**** that, it's a friendly, they'd get over it. As England manager, getting slaughtered by the press is part and parcel of the job.
When was the last time we won in Oslo? Exactly. People seem to be obsessed with declaring that we're either the best team in the world or the worst, there is no middle ground. Other big teams lose against nobody's and we win a tough away fixture but we're still the ****test team ever to play at a major tournament. Get some perspective for ****'s sake. We're not going to be one of the hot favourites to win but we at least have a small chance and if we're going to do it we'll need to play to to our strengths.
Baines made several runs and was picked out once, Gerrard passed to Baines once in the whole time he was on. instead he passed to the right where Jones was having a bit of a shocker.
Don't worry - pundits have started saying 'the lack of expectation means we'll do better than usual', so they are jinxing it.
And those 3 won **** all and presided over the usual disappointments. In fact the only England manager who lost his first match in charge was the only one who ever won anything. That was probably a coincidence, but the point is that the manager should trust his conscience rather than pandering to media hacks who know **** all about **** all. He's not going to make everyone happy and he'd be an indecisive, populist, pandering pussy for trying.
We have the players to play good football. Carrick, Wilshere, Lampard and Cleverly are all good passers of the ball, and with three of them in there would be capable of running the game against most teams. Johnson and Young are both tricky and exciting, and Rooney is world class. Cole and Richards are both top attacking full backs. But instead we get Parker, Barry, Gerrard, Jones, Downing, Carroll, Milner etc. It sickens me.
Wilshere's injured, I think Cleverley is too, Carrick's ****e and Lampard's in the squad. Do you actually know anything about football? In fact, Cole, Rooney and Young are all there too.
Carrick ****e? Deary, Deary me. And did I say the rest weren't in the squad or did I just point out that we have the players to play good football? Can you actually read?
You said: So you either know nothing about football or nothing about the English language, I suspect possibly both. Also yes, Carrick is ****e, he's a passenger in a poor Manchester United side who goes missing in big games.
Jesus Christ, it's like conversing with a three year old. Have you watched England recently? How often did we start with all the technically gifted players and play good football? How often did we have the cloggers and runners thrown in? And thinking that Carrick is ****e completely sums up your lack of football knowledge.
How often have we been able to start with all the technically gifted players? How has that got anything to do with the players who have been picked? You can't complain about injured players not being picked, which is exactly what you did in your initial post. I would love it if Wilshere was fit, but he isn't, so we're better off playing the best midfielders we have and playing to their strengths rather than pick Michael ****ing Carrick as a replacement. And Michael Carrick belongs nowhere near the England squad.
I thought we played some decent stuff for the first 30 mins... Gerrard, Young and Carroll all looked good early doors - crikey, even Downing started brightly! It was never going to be a classic game, both sides playing 5 in midfield - apart from one chance that hit the post in the first half, I can't recall Norway giving Robert Green anything to do really. I don't see us progressing from the group stages either - too many draws will end our hopes. Woy will say: "We didn't woose a game but have failed to qwawify, we were unwucky"
Hart Richards Cahill Terry Cole Carrick Lampard Johnson Young Walcott Rooney That team is capable of playing good football. Recent teams picked by Hodgson and Capello were not. #PeteDohertyforenglandmanager
Indeed we did and that's the crux of the matter. We can argue about team selection until the cows come home, but the team is capable of taking the game to the opposition, as shown by the opening 20 minutes. Instead of maintaining the level of performance and winning by 3 or 4 goals, we decided to sit back and defend. It's a friendly and I wouldn't have been bothered had we tried that and let Norway back into the game. There's clearly something wrong when we're playing a friendly against (no disrespect to Norway) an average team and we're so desperate to win that we're prepared to sit on a 1-0 lead. No club side, however big or small, would ever do that.
In all honesty, that 11 wouldn't be significantly better or worse than Roy's team. Everyone in the England squad is a good player and capale of playing, if not total football, at least passable football and taking games to weaker opposition. It's the reasons why they don't that need looking at.
I actually quite like the look of that team bar the senseless inclusion of Carrick, but remember this was a friendly where Woy was purposefully NOT looking at his best team, he was experimenting with different combinations, and at the beginning they played perfectly well.
Good football translate to me as football played well. There no shame in playing like Stoke if that works for the team. Sexy football can be a mess when it doesn't work, as can more direct football. Both however look good when they're played well. Having supported Southampton in league 1, I'm well aware of what truly bad, negative football is and England are much better than it. They certainly shouldn't aspire towards it. After going 1-0 up, that's what we sank to and I can't hide the disappointment.
