Jamie Carragher to start for England...... in MIDFIELD?

[Les Biehn]

But what strikers could you have taken, that are good enough ?

Surely the point is to take the best available options, i.e Bent, Defoe and/or Ashton over Walcott and Jenas. They have more experience than Walcott and will give us more options than Jenas.

 

[Easy 10]

But what strikers could you have taken, that are good enough ?

There are no strikers who can directly replace Owen or Rooney to the same or similar standard, we all know that. So you do the next best thing you can, by taking strikers who at least give you some more options as cover.

Darren Bent and Jermaine Defoe should have been on the plane along with Crouch. Dean Ashton should have been at least in reserve. None of these are ideal, obviously, but they're the best we've got outside of the top 2, so thats what we should go with.

Now if Owens struggling, we're left with Crouch, Walcott and Defoe (I refuse to believe Johnson could be in the running). Why bother taking Jenas or Hargreaves in midfield if they're only making up the numbers (as would seem to be the case), when we are in dire need of striker options ? Just throwing our hands up and saying "oh no-one else is any good" is not GOOD enough - its Svens job to find those viable alternatives to give us the best chance possible, but the selections he's made has done nothing but restrict those options. It seems he'd rather convert Lennon or Gerrard to the role of striker than actually take more strikers with him. Mad.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Surely the point is to take the best available options, i.e Bent, Defoe and/or Ashton over Walcott and Jenas. They have more experience than Walcott and will give us more options than Jenas.

But then what is the point of taking players that the management have no confidence in and do not believe can turn us games?

 

[Les Biehn]

Turned I Have, say hello why did you not.

Coz I was down the end and some rim jaw put all his fooking luggage down in front of me blocking the isle. I did admire you from afar though.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

You always on that train? Toilets tomorrow?

 

[Uncle Buck]

If you look at the 1990 Squad there are only 3 actual strikers in there (Lineker, Beardsley and Bull). I know Waddle and Barnes are marked as forwards, but they were more wingers or attacking midfielders.

Like now Robson did not rate the other striker options available (Hateley etc) and so went with players he thought could turn games (Platt and Gazza were fairly untried before this tournament).

1 Shilton, Peter L. 40 G 118 74GA Derby County FC 7 7 0 0 720 6GA --
2 Stevens, M. Gary 27 RB 39 0 Rangers FC, Scotland 2 2 0 0 180 0 --
3 Pearce, Stuart 28 LB 24 1 Nottingham Forest FC 6 6 0 0 630 0 1C
4 Webb, Neil J. 26 M 19 2 Manchester United FC 1 0 1 0 18 0 --
5 Walker, Desmond S. 24 CD 18 0 Nottingham Forest FC 7 7 0 0 720 0 --
6 Butcher, Terence I. 31 CD 72 3 Rangers FC, Scotland 5 5 0 2 444 0 --
7 Robson, Bryan 33 M 85 26 Manchester United FC 2 2 0 1 155 0 --
8 Waddle, Christopher R. 29 F 52 6 Olympique de Marseille, France 7 6 1 2 614 0 --
9 Beardsley, Peter A. 29 F 40 7 Liverpool FC 5 3 2 1 361 0 1C
10 Lineker, Gary W. 29 F 51 31 Tottenham Hotspur FC 7 7 0 1 713 4 --
11 Barnes, John C. B. 26 F 53 10 Liverpool FC 5 5 0 2 390 0 --
Before World Cup Finals At World Cup Finals
No. Player Age Pos App G Club App St Sub On Sub Off Min Gls Disc
12 Parker, Paul A. 26 RB 5 0 Queens Park Rangers FC 6 6 0 0 630 0 1C
13 Woods, Christopher C.E. 30 G 16 _GA Rangers FC, Scotland 0 - - - - - -
14 Wright, Mark 26 CD 24 0 Derby County FC 6 6 0 1 612 1 --
15 Dorigo, Anthony R. 24 LB 3 0 Chelsea FC 1 1 0 0 90 0 --
16 McMahon, Stephen 28 M 12 0 Liverpool FC 4 3 1 2 255 0 1C
17 Platt, David A. 24 M 5 0 Aston Villa FC 6 3 3 0 406 3 --
18 Hodge, Stephen B. 27 M 22 0 Nottingham Forest FC 0 - - - - - -
19 Gascoigne, Paul J. 23 M 11 2 Tottenham Hotspur FC 6 6 0 0 630 0 2C-S
20 Steven, Trevor M. 26 M 26 3 Rangers FC, Scotland 3 1 2 0 186 0 --
21 Bull, Stephen G. 25 F 7 4 Wolverhampton Wanderers FC 4 1 3 1 166 0 --
22 Seaman, David A. 26 G 3 _GA Arsenal FC 0 - - - - - -
22 Beasant, David J. 31 G 2 0 Chelsea FC 0 - - - - - -

 

[blockhseagull]

There are no strikers who can directly replace Owen or Rooney to the same or similar standard, we all know that. So you do the next best thing you can, by taking strikers who at least give you some more options as cover.

Darren Bent and Jermaine Defoe should have been on the plane along with Crouch. Dean Ashton should have been at least in reserve. None of these are ideal, obviously, but they're the best we've got outside of the top 2, so thats what we should go with.

Now if Owens struggling, we're left with Crouch, Walcott and Defoe (I refuse to believe Johnson could be in the running). Why bother taking Jenas or Hargreaves in midfield if they're only making up the numbers (as would seem to be the case), when we are in dire need of striker options ? Just throwing our hands up and saying "oh no-one else is any good" is not GOOD enough - its Svens job to find those viable alternatives to give us the best chance possible, but the selections he's made has done nothing but restrict those options. It seems he'd rather convert Lennon or Gerrard to the role of striker than actually take more strikers with him. Mad.

