I know we are into closed season, but I still feel very angry about Stuart Pieces decision not to include Becks in the Great Britain olympic team. I know the rules state that only 3 over 21 players are allowed in the squad, but to leave out Becks instead of Micah Richards, or Craig Bellamy to me is a no brainer. Not only did Becks earn a place on merit, but also on the hours of effort put in to ensure that London hosted the games. To me that decision by Pierce was not only an insult to Becks,and also to most of GB supporters, but was probably done out of spite. Would love to see your views on the issue.
Seb Coe and Kelly Holmes played a big part too, no one expected them to run the 1500 and 800m though did they? The only merit is football and it's debatable whether he deserved to be in on that basis.
Pearce didn't want the circus that comes with Beckham everywhere he goes. If GB were to win, he wanted the team to get the limelight, not Beckham. From where I'm sat it was an easy footballing decision, not excusing the fact Beckham would not have deserved a place on merit anyway.
So has Beckham he hasn't been a real footballer for years and I totally agree wit the Beckham circus, all of this of course assuming he would have accepted a place
What does that even mean dude? You never go at the post, always the poster, weak! He was a PR exercise for PSG, "playing" in the MLS before that, he's almost 40 and not known for his longevity as it were like Giggs, he'd look way out of his depth in a PL game, I'm hardly having a crack at the guy. He should not be in the GB team. I mean they would be better served including Scholes more so than Beckham, at least Scholes would bring something to the team even at his age
No way did Beckham earn a place on merit for London 2012. He wasn't even the best player at La Galaxy last year, and that's a team which finished 8th in the MLS after heavy spending. He was essentially not the best player at the American version of Liverpool. He and Bellamy had similar seasons in terms of impact and contribution, but Bellamy did it at a mediocre Liverpool playing in one of the toughest leagues in the world, whereas Beckham did it at a highly funded team playing at a much lower level where he was one of the highest profile and experienced players in the entire league. Richards also deserved his place more, as he'd been first choice for much of the season at the PL champions. Can't honestly see an argument for Beckham having been included, other than the old England curse of picking players on name rather than form.
Where, even in your world, was I pro-Beckham? You really should read before you start hammering away at the keyboard.
no one talking about the merit here, it was about rewarding him for the effort .. and to be fair were the alike of Sinclair, Jack Cork or Ramsey better players performance wise?.. not to mention the amount of attention he will would had given to the GB team, and add to that the possibly of even more money generated by using his image or attracting more people to the games
But that's just it, it's not about him it's about Team GB. Ramsey, Cork and Sinclair all more deserving. For once, just take off the red-tinted goggles.
Rewarding him for what? Giggs/Bellamy/Richards all had better seasons than Beckham and deserved to be a head of him. Who would you take out for Beckham?
