So rickie needs to prove he can be that man too? Part of me wants him to play up top all out so he get on the plane.
Rickie is never going to be in the England starting XI so wouldn't it be better for him if we used him like we did on Saturday, and like he was used against Scotland? His sheer footballing intelligence makes him a game changer when he comes on, either creating for others or scoring goals himself. I'm pretty sure this is how Roy sees him.
Every pundit/expert has been saying that the choice is between Lambert/Carroll as they offer something different. I think that Rooney/Sturridge/Welbeck are certainties to go leaving a 4th and possibly (but unlikely) 5th striker spot open. You have your speed/directness with Welbeck/Sturridge and your creativity with Rooney. So when they say offer something different I can only assume they mean aerial threat. There is no way that whoever goes as the 4th option is going to start regularly unless there are injuries to the other 3, so imo Roy will be looking for someone who can come on with 20/15 mins to go when we are losing and be a target for crosses/long balls, which suits Carroll more
Lambert and Carroll are different from the three Rooney/Sturridge/Welbeck. Lambert can play deeper and will be more creative whereas Carroll is a box player who gives an aerial threat, like his superb header against Sweden. Lambert can link up with the midfield better and Carroll's fitness issues plus reliance on strength would make me plump for Lambert but depends what Hodgson is looking for.
They are so different it is hard to know where to start. Carroll is an out and out, old fashioned centre forward/target man. Lambert is really a midfielder at heart who happens to be decent in the air and is fantastic at free kicks and penalties. Carroll is a 'route one' kind of a player whereas Lambert has a great football brain and will drift off to the wings to create space for others. Its ridiculous to compare them really. Both are good at what they do but what they do is different. It just depends on what England's plan B is going to be.
Rickie is so good at linking with other players he is almost more valuable as a provider than a finisher. If Roy is just looking for a target man then Carroll does give him that but Lambert offers so much more. The only thing is, and I suspect injury may be the cause, Rickie has hardly headed a ball since the England outing. His feet do the talking, but not his head at present. Or have I completely misunderstood the finer points pertaining to football tactics again?
Rickie mentioned recently that he is adjusting to what Mauricio wants...he added that he has scored fewer goals as a result, but is happy to play the way the manager wants. He did say that part of his failure to score is just because he missed
lump it; in fact, once we play a team who keep the ball a lot, it might even be plan A. I can't recall Joe Hart rolling a ball out short to a CB or fullback.
Can't really use the ' Lambert offers something different' card anymore. When that cliche is mentioned it refers to the powerful target man and Lambert is hampered by his back these days. So in answer to the question 'what does Carroll offer that Lambert can't', the answer is quite simply that Carroll can jump. Should Lambert or Carroll go? The answer is Lambert because he offers so much more than Carroll could ever offer in terms of variety.
They keep offering up Carroll as something different...I have an idea....let's not get into the position where we are desperate enough to start lumping it forward. I have to say if I was Carroll I'd be fed up with pundits suggesting that is all I'm good for. However, Rickie is the better all round player and I know I'm banging a drum here, but Rickie is the man in the seat. He'll go if fit.
Oh Fran you are going to be disappointed this summer if you are booing we won't be in a position to start lumping it. It's going to be "valiant defending" or "great effort" that gets us any points come June. Remember the Euros? We were appalling in the group games. The Sweden game was a master class of English and Viking football.
I have no expectations for the WC. Getting out of the group is the most we will achieve...perhaps through the next game if things go our way. I am hoping that youngsters (aka Southampton Academy graduates ) will be given a chance in the build up to the Euros...that competition will show if we have made progress...not the World Cup.
I'm not talking results if progress, I'm talking how we play and the "lessons" we will be given out there. Hence my believe that we will on many occasions see a CB or GK lump it 40 yards towards the striker on a 50:50 ball that will more often than not give possession back to the other team.
As I have said on another thread, sometimes 50:50 in the opposition half is better than risk losing it just outside your own penalty area. That said, I agree with what you are saying to a point. That point being that sometimes our centre backs aren't as good as they seem to think they are and sometimes a punt forward is the best option.
Lambert is a better footballer than Carroll. Lambert deserves to go the WC more than Carroll. But the simple fact is whoever goes would be going as last choice striker. They might get 10 mins at the end of one or two games. They might get no game time at all. The most likely situation is that their game time comes when we're in desperate need for a goal. And as been mentioned already, should we find ourselves in that situation then no doubt we'll be punting the ball forward at every opportunity. And in that situation Carroll is, unfortunately, the obvious option for me. I would hate to see him go to the WC. But with Roy being so pro Rooney, Sturridge and Welbeck, I can really see him going.
I doubt that even SRL thinks he will start a game (unless everyone else goes down with the Rio Revenge), but he would just love to be there and get some game time. And so would we.
I see you trying to draw me out on this I'll take the pass risk please simply because England teams play the long 50:50 ball too often. As a footballing principal, your last two posts on this topic suggest you believe in the statistical approach to football management. This would make you delighted to have BFS as manager. The two best managers for that style are BFS and Graham Taylor. No thanks. I'd rather watch the passing and possession than the 50:50 gamble. The best teams in the world, do not play the percentage gamble. They keep playing until they find the gap.