Agree with some of that, Defoe isn't worth taking in my opinon..if Rooney is out he isn't going to be an effective partner for Owen.... Ashton maybe he should have gone instead of Walcott... still not sure why we picked him

 

[Pavilionaire]

Surely Sven must have learned against the losses to Brazil, Portugal and France that WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HOLD ONTO THE BALL.

Is Carragher a good passer of the ball? Answer - No, it's not his job, he has no instinct for it.

Every midfielder has to be able to pass accurately, and therefore it is a no-brainer that Carrick must start all the time Rooney is unavailable.

If, as is possible, Carragher has a poor game playing out of position then his confidence willbe affected.

This selection exposes Sven's poor managerial judgement.

 

[Les Biehn]

But then what is the point of taking players that the management have no confidence in and do not believe can turn us games?

So why take Hargreaves or Carrick if you have more confidence in Carragher in their position? The point is we need alternatives.

 

[Les Biehn]

You always on that train? Toilets tomorrow?

Usually earlier. Your gay. I like that.

 

[Uncle Buck]

So why take Hargreaves or Carrick if you have more confidence in Carragher in their position? The point is we need alternatives.

2 of those are in there as utility players, not as strikers.

 

[Pavilionaire]

This selection also increases the chances of us adopting the disastrous tactic of sitting on a lead a la Portugal, France and Brazil. T'riffic!

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Surely Sven must have learned against the losses to Brazil, Portugal and France that WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HOLD ONTO THE BALL.

Is Carragher a good passer of the ball? Answer - No, it's not his job, he has no instinct for it.

Every midfielder has to be able to pass accurately, and therefore it is a no-brainer that Carrick must start all the time Rooney is unavailable.

If, as is possible, Carragher has a poor game playing out of position then his confidence willbe affected.

This selection exposes Sven's poor managerial judgement.

It may be that it's between Carrick and Carragher. Carrick gave the ball away all the time against Belarus and was generally poor ( his corners etc). It's only a friendly, give Carragher a chance.

 

[Les Biehn]

2 of those are in there as utility players, not as strikers.

But Carragher is in there as utility for the defence. I think it is righto play him in that role because I think you can essentially count him as a 5th defender rather than a 5th midfielder. If you were not gonna take the players you don't have complete confidence in then what is the point of taking anyone outside the starting 11? You need alternatives, and Sven hasn't given himself enough options up front or taken the best alternatives.

 

[Uncle Buck]

But Carragher is in there as utility for the defence. I think it is righto play him in that role because I think you can essentially count him as a 5th defender rather than a 5th midfielder. If you were not gonna take the players you don't have complete confidence in then what is the point of taking anyone outside the starting 11? You need alternatives, and Sven hasn't given himself enough options up front or taken the best alternatives.

With the strikers, like Robson did in 1990 he does not rate the other striker alternatives, so will rely on the attacking midfielders and tweak the system as such.

 

[TSB]

According to the early editions of the morning papers Jamie Carragher will start tommorow's friendly against Hungary in the holding midfield role.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,28782-2202324,00.html
http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/internationals/article621789.ece

Given that Sven has said he will field his strongest team this would be a worrying move, we have two good holding midfielders in the squad in Carrick and Hargreaves, why play Carragher there? Hell, even Rio Ferdinand should be in there ahead of him (although his pace is needed in defence).

Tomorrow's?

 

[blockhseagull]

But Carragher is in there as utility for the defence. I think it is righto play him in that role because I think you can essentially count him as a 5th defender rather than a 5th midfielder. If you were not gonna take the players you don't have complete confidence in then what is the point of taking anyone outside the starting 11? You need alternatives, and Sven hasn't given himself enough options up front or taken the best alternatives.

The point i was trying to make....

When Carrick plays his holding role for Spurs it is part of a four man midfield and does involve him going forward to a degree.... this is a pure defensive midfield role and Sven wants someone with better defending qualities than Carrick

Carragher is not required to run the game, we have Becks, Lampard and Gerrard to do that job, Sven wants a no nonense tackler to win the ball, pass it simple and protect the defence and for me Carragher fits the bill

 

[Les Biehn]

With the strikers, like Robson did in 1990 he does not rate the other striker alternatives, so will rely on the attacking midfielders and tweak the system as such.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. But do you really think that Walcott is a viable alternative to Owen. Look at the facts, Walcott - No Prem experience what so ever, Bent, Ashton, Defoe - 2 with England caps and all have scored in the Prem.

 

[Uncle Buck]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. But do you really think that Walcott is a viable alternative to Owen. Look at the facts, Walcott - No Prem experience what so ever, Bent, Ashton, Defoe - 2 with England caps and all have scored in the Prem.

Walcott offers the unknown and blistering pace.

Bent and Defoe I would not trust or expect to save a game, so I would rather take a gamble than take players that cannot change things.

 

[Les Biehn]

Walcott offers the unknown and blistering pace.

So do Bent and Defoe to international defences. And so do a load of other 16, 17, 18yr olds but you wouldn't take them would you. Honestly tell me, apart from massively hyped what has Walcott got that makes him so different to anyone else in his age category that warrants a place in the England squad?

Bent and Defoe I would not trust or expect to save a game, so I would rather take a gamble than take players that cannot change things.

So you expect a talented 17 yr old to do this who you have never seen play Premiership football but not 2 talented players who have scored goals in the prem, one who has been particularly prolific this year? Or put it a different way what have you seen in Walcott that suggests he is a better bet than Bent or Defoe? And please don't say he is a gamble.