England World Cup Squad

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

A three man defence with Dier and Henderson in front of them against Tunisia and Panama. I cannot fucking wait.

I'm enjoying have low expectations. It's either going to be totally shite to watch and I was right all along... or we'll actually have fun watching this young England side try to prove itself at this World Cup.

Win win!

[LFCMike]

14 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

A three man defence with Dier and Henderson in front of them against Tunisia and Panama. I cannot fucking wait.

Would there be anything more England at a major tournament than a dull 0-0 draw with one of them? Perfectly possible if that's how they're lining up against either of them.

[Danny]

Strange he's only taken two centre mids.

[Dan+]

If we can start Kane and Vardy, then do it, because they're both brilliant, but don't shoehorn them in for the sake of it. That's a classic England error.

[LFCMike]

11 minutes ago, Dan said:

If we can start Kane and Vardy, then do it, because they're both brilliant, but don't shoehorn them in for the sake of it. That's a classic England error.

I think Vardy is a great option for England against sides they might play on the counter against but I can't see him being effective against the packed defences England will probably come up against in their first two games

[Stan]

Just now, LFCMike said:

I think Vardy is a great option for England against sides they might play on the counter against but I can't see him being effective against the packed defences England will probably come up against in their first two games

can't disagree with that to be honest. 

Vardy's more likely to score against Belgium than Panama. 

I think they could both work playing together though. 

[Lucas]

I can't see how Kane and Vardy is going to work in a million years.

We've never really tried it so there is no genuine partnership there. We've selected a squad and built a team based on one striker playing at a time because that is the 'norm' these days and besides, both men play as lone strikers for their clubs so that's all they are used to. 

Of course it would be great as they are quality strikers to have at our disposal but I can't see it happening. Besides, we barely manage to keep hold of the ball with five in midfield, I don't know how we'd manage it with four.

 

[Danny]

4 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

I think Vardy is a great option for England against sides they might play on the counter against but I can't see him being effective against the packed defences England will probably come up against in their first two games

I get what you're saying but it's also England vs Tunisia and Panama lol

[Stan]

Just now, Lucas said:

I can't see how Kane and Vardy is going to work in a million years.

We've never really tried it so there is no genuine partnership there. We've selected a squad and built a team based on one striker playing at a time because that is the 'norm' these days and besides, both men play as lone strikers for their clubs so that's all they are used to. 

Of course it would be great as they are quality strikers to have at our disposal but I can't see it happening. Besides, we barely manage to keep hold of the ball with five in midfield, I don't know how we'd manage it with four.

 

Vardy can play as a lone striker but does work better in a pair. However he's used to that strike partner doing a lot of running and dragging defenders away, leaving that space to run in to behind. Not sure Kane would do that.

 

[DeadLinesman]

I’ve always loved the ‘he’s got experience’ view. Experience of what exactly? Being absolutely fucking mediocre, never stepping up and under achieving with your peers? I’d prefer 22 novices than half the shit we regurgitate every fucking tournament.

[Dave]

I reckon Vardy will be in his element against Belgium. Having Shelveys distribution to pick him out would have been ideal.

[Dave]

Just now, DeadLinesman said:

I’ve always loved the ‘he’s got experience’ view. Experience of what exactly? Being absolutely fucking mediocre, never stepping up and under achieving with your peers? I’d prefer 22 novices than half the shit we regurgitate every fucking tournament.

I think people have come to that realisation this time round. The arrogance of Rooney to say he will retire after this World Cup two years ago is laughable now.

[DeadLinesman]

3 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

I think people have come to that realisation this time round. The arrogance of Rooney to say he will retire after this World Cup two years ago is laughable now.

England can’t possibly do ANY worse than they have in the last 8 years. Dicking teams in qualifying means squat when you can’t put a decent game together in the finals. Experience means nothing if it’s negative experience.

[Lucas]

Just now, Stan said:

Vardy can play as a lone striker but does work better in a pair. However he's used to that strike partner doing a lot of running and dragging defenders away, leaving that space to run in to behind. Not sure Kane would do that.

 

Sorry mate but we don't own an English Okazaki. 

There is no way we'll go two up front. Southgate will want us to control games by packing midfield.

We're just not quality enough to play two up front and keep the ball without getting punished one way or the other. Only way we'll go two up front is losing a game and chasing it or if Vardy's lucky, he'll come on and get played out of position.

[Stan]

Just now, Lucas said:

Sorry mate but we don't own an English Okazaki. 

There is no way we'll go two up front. Southgate will want us to control games by packing midfield.

We're just not quality enough to play two up front and keep the ball without getting punished one way or the other. Only way we'll go two up front is losing a game and chasing it or if Vardy's lucky, he'll come on and get played out of position.

haha I know, sadly we don't. 

I'd hate Southgate more than many do right now if he plays Vardy on the wing. Would actually be livid if he's wasted there. He's shown for 3 seasons now how clinical he is playing down the middle of the park and he'd be absolutely wasted if he's played for even a minute down the wing.

I'd rather he not play than be played on the wing. 

