sitter over in the first half. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 The fact McLaren got the job in the first place is a disgrace but do you really see the FA sacking him? I am affraid we are stuck with him for a good bit longer yet. I really thought he would not do the same bollocks as Sven but he is, there is no difference at all between the 2 of them. The whole Country can see Gerrard-Lampard in the middle does not work, they should be fighting for the same place in the team and not both playing yet he like Sven insists on usig them both. There players missing, but how many of these 7 would 100% start? Rooney Owen Lennon A. Cole J. Cole Hargrieves Terry --------------Robo Nev----Fard-----Terry-----Cole Len-----Gara----Harg-----Cole --------Owen----Rooney Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Did anyone else spot a major typo in The Mirror this morning in their player ratings? "PHIL NEVILLE - 5/10. Made the best save of his England career - a stunning first half stop from John Hartson. Robinson gives England's defence confidence and a solid look" Confidence? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 England was poor yesterday were Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Thought that Ferdinand and Woodgate were superb, Dyer was good too. The rest of them were f****** s****. As much as I think Woodgate is a class CB, he was caught hopelessly out of position when Morientes blasted that sitter over in the first half. I noticed that too AND he got raped for the goal by Villa. He's not Titus TBH . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 England was poor yesterday were Grammatically, England was poor yesterday, is actually the correct version. 'England' is not a plural. To say, England were poor yesterday, you would have to say 'the England players'. [/pedant] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 England was poor yesterday were Grammatically, England was poor yesterday, is actually the correct version. 'England' is not a plural. To say, England were poor yesterday, you would have to say 'the England players'. [/pedant] But it's implicit here. "England" can bee seen as equalling "the players" or "them". "Were" is accepted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bellers Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 The thing is you can sit here and whinge as much as you like but English football it' going no where. First of all they've got zero passion. It's a shame this problem is so common in the modern game but players seem far more intent on picking up their pay packet than putting in a shift for their country. Money? It should be an honour to collect a cap and play for your country, I've never known such an arrogant bunch of tossers in all my life. Then there's the selection policy. Why continue to play the same old shit simply because of the name on the back of their shirt? Robinson, Lamapard and Rooney haven't put in a good shift for a while now, try putting some of the form players in the team and you might find people start playing for their position. I really felt for Bent last year, what did the lad have to do to get in the team? The FA don't help matters, how is it possible such an inept bunch of wankers are running the English game. If they actually bother to open their eyes they might find themselves appointing a quality manager rather than a "yes" man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 England was poor yesterday were Grammatically, England was poor yesterday, is actually the correct version. 'England' is not a plural. To say, England were poor yesterday, you would have to say 'the England players'. [/pedant] England (national team) is plural. England (as a country) is singular. England were struggling to hit the ball off the square... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6287095.stm The disappointing thing was that England were absolutely cruising until Holland... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6152906.stm England were booed off at full-time... ....etc etc etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 england iz shite Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 England was poor yesterday were Grammatically, England was poor yesterday, is actually the correct version. 'England' is not a plural. To say, England were poor yesterday, you would have to say 'the England players'. [/pedant] England (national team) is plural. England (as a country) is singular. England were struggling to hit the ball off the square... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6287095.stm The disappointing thing was that England were absolutely cruising until Holland... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6152906.stm England were booed off at full-time... ....etc etc etc Put 'England was' into Word. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now