He's got a season if two at Anfield that I'm sure he's saving for his final chapter in the autobiography. From Beetroot to Brazil and back home.
I think it is Hodgson pandering to the media. A lot of them were saying that Sterling should start, but most were saying for Welbeck with Lallana, Rooney and Sterling behind Sturridge. Welbeck is one of Hodgson's players so it became a decision between Sterling and Lallana.
You are giving Roy far too much credit there mate. He proved during qualifying he couldn't get the group playing well. He wasn't brave enough then, & now he wants the same old crap to hang around for a couple more years. I'll be glad when he falls upon his own sword.
I think Sterling has been a bit overhyped, too. Certainly exciting and I much prefer having someone like him in the team who will take people on and try and make something happen, rather than the old 'reliable' players. But really after an excellent start against Italy and then a great pass to set-up the goal he hasn't done much. Not criticising him but I've seen people reacting like he was incredible when really he was just promising but frequently fairly wasteful. Barkley is similar, very exciting but gives the ball away three of four times for every nutmeg or surging run. There's nothing wrong with that at this stage of their career but it needs to be acknowledged and in the short-term it may be hurting us more than helping us. Welbeck was the worrying choice for me. He's not as bad as many make out but he's also not particularly good at the moment either. I checked after the Uruguay game and can't remember absolutely precisely and can't be bothered to check again, but I'm pretty sure in his two starts he had 1 shot, 0 shots on target, 0 key passes, 0 dribbles, 0 crosses and gave the ball away 8 times not including passing for which his accuracy was around 75%, which is pretty poor considering he made no crosses or key passes implying he was playing it safe. I believe he did OK defensively but the the other options for his place don't shirk those responsibilities either. I know he is a recurring scape goat and at times I believe unfairly as in the past he has actually been our best option, but for those two games he was a very poor selection for me and a pretty reasonable chunk of the reason we did poorly.
Yep. Should have played Lallana both games (have a feeling reading between lines of interviews that he may think the same).
As much as seeing his name on the teamsheet usually depresses me I'd even have preferred Milner if all that was required was a defensive shift and then offloading it to others, both of which he would have done better than Welbeck I imagine. But that's probably using too much hindsight as if I saw him selected in the first game I probably would have strongly considered sulking and not watching the game.
The Southampton academy staff (or ex e.g. Geroges Prost) must be proud, especially if Schneiderlin plays on Wednesday too, even if he is not really an academy player.
How about a really simple plan. Get a group of players together who can pass the ball and stick with them. The reason Saints have done well is that the players are comfortable on the ball (not you, Boruc!) and they know where their team mate will be....the players play for each other. England consists of a group of disparate players. No idea what the answer is, though.
England just landed at Manchester Airport. The northern-based players are getting off, then the others will be flown to Luton before departing. Oh no, Rickie's getting off up there... I wasn't ready to see that.
Watching the England games just made me feel like all of the players were really nervous, maybe except Shaw (who actually played well yesterday). They couldn't and didn't want to keep hold of the ball, and every pass was desperate. There was no movement (i.e. players wanting the ball) and it just felt like they were rabbits in the headlights. Perhaps they don't care because they earn shed loads of cash and that's a big blow-cushioner that we fans do not have the luxury of having. Or perhaps they're not used to playing together. But these points can be said of any big team, and only Spain and Italy have done as badly as us (and that's only this time - we are consistently bad). Maybe it's becasue the players are just not good enough, but again there are supposedly 'lesser' teams who have done far better than us. Is anyone seriously saying that Bryan Ruiz is better than Rooney? But he has delivered far more in 3 World Cup games than Rooney ever has. For me there are some serious psycology issues that players from teams like Costa Rica and Ecuador don't seem to experience at this level, but that England do.
Morgan deserves a bump of this thread. I thought he was very solid last night. No doubt Arsene was a pundit for French TV. Wonder what he thought? Hopefully he didn't see him!
Sky sports news viewers rated England players performance in Brazil. Shaw came out top with a 6.8 rating. Poor Ricky was joint bottom with Gerrard with 4.5 for his few mins of game time.
You have to add an extra ten points for just being Rickie to any score they give him....so really 14.5.
