World Cup 2006

[therockbox]

He doesn't get as many deflected goals as Lampard, and I'd imagine he gets less penalty/free kick goals as well because he's not our main taker of either.

No return from 18 shots is shit though, even if he did create them himself.

[Liam]

You won't score if you don't shoot, so deflected goals or otherwise, it shouldn't really matter. Unless they are drastically horrendous (in which case they are usually given as own goals), deflections usually reward at least a players desire to have a go at goal. And I'm sure Gerrard has had his fair share of luck over time with shots and goals, thats the rewards he also gets for endevour. It seems pointless to hold deflected goals against someone.

And yeah, 18 shots and 0 return is poor, I'm not going to try and defend that, although not all of his have been the Row Z startlers that Reily suggests. He was at least making chances, which is something that not many others have been doing.

It's a form thing as much as anything, as he wasn't scoring so many in the run in, but he'll be the kind of player who only needs to score one to get back to being dangerous.

[therockbox]

We don't really have the luxury of time on our side (although I'd still play him in a 4-5-1, because there's no real alternative), he might play a blinder against Ecuador but then he might be mediocre for the rest of the tournament.

Interesting stats on Beckham though, he made less passes than most of our midfield, Crouch and Carragher and only three of his set pieces found and England player in the Sweden game. He also made no tackles.

And Sven says he'll drop him if he plays poorly.

Edited June 23, 2006 by therockbox

[Liam]

It is getting a bit to the point where you are including Beckham for what MIGHT happen, then what he actually does.

[therockbox]

I was impressed with him in the friendlies (those freekicks would've caused problems with any defence), and I thought we might actually get a tournament out of him. But since the Paraguay game he's been a liability, he can't stay on the wings and he clutters up the midfield. Can you imagine him drifting in field in a 4-5-1 formation? It'd cause chaos.

It's a shame for Aaron Lennon, we need someone who has the discipline to stick on the wings and beat players one on one.

[SeanDMan]

France might not choke afterall.

And now Henry scores. Someone woke up the French.

[Dan]

"Interesting stats on Beckham though, he made less passes than most of our midfield,"

We only have four fucking midfielders...

And Bwahah. If Korea score, Switzerland and France will be drawn out of a hat tonight.

The reffing get's worse and worse.

[Guest Bosstown Boy]

The reffing get's worse and worse.

[Dan]

Giving a goal when the linesman has his flag up for offside is fucking stupid.

[therockbox]

"Interesting stats on Beckham though, he made less passes than most of our midfield,"

We only have four fucking midfielders...

Edited June 23, 2006 by therockbox

[Dan]

You said most.. make up your mind.

And some people will never be happy with Beckham.

Just leave the fucking squad along, we're good enough to win the world cup.

Every team has had at least one dodgy performance up to now too, so that argument is null and void.

[therockbox]

We've had 3.

And I'll be happy with Beckham when he shows he's deserving of his place in the squad. So far he hasn't.

Edited June 23, 2006 by therockbox

[Guest muddatrucker]

And some people will never be happy with Beckham.

[fineintent]

Fact is, Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Michael Carrick and Frank Lampard all have a range of passing equal to Beckham's. Lamps, Gerrard and Rooney can all take free kicks and corners. Lennon is a better winger, as Beckham is immobile. Hargreaves (who admittedly played well against Sweden) or Carrick would balance our midfield.

Beckham has no place in our starting eleven, and there is even less reason for him to be captain.

[Dan]

Alright so Carragher/Ashley Cole/Owen in his 2 games showed more worth to the team?

And Michael Carrick is the most overrated play I can think of apart from Totti.

What's with the amazing bum-love of him? In the B-international he was shit.

Edited June 23, 2006 by RevolutionDanSquad

[Liam]

We've had 3.

I was going to post about this before, but pretty much every side has had a poor start to the tournament. Germany look shaky, Italy have been poor, Brazil only picked it up thus far against a poor Japan side, Spain were good in the first game but didn't look good against Tunisia, France look horrendous, Sweden are poor, Czechs are out....I could go on.

Only Argentina and Netherlands have been THAT far ahead of England. I know we should focus more on what we are doing, but no-one else is blowing anyone away at the moment.

And as for "oh, the other can turn it up"...I'm sure England can when they themselves get to play against more open teams, rather than teams that stick 10 men behind the ball for the most part (very few teams in this Cup have shown an ability to break teams down, so this isn't just England).

EDIT: Not directed at Rockbox, I just happened to quote him.

Edited June 23, 2006 by liamwannabe

[Dan]

First half - Paraguay - Shit?

Second half - Trinidad - Shit?

First half - Sweden - Shit?

Sometimes I wish I was from some country like Ghana where people don't piss and moan but get behind the players they have and accept that the manager makes the decisions.

[fineintent]

When people say England save it for the big matches, which matches are they refering to? The only one that comes to mind is Germany and that was 5 years ago, before that Italy in 98.

And Dan, Carrick has been one of the best midfielders in England over a 38 game season. Fuck one B International, he was class against Columbia if you remember that far back.

Edited June 23, 2006 by fineintent

[therockbox]

Alright so Carragher/Ashley Cole/Owen in his 2 games showed more worth to the team?

And Michael Carrick is the most overrated play I can think of apart from Totti.

What's with the amazing bum-love of him? In the B-international he was shit.

[Liam]

When people say England save it for the big matches, which matches are they refering to? The only one that comes to mind is Germany and that was 5 years ago, before that Italy in 98.

I'm not saying we save it for the big matches, I'm merely pointing out that you can't judge a performance against Trinidad And Tobago and then be "oh, we'll get ripped to shreds by *insert better team here*". Teams play different styles, have different players who do different things. Against a more open side, we could exploit it. Carragher/Carrick/Hargreaves could neutralise Riquelme/Kaka/insert other big name here so that they can't run the game....and on and on. It just isn't the same, and shouldn't be looked at in the same context IMO.

EDIT: And I agree with Dan that I would sometimes like not to be supporting a country where people constantly moan and seem to look for the negatives. Sure, there area few, but very few teams don't have negatives. 3 average performances (because, we weren't really crap, we just didn't play how "we could have played"), fair enough, but we got through and the tournament is practically anyones for the taking.

Edited June 23, 2006 by liamwannabe