To me ive watched crouch all season ... diff class Carroll played 1 or 2 games in the latter part o the season and made an impression ? no brainer for me what does u guys think ? I know its been done now but Hodgson is still makin some strange decisions !!!!!!!
I'd think he would have included him on the base of his strike rate for England (22 goals in 42 games)
Crouch hasn't been in England favour for years, it's not just with Hodgson. Capello didn't fancy him either. If he was so awesome, he wouldn't have been pushed out of the Tottenham squad and forced to join Stoke.
I don't think Hodgson would have taken Crouch as anything more than an impact player so in that sense it was probably a choice between Crouch and Defoe. Carroll is definitely very lucky to have been picked though given his woeful past 18 months which happened to finish with 2 good games.
Carroll has had some good form, and tournament football is all about recent form. Plus he'll get experience for the future, whereas Crouch probably won't play the next World Cup so is only worth taking if you think he will win us the Euros.
He was worth selection for the Euro squad, merely based on his brilliant goal against Man. City alone. Top player with a great scoring record.
I agree, would of been Holt over both Crouch and Carroll for me, Carroll's recent "good" form was only about 2 hours worth of football playing half decent, Holt's form lasted the entire season.
You can't really argue against Crouch's goal record for England, but, as has been mentioned, Carroll hit some form at the end of the season and looked like the player Liverpool thought he'd be when they shelled out the money for him. looking at the squad Hodgson has picked it's clear he's looking beyond the Euros.
Morrison played alongside Holt quite often, I think he only got picked instead of him a handful of times.
Carroll for me all day long. To be honest I like Crouch but Carroll is just more of an athlete. The other thing with Crouch is that at international level and european level, he just gets pulled for fouls non stop. Some are, many aren't but the end result is the same.
I disagree with that totally. He's pretty much totally found out domestically and defenders have the measure of him in most games but at international level defenders aren't used to him and struggle. He was brilliant for us in the CL last season and I remember him striking the fear of God into Argentine defenders at international level, as well as coming on for the last handful of minutes against France and scoring our only goal of the game, whilst Carroll who he replaced, had done **** all. I'm not saying Crouch should definitely have gone but he's a lot stronger candidate then Carroll.
Holt over both on the basis of form. Crouch over Carroll based on form and England record. Welbeck and Defoe over all three on the basis of how the team will be set up. If ever there was a team with hit-on-the-break players, it's England now, given what they have, which is pretty good defenders and some really fast attackers who have issues with possession. Young and Welbeck have scored the goals in the friendlies, Defoe nearly scored, and it's no coincidence.
Never said he hasn't done ok at international level, simply that he gets pulled up for fouls non stop. He does. Each t their own but I'd prefer the power and drive of Carroll coming off the bench. Just more likely to make something happen, and that is the role either would have to fill.
caroll just proved his selction by taking a good goal , dont think crouch could of taken that chance. Crouch great on ground but not that good in the air.
