Football: The future of England.

I've been fascinated in watching our team under-perform this year; be it down to tactics, conditions, press, pressure, lack of talent or what, I'm undecided.

Beckham quits as captain.

Trivial or not, I think a captain is important. My choice would be Gerrard; he'd be the natural leader in the team, I think, and a captaincy may well bring the best out of him. I certainly think Beckham has been a better player since he became captain, this tournament notwithstanding (and for the record, I've never agreed with heavy criticism of him).

Perhaps more importantly, who agrees McLaren should be the next manager? Of course, he's going to be (or is he?), but many, including my local newspaper this morning, are dubious. Was he the man behind the current 4-5-1 strategy this World Cup? You know something's up when there're five in midfield and you still look stretched.

Players who I think are definitely big-game players, who I couldn't imagine without being in the first team: Ashley Cole, John Terry, Rio Ferdinand, Gary Neville. That's our back four.

I'd like to see our midfield be: Joe Cole, Gerrard, Hargreaves and Beckham. Lampard can go, I reckon; him and Gerrard in the same midfield don't seem to gel. Whether Hargreaves can perform consistently in big games is another matter; I remember Nicky Butt playing a blinder in the holding role against Argentina in the 2002 World Cup, when we beat them 1-0, but never performed that consistently. Hargreaves had a point to prove yesterday, and he proved it well; I'd like to see him play like that every game.

When Crouchy came on yesterday I thought he was terrific. Really made a nuisance of himself, linked up well with Lennon in holding up and progressing from the halfway-line forward. I only lament that we never saw him and Rooney play together. Rooney's an obvious first-teamer. I'm not letting his foul play blunt my praise of his football. Owen and Rooney would be my first choices, though, up front.

Goalie? I've never been a fan of English goalkeepers; Seaman was extremely ordinary, and Robinson seems very erratic. I wish Shay Given wasn't Irish.

Thoughts?

-------------------------Robinson

---Carragher--------Terry-----------Ferdinand------------Cole

----------------------------Hargreaves
---------Beckham
----------------------Gerrard/Lampard------------Joe Cole

------------Rooney
-----------------------------------Crouch/Owen

I had a feeling the first reply wouldn't be from an Englishman. Haha. Nothing wrong with that.

You think Carragher is better than Neville?

I really don't know, I have never analysed the English team in depth.

I see them play in Match of the Day and of course the CL, and Carragher always looked a strong pillar in the Liverpool defense. But then again, he is central defender in Liverpool.

Manchester United has dissapointed me over the past 3 years, and Neville was someone who I thought as ordinary.

But I guess the difference is small, right back is not really a position were there are big quality differences. Maybe Neville is the better choice because he played with Beckham in Man U.

That's what I have against Carragher in that position; he doesn't get forward enough to support the right wing. Neville's experience helps the team, I think.

England have always had a wealth of players for one position, and then struggle to find natural players for others. The left flank has been a problem for ages. Joe Cole will play there now, but he's hardly a natural, if he can't use his left foot as confidently as his right (a sin, in something called football, I think).

OH NO! I can't believe....oh wait..... soccer? Who cares

How I love a bit of Irish wit.

The whole world except common arrogant people like yourself. Soccer > baseball any day of the week.

I didn't understand that bullshit Beckham played with this "no more captain" crap. I am a big fan of Beckham and I usually find myself defending him when someone comes up with the usual "he's only marekting" crap. I think he is more marketing than soccer, but he is still a good player. he runs the entire right frame of the field and touches the ball like no one else. but there are 500 players better than him that no one knows who is. I also hear a lot people saying he's a pussy, that he chokes in big moments...

I never agreed with that, but this interview was very strange. "I still want to play with the English Team, but I'm too much of a chicken to remain as the captain". captain is a bullshit that should be decided 1 minute before the game. look who Brazil has for captain. the worst player who won everything. if one guy has influence on his teammates or anything, is not a tarp in his arm that will tell you. Beckham is just running away from responsability. he is made out to be what he's not, and he only wants to take the benefits from this.

The whole world except common arrogant people like yourself. Soccer > baseball any day of the week. [/b][/quote]Arrogant. Wow, glad I came off as arrogant with that comment I guess a little effort goes a long way with Don Andrew

The whole world except common arrogant people like yourself. Soccer > baseball any day of the week. [/b][/quote]Arrogant. Wow, glad I came off as arrogant with that comment I guess a little effort goes a long way with Don Andrew [/b][/quote]You abosolutley did come off as arrogant. People are talking about soccer in a thread and you come in with a "who cares?"

It's just my opinion. And I'm not the first to make such comments in threads about which they don't care about. Don't be so sensitive

Fair enough. But, well, at least this thread is sort of in the right place, being about sport and all.

