Oh I wasn’t saying who to drop instead just that if you played Vardy and Kane I’d put Vardy up top. I agree Sterling was so wasteful though and missed so many opportunities he got into. Vardy would have the pace to get into them and finish
Sterling got into those positions though and caused a lot of problems. Vardy is an impact player, not a starter. Sterling got an assist yesterday, if Young didn’t want to have a nap before he shot, he would have had 2. Positivity, let’s see some support. No clubs, just country.
Agree to disagree, I believe Vardy is better when he plays, coming in for a few mins here and there he won’t have a chance but Kane is number 1 and I wouldn’t argue with that. And I don’t have a problem with Sterling or Man City, I’m purely calling what I saw yesterday and said my opinion was that Vardy could have got into those positions and finished it. For the record I thought the first half yesterday was the best I’ve seen for a while from England so no negativity from me, just opinions on the team
Vardy is one dimensional, his game is running on to hopeful balls over the top of slow defenders, he may be great at leading the line for Leicester but at International level he's an impact sub, I'd bring his pace on later in the game when the defenders are a bit leggy
The season? Yeah mate, you won the 'we got to the final' trophy and you finished 4th...below Spurs...thanks for the bet.
I’ve said it before but he may as well stay at home for as much use he’ll be in this tournament but that’s not his fault but how he’s used. People’s go to is that a player with pace should be an impact sub. He’s shown for us this season that he has so much more to his game and is actually a much better, more rounded player than he was in the title season when he was Centre of attention but people like to make assumptions on that season when they’ve probably seen him once/twice this season at best on tv
no, people's go to is to play the best player available for that position, and that isn't Vardy, it's Kane, 44goals and 4 assists compared to 24 and 1, the choice is obvious. As to using pace as an impact, that's because it makes sense from a strategical POV. I would've also included either Carroll or Crouch in my squad, though they'd never start because they aren't the best options, they are impact subs due to their physical attributes, like Vardy.
... flaw in your argument is that Vardy almost always delivers against the top teams and in the big games ... none better ... those stats are proven both domestically and internationally ... the stats you quote whilst accurate can't tell you how many goals might Vardy score with the same quality of player around him as Kane enjoys?... Realistically Vardy can score goals out of nothing ... not sure Kane can do the same ... for England to progress we will need what Vardy brings IMHO ... because whilst other teams are technically superior they will still be ****ting themselves at the prospect of Vardy getting a run at their last defender... whoever they are
Kane has scored plenty goals out of 'nothing'. That raw burst of pace is probably the only thing Vardy has over Kane
He's very good at what he does, Vardy, but yeah, one dimensional is probably fair. Saturday's game wouldn't have suited him at all imo. When we are pushed back and need an outlet, that's the time to play him.
The discussion was about if Vardy and Kane can be played together, I never once said Vardy should play instead of Kane as Kane is clearly number 1. That said it doesn’t mean Vardy wouldn’t be better suited to different situations in different games. Vardy is not an impact sub though so I disagree, if you want an impact sub you’ve named better options below, and Defoe. I doubt Vardy will get more than a handful of minutes if that even as a sub anyway so the point is mute. Southgate even brought on Welbeck and Rashford instead of him ffs
Kane will play all the games but you are right, purely on styles of play (not the favoured and unfavoured players) you’d have a player like Kane in the games we will dominate (Tunisia and Panana) and a Vardy in the Belgium game when we will be pushed back by a better team with better players. It may also make sense in keeping Kane fit but as captain Kane will probably play every minute
I do agree with this, I remember at least a couple of Kanes goals in that 6-1 at our place last season seemed to be from nothing. I’d say both are equally good finishers and as clinical when presented with a chance, Vardy has the pace and Kane is more the kind of striker who is central to the build up play. On paper they should make a lethal partnership but teams rarely play with two out and put strikers now
He generates an unusual amount of power in his shots from very little backlift of his foot. Like Vardy, he’s invariably accurate too. He takes a lot of keepers by surprise.
.... and therein lies the problem ... Vardy has the best scoring record of any nationality against the top 6 in the EPL whilst playing for Leicester ... he has also scored against Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, Spain ... but the more narrow minded types can't see past the fact that he plays for Leicester City
Kane has b Kane has been to to 2 major international tournaments and is yet to score a single goal ... Vardy has been to one and scored ...keep the facts coming sweet cheeks
England play 1 up top. Kane is a million miles better than Vardy. Southgates hardly going to suddenly change his system with one friendly left. The Foxes need to get over it. Vardy is being taken to be an impact sub. He'll probably get 20 mins all tournament.
