Why? We're not going to win it anyway. Might as well select players that want to be there. He's still better than what we've got, his pace may be all but gone but he can cross, take free kicks and swing in corners far better than other player available for selection.
Totally agree. Beckham should be there as he also sells tickets. For me the 3 over age players should be Beckham - Giggs and Bellamy. Another massive own goal by Pearce. imo
It's all about opinions fellas but I'd rather a young lad with a bit of promise was picked, someone who could be a future international. I appreciate you can pick three overage players but just because you can doesn't mean you should. IMO. Beckham has been a great ambassador for England and by all accounts is a top bloke so it wasn't meant as a personal dig at him. I might be in the minority but I'd rather give tournament style experience to a younger player, that just my thoughts. I'm not up to speed with how he's been playing of late but he must be very close to being well and truly past it as well.
Maybe I should have checked who was in before posting about Beckham. I fear I may have made a mistake. I'd rather have Beckham than those two. In fact in the space of half an hour I've done a complete U turn. Why the **** has Beckham been excluded? It's a disgrace.
I'm really surprised, if they wanted to up the interest in the GB football team, Beckham was the way to do it.
Bellamy, Giggs and Richards in. I don't care really but it does seem a stupid decision on a football and commercial scale. Seems they just wanted to get the Welshmen in for the sake of it.
I think its stupid that Micah Richards who refused to go to the euro's albeit the standby list gets the olympics nod over Beckham. Also Beckham is better than Bellamy
I've thought about this for a good ten seconds and have concluded that I still don't care. To me, Olympic football is the height of irrelevance.
Suprised to see him not selected for the olympic team. Done good work as an ambassador for this country and likely to be a draw for people.
Pearce has been over to LA to watch Beckham play for Galaxy. I presume he has seen something in his performance(s) which have led to his omission. Pearce has aspirations of winning the gold medal. To do that he will pick the players he feels will best equip the team to do that. He is not going to pick players simply because they have been a good ambassador, or will get more people watching. It has been reported that his reasoning is that Richards gives more defensive cover so it could be that Beckhams legs have gone. The team cannot carry a player whose only use is in dead ball situations. It pains me to say it, but he was right to select Giggs, although I think there must have been better options than Bellamy.
It really depends on the motives for picking the team - if we want to generate huge feel good factor, fill stadiums and have the world focus on the GB football team then we shouldve picked Beckham. If we want to win, we shouldnt have. I'm not saying one way is right and the other wrong, but I dont see Pearce as a circus ringleader.
Who cares if there is a slightly better option? This is the Olympics, it doesn't really matter that we win that much. Beckham should be there. Not sure why Pearce has left him out. Does he want to seem important, or is he really taking this seriously?
Good points well made. I cannot see beyond Brazil winning the football anyway. Hence why Beckham should have been picked to help fill stadiums and profile the team. Oh well......
