Wilka
Well-known member
Its alright we have defoe to replace him..... oh wait a minute 
Last edited:
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Owen out for 5 months
- Thread starter Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
- Start date
E
enigma
Guest
Top scorer? He only got 3 in the last two tournaments anyway.
Its a shame for England as he is the best natural goalscorer they have. What is worse is that there is no natural replacement for him, making Sven's decision to leave Defoe at home look ridiculous.
Its a shame for England as he is the best natural goalscorer they have. What is worse is that there is no natural replacement for him, making Sven's decision to leave Defoe at home look ridiculous.
Silent Bob
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Dec 6, 2004
- 22,172
So it's not all bad._wilka_ said:Its alright we have defoe to replace him..... oh wait a minute
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Repugnant Toad said:
Oh. I always thought Rooney could play anywhere. I must admit I haven't seen a great deal of him playing.
I don't think we are screwed without Defoe though.
E
enigma
Guest
ChapmansThe Saviour said:
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,280
enigma said:
London Calling
New member
i EVEN TAKE aSHTON B4 wALCOTT, SVEN ARROGANCE HAS MESSED UP HERE, WE OVERLOADED WITH MIDFIELDERS AND IN KEY POSITION, WE HAVE NO DEPTH OF PLAYERS LET ALONE ANY EXPERIENCE.
E
enigma
Guest
DAMANCLAY said:
Okay, I can see your point with Bent, but I literally cant see why anyone would take a 17 year old with no premiership experience ahead of Defoe. Pace is useful but not the be all and end all, dont you think International defenders will know how to defend against it?
Defoe did have a bad season, but Robbie Keane was also brilliant. What is they say, form is temporary, class is permanent? Defoe is the most similar in style to Owen and should have gone ahead of Walcott.
Even Sven cant rate Walcott that highly, he hasnt had a single minute so far. I know people will talk about circumstances in games, but to not have played a minute so far says it all.
E
enigma
Guest
ChapmansThe Saviour said:
The trouble is, Walcott might have been an interesting gamble if all the strikers had been fully fit but with the injuries England have its a bit mental.
E
enigma
Guest
As a side issue, having seen him in the World Cup, would you still take Crouch ahead of Ashton?
I know I wouldn't.
I know I wouldn't.
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,071
enigma said:
But then Crouch has established himself reasonably well in international football.
Yeah maybe but the risk at the time was worth it I reckon considering our depth in attacking midfielders. I do think Sven took the amount of attacking midfielders he did because he didn't think Defoe or Bent could perform at that level which think is a fair enough move.
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,280
enigma said:
Most certainly
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,071
ChapmansThe Saviour said:
Defoe has not been great this season and until he learns some awarness of those around him he is always going to be a nearly man.
Bent, well I guess people will argue that he has not had a proper chance as he only played in one friendly, but he has been in every squad this season so the coaches have had a good look at him. In the Uruaguay game I did feel his movement was awful and you cannot do that at this level. Also he started the season well, but was not great after Christmas and I am pretty sure he did not perform all that well agains the top sides in the Premiership.
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,280
enigma said:
Form is temporary but when we only have a month to sort out a players form who is going to be on the beach for 90% of the time it isn't worth it. I think the only reason Walcott was brought is due to his pace and will only be used in the last 20 mins against tiring defenders, we really haven't had the need to use him yet. Should we be 2-1 down against whoever in the knockout stages I think Walcotts pace would cause more problems for defenders than Defoe.