WWE, anyone? :p

Terry or Gerrard for captain!
Either one does for me.
Defense stays the same,the best in the world bar the Italians perhaps.
The midfield has quality but Beckham goes and so does Lampard for me i'm afraid. He might be top man for Chelsea but he had a shocking tournament & just got in Gerrards way really. Hargreaves or Carrick to play the holding role allowing Gerrard to get forward & do what he does best at the right end of the field. Joe Cole is class & Lennon looks good. Downing must get a chance & Shaun Wright-Phillips must come back into the squad.
Up front Rooney is still the man especially when fit. Crouch must stay in & we will have to see how Oqwen comes back from injury. To add to them are Dean Ashton who is going to be a big star,Defoe,Bent,Johnson,Harewood & Beattie.Plenty of quality strikers despite what Sven thought
Walcott must go back to kindergarten & we must avoid penalties!
Apart from that the future is still good for English football!
Here endeth the Sermon :rolleyes:

Hey WWE is sports entertainment buddy And I'm not the only one (right ronnie, xxx, bogey, etc?) But ronnie did put the "Top 10 Professional Wrestlers" thread in the general discussion, not in sports

I havent watched in weeks.

However, Football > WWE, any day of the week


Sorry, Irish. And I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with Andrew here... there really wasn't any reason to say "Who cares"

I very much doubt we can win World Cup 2010, we won't be able to deal with the climate, our next hope of glory is Euro 2008, it'll be a similar squad to what we have now, so id McClaren names a good squad that can play well together, we have a great chance of winning that, I also think John Terry should become captain.

Yeah, England won't, because Belgium will win the WC of 2010, we've got a great, talented under-19 team. Those boys will all be 21, 22 years old by the time of 2010. Many black guys, the concept with which France became World Champion and European Champion in 1998 and 2000.

What's the colour got to do with anything!!!!!,I thought it was the players ability not the colour

2010 will belong to an South American team, Argentina I think.

What's the colour got to do with anything!!!!!,I thought it was the players ability not the colour [/b][/quote]Black people are often poor, because they suffer from discrimination and can't get decent employment. They get demotivated and the kids often play (in getto's) football the whole day long on the streets. There they learn the basic technique that is essential in modern football and that white rich kids who play football often miss. They learn how to dribble, and how to handle the ball. In the formation centers, they are being taught how to play tactic football and how to use their technic skills in modern time football.

France and Holland had (and still have) one or more great generations of those black footballers, and in Brazil they just seem to appear endlessly. Now in Belgium there are the first signs of a golden generation of black players, almost all with Congolese roots.

Holland's won shit.

Dunga and Lucio are the only Brazilians I know of who are white.

What's the big deal?

Both Juninhio's are white :p

There is none. I only explained a contemporaine sociologic fact to De Niro.

Holland won the European Cup in '88. Long time ago, I know. Holland reached the semi finals in the WC of 98 and tje EC of 2000. Ajax won the CL in 1995, and reached the final in 1996. The last couple of years PSV is always lasting long in the CL. Feyenoord won the Uefa Cup in 2001. Holland is now 3rd on the Fifa ranking (which doesn't say much, I know). Many Holland players play in the absolute European top, players like Seedorf for example are among the best there are.
That for a small country of 15 million inhabitants.
Belgium has 10 million, but we haven't got a tenth of what Holland has in soccer.

It doesn't really count for Brazil, the situation is different over there. My fault. Kaka, Juninho and if I'm not mistaken, Ricardinho and Fred are also white. So are Dunga and Taffarel, but they retired.
Ronaldo, and Roberto Carlos are close to white.

What the hell has skin colour got to do with anything?! Dumbest thing i've ever heard. The whole Angola squad consists of black players and they're shite.

Read my post.

This post?
Sorry, but you lost me after that. You haven't convinced me as to what you actually meant by this.

Not that I particularly care, and I understand you might have difficulty communicating what you actually mean, but I think this should be given the chance to close itself out; otherwise, I have a feeling you may be misunderstood by many, me included.

Belgium actually winning the cup is kinda impossible, I know. I only say we might have a better team in the future.

It's simple. Immigrant (often black) kids suffer from discrimination. You know how it goes, no employment, no motivation, don't go to school anymore. So what do they do: hang on the streets. Where they play football, street football, all day long. The goal in that game is to dribble, and to get past your defender. As such they have better technique than the white kids who only play football at wednesday afternoon and sunday.

What France and Holland did was training those skilled black street kids, learning them tactics and so on. Result was that those countries have very good teams. Look at France this evening, 90 % of the team is black or brown.

In Belgium that didn't happen, only white kids could move to the top, even tough they have no technique and blacks and brown people were often better.

Nowadays they are being thought tactics in training centers and can in fact move to the top (look at Vincent Kompany). All youth teams are full of black people, originating from Congo.

So the same thing that happened with Holland and France can now happen in Belgium.

Nothing biological, color does not really matter, but it's a fact black people are poorer and play football on streets. Which is almost the only place where you can really learn the neccesary technique.

Clear now, Capo? :p

Well, yeah, I suppose.

One of my local Mp's is a nutter.

Maggie Thatcher cost us the world cup!

I get your point here but actually Angola did have a couple of whitey's playing for them as did Trinidad & Tobago
I know this cos my kids have been collecting the Panini stickers...
Angola were pretty shite tho,almost as bad as England