No good people telling Hodgson to "give the youngsters a chance" then complaining when he does. Who would you have preferred to see added to the squad?
He's young, yes, but there are other young players that could have been in instead, who play more regularly.
Who would you rather have seen included then wonky? As it stands, with Lampard and Walcott withdrawing, the midfielders in the squad are Gerrard, Milner, Carrick, Cleverley, A. Johnson, Lennon & Oxlaid-Chamberlain. Just interested to know who you think should have been picked ahead of Shelvey.
Rodwell played for the Under-21s on Friday (and was injured). Could originally have been included in the senior squad though. Wouldn't say he's an obvious choice above Shelvey. Parker's hardly "young" anyway.
Shelvey has played numerous times and been a stand out performer for the U21s. He's 20, and has maybe 5 major tournaments to be in contention for in the future. Rightly he was behind Carrick and Cleverley on the night. You were playing San Marino - an ideal game to blood young players in. Why play older, more established players who have never cut the mustard? He was (until Friday) technically available for Scotland through a grand-parent, also.
i was pleased shelvey got a game - it was a good opportunity to blood some youngsters... even if he werent injured - what would we gain or learn from playing scott parker? he has played fairly regularly for liverpool this season, and not looked out of place, so why not?...granted i would rather howson got himself a call up, but thats probably mroe to do with being a norwich fan than him being more deserving...
He's just a player that hasn't impressed me really. I would like to be proved wrong but the whole England squad has failed to do that time and time again. Also, robbie, I didn't say they had to be young. Rodwell could have been picked for the senior squad despite being picked for the under 21s as well.
Indeed you didn't. My point was that Shelvey's inclusion has to be seen in the context of Hodgson looking to the future and giving youngsters such as Shelvey encouragement and a taste of the senior squad. If Parker hadn't been injured he would almost certainly have been in the squad, because Hodgson rates him. Also I agree, as I said before, that Rodwell was an alternative. But is it obvious that he had a stronger claim for inclusion than Shelvey? I suggest not (unless you take the cynical view -- like Dazz -- that it depends largely on what club you play for, in which case you might think Rodwell wins over Shelvey because he is a Man City sub!). Judged on how the two have performed this season for their respective teams however, I would say Shelvey was the more deserving.
i don't rate the guy, at all, but i can totally see why he was picked for england... he plays for liverpool. little to no reason else why
I'm with you on this Wonky, his game seems to be based on being a thug, rather than footballing skills!
Daft thing is he looked OK when he came on. Only San Marino but he looked better than others. Its OK for the pundits to rave about Cleverley's work rate and amount of passes but they were all in front of a packed defence. At least Shelvey tried to widen the game. But he isn't an international midfield player by any stretch of the imagination.
if shelvey had been playing for west brom this season, does anyone think he'd get called up? no, me neither. would he even get mentioned in relation to the england squad? nope. nowhere near good enough in my opinion anyway.
Care to elaborate? The lad has 13 yellows and 1 red in 5 years, and you believe there are no 'thugs' playing for England with worse disciplinary records than him? The stand-in England captain for example has a disgraceful record, but don't let blind hate cloud your judgement.