[LFCMike]

12 minutes ago, Danny said:

I get what you're saying but it's also England vs Tunisia and Panama lol

And England seem to have such little creativity in midfield. Genuinely wouldn't be surprised to see a 0-0 in one of their opening two games

[Dan+]

I said the exact same as a few of you. I'd play Kane against Tunisia and Panama and then get Vardy in against Belgium

[Danny]

We have wide players in Rashford, Sterling, Lingard...don't need Vardy playing there. I'd rather he come on as a sub either for Kane or in a formation change with two up top.

[Stan]

1 minute ago, Danny said:

We have wide players in Rashford, Sterling, Lingard...don't need Vardy playing there. I'd rather he come on as a sub either for Kane or in a formation change with two up top.

Don't think Rashford and Lingard should be played wide either...

[Dave]

1 hour ago, Dan said:

I said the exact same as a few of you. I'd play Kane against Tunisia and Panama and then get Vardy in against Belgium

Vardy to start on the left against Belgium but drift inside to offer support to Kane. A bit like what Townsend has done in our weird formation with no strikers I cannot really describe.

[Cicero]

Let us remember that Loftus-Cheek wasn't apparently good enough for Chelsea FC. And the pair we spunked 50 million on in Drinkwater and Barkley, apparently were good enough. 

One was free and made the World Cup. The other two cost us 50 million and made fuck all. 

The Chelsea board ladies and gentlemen. 

 

 

[Pig on the Wing]

On 15/05/2018 at 21:51, Chaaay AFC said:

I don't have any issue with that. What I have an issue with is that Southgate specifically said earlier in the season Wilshere didn't deserve a call-up because he wasn't playing enough. I think that was fair enough, but why has it only seemed to apply to Wilshere?

Wilshere went on to play plenty of games for Arsenal and didn't get injured once all season. So why now is Lallana getting called up when he has not been playing for his club at all? Why is it one rule for Wilshere and another for Lallana?

Southgate is just wet to me, it's clearly an agenda towards Wilshere and he has flip flopped on the whole situation. If he didn't want him involved then fair enough just say it, instead of bullshitting.

If Southgate can't say it, I certainly can:

I wouldn't have Wilshire anywhere near the starting line up as he is staggeringly overrated and hasn't done anything of note in about five years.

Really, what has he done of note in his 40 games this season other than contribute to Arsenal's worst season in decades? I didn't know he was even fit until Christmas, such is the complete lack of impact he's had. Even Jonjo Shelvey has dominated games against better sides this year and instead of support from Aubameyang, Ozil and Mkhitariyan, he's surrounded by relative plodders like Joselu and Christian Atsu.

I get the impression he's a cocky little fuck as well - with the limited players England have at the moment, the only way we'll have any relative success is through playing as a unit. I actually like that Southgate has gone for a relatively inexperienced side at international level - fewer egos to upset the proverbial apple cart.

[6666]

This idea that having no egos means a team will do well doesn't stand up. Teams like that just make up the numbers.

And this idea that Wilshere has an ego doesn't stand up either. He was okay with playing for Bournemouth and Bolton. 

[Dan+]

The point's been made in here a few times but I am genuinely amazed Wilshere's played 40 games for Arsenal this year. While that's obviously progress for him I think it speaks volumes because he's caught basically nobody's eye in that time.

Correct decision from Southgate for me.

Of him, Lallana and Shelvey, I'd have actually gone with Shelvey. I know he's flavour of the month but he's no luxury player. He's absolute quality.

[Chaaay AFC]

2 hours ago, 6666 said:

This idea that having no egos means a team will do well doesn't stand up. Teams like that just make up the numbers.

And this idea that Wilshere has an ego doesn't stand up either. He was okay with playing for Bournemouth and Bolton. 

I hope Portugal drop Ronaldo, can't have someone upsetting the apple cart.

 

2 hours ago, StefBWFC said:

If Southgate can't say it, I certainly can:

I wouldn't have Wilshire anywhere near the starting line up as he is staggeringly overrated and hasn't done anything of note in about five years.

Really, what has he done of note in his 40 games this season other than contribute to Arsenal's worst season in decades? I didn't know he was even fit until Christmas, such is the complete lack of impact he's had. Even Jonjo Shelvey has dominated games against better sides this year and instead of support from Aubameyang, Ozil and Mkhitariyan, he's surrounded by relative plodders like Joselu and Christian Atsu.

I get the impression he's a cocky little fuck as well - with the limited players England have at the moment, the only way we'll have any relative success is through playing as a unit. I actually like that Southgate has gone for a relatively inexperienced side at international level - fewer egos to upset the proverbial apple cart.

I have no issue with him missing out, I'd agree he hasn't been great this season and has definitely lost a bit of his quality. My issue is Southgate wasn't selecting him earlier in the season through lack of game time, but has gone against that with other players. 

If he didn't want Wilshere involved just say it. For me he has only not selected him as a statement. I'm not even Wilshere's biggest fan, but I think he would clearly add a bit of quality to our midfield.