Carroll for his heading ability; Sturridge is too excitable for international football at the moment.
For me it's Sturbridge or wellbeck but not both. Carroll gives you a different option. I'm not too arsed in all honesty though. Haven't got the same passion for the national game as I used to have. I personally feel we might struggle to get out of our group.
Whoa? Hang on there tiger. I'm not slagging Hodgson, indeed if reading wasn't so difficult for you without pictures you'd have seen that in a host of early post I made BEFORE he was appointed and again here in this one, I am very happy at his appointment. However, I'm still entitled to my opinion and that is, for what its worth, is that Sturridge is a better striker than Carroll and Crouch is a better bet than Welbeck at international level with 22 goals in 44 games. So wind you neck in for a change and refrain from being a dick head just for 5 mins. We are relying on Carroll, Welbeck and Defoe getting us through the opening 2 games and 2 of them have no experience and 1 isnt even a regular for his club side? If you think thats cool then fine. I dont.
Saying Hodgson hasn't taken long to drop his first bollock or whatever the phrase you used was "can't be bothered to look it up" is well out of order and typical of the nob heads who are already turning the job into an impossible one. By all means disagree but your wording oozes with criticism. If Carroll scores a hat trick in the first 2 games you wont be saying that. I happen to agree with some of your points, including that of Crouch being a better bet than Welbeck (by a mile imo) but I just think people should politely disagree rather than come out with all guns blazing criticism, that has caused so many problems for past England managers, and earned the job the tag of "the impossible job". Carroll is in form. Simply has to go. Form and international record should be the only things considered in selection, nothing else should be factored in.
