This weeks International matches thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
He really is a twat.

I couldn't agree more with you! It is a long time since I have watched football focus but unfortunately when I turned over he and Ince were discussing Rickie. The posts people have made earlier pretty much sums up everything that was said and Lawrenson clearly does not have a clue. I think it is a combination of not having a clue AND the fact that he clearly dislikes anything Saints. Watching his ridiculous comments made me angry that we pay his wages with our licence fees. I saw recently that Hansen has officially left MOTD as a pundit. Perhaps Lawrenson should do the same regarding Football Focus and come to think of it, anything football related!
 
Lawrenson seems to know almost nothing about any player outside the top 6. He obviously didn't watch the England game and has never watched Lambert play other than highlights. We didn't even use him as a target man against Moldova. As for Crouch, he did very well for England to be fair.

Remember early last season when Colin Murray was asking Lawrenson his opinion of Lambert, during an MOTD3 [I think] and he said that Lambert reminded him a lot of Grant Holt. I remember shouting, no, you bloody idiot. He's nothing like Grant Holt, you prick [or something probably far worse].

It's quite obvious that he hasn't bothered to watch Lambert closely. Not even after an entire season, because he sees no more to Lambert's game than he suggested way back in September last year. Lawrenson is the epitome of the know-it-all/there's nothing you can tell me I've seen it all before, media/pundits, who are as stuck in their opinions as England managers were in selecting only from the top 6 [more likely 4] clubs. Thankfully, a run of injuries to other players and the remarkable abilities of a so-called journeyman [what other category would Lawrenson place him in] striker, have forced England and Hodgson to give him a chance. At the moment, he's the freshest breath of air about the England team.
 
Didn't see it myself but apparently on Football Focus, our old friend Mark Lawrenson was spouting out some more rubbish. Apparently saying "we have tried this target man business with Crouch before and it didn't work. Lambert won't start against Ukraine."

I watched that. Absolutely flabbergasting - one of the two pundits (edit: Ince) also said Rickie is a great option for when England go long. Showing they either didn't watch the England game, don't watch Southampton games, or are blind. Enjoy your enforced retirement, Lawro!
 
Lawrenson conceded that Lambert may only be useful when we need "someone to go long to".

It was actually Ince who said Lambert is a useful option for when England want to go long. He also questioned why Lambert wasn't put in the England set up when he was at Bristol Rovers, which was a bit bizarre in itself, as he would have been mid-20s in a lower-tier team. It was Lawro who said that all that Lambert constitutes is an option, and that he categorically would not start in Ukraine.

Lawrenson I assume is just bitter, as I guess he played his international career for Republic of Ireland purely because he couldn't or wouldn't have got into the England team at the time. I pick up a general level of condescension, though, when it comes to players and manager discussing Rickie in interviews - all about him having worked hard, and being an inspiration for kids etc. However, I don't resent that, as there is just obviously a general level of national affection for Rickie, which is to be encouraged.
 
It was actually Ince who said Lambert is a useful option for when England want to go long. He also questioned why Lambert wasn't put in the England set up when he was at Bristol Rovers, which was a bit bizarre in itself, as he would have been mid-20s in a lower-tier team. It was Lawro who said that all that Lambert constitutes is an option, and that he categorically would not start in Ukraine.

Lawrenson I assume is just bitter, as I guess he played his international career for Republic of Ireland purely because he couldn't or wouldn't have got into the England team at the time. I pick up a general level of condescension, though, when it comes to players and manager discussing Rickie in interviews - all about him having worked hard, and being an inspiration for kids etc. However, I don't resent that, as there is just obviously a general level of national affection for Rickie, which is to be encouraged.

Great post! I had not recorded football focus so had just seen it the once and was trying to remember who had said what. Between the two of them they basically talked garbage and the BBC should be embarrassed by the way their 'pundits' (termed VERY loosely) are talking about a player who is helping England and as people say, is a breath of fresh air to the international set up. They should also make sure they do their homework and actually watch players like lambert! I suppose the positive is that we can enjoy yet another moment when Lawrenson will eat his own words on Tuesday night when Lambert starts. Just like all the other times last season when he tipped us to lose.....
 
Lawro really has a chip on his shoulder regarding saints, don't know what his problem is but he has made himself look stupid more than once....remember "will gaston sign for saints" and he said no chance.
 
I sometime think Lawro likes the sound of his own voice........He really does not do too much home work that is for sure......Not only when talking about Saints. So much of what he says is proved oh so wrong it is a wonder he has kept his job it truly is.
 
This is a talking shop. When we run low on things to talk about we then turn to other subjects, like Lawrenson, who is a minor annoyance. Condescension doesn't become you, PSF.

Very well, I've said it before but I don't think I'll ever understand the degree of attention he is given though.
 
Very well, I've said it before but I don't think I'll ever understand the degree of attention he is given though.

Agreed he is a bit of a twerp, but he is a twerp who carries weight of opinion. Therefore he understandably annoys to some degree. Actually, he is a not-unintelligent twerp, if you see what I mean, which makes him even slightly more annoying.