Sad reality is 90% of english footballers couldn't care about being selected for the national team anymore it is no longer seen as a honour, haven't seen a fully passionate 100% commited england player since Beckham
Sadly a grain of truth there. However we should want to play for our country. The manager's personality seems to have an important effect. There have been charismatic managers who the players have been keen to play for and some dull ones (like Hodgson) who do not seem to excite the players.
I blame the media for that, they usually over-hype the team before a tournament and then look to crucify the players at every chance they get once the games are about to start, add to that the amount of money these players make at their clubs and there really isn't as much incentive to play for the national side anymore.
If there was any honour in representing England then the players would be proud to do so. Its not possible to be proud of being ashamed. Thats the fault of the FA and the media not the players.
Yes, the same Beckham who put his career at risk by playing for his country, despite the non stop abuse(remember the hanging his effigy)with a broken metatarsal.
"career at risk"? His injury was fully healed. Loads of other players have played through the pain barrier to play for England or their club, its nothing new. And he was given abuse because he could well have cost England a quarter final place with that silly red card. It was just such an unnecessary red card aswell. The abuse was over the top but you act as if he was given abuse for no reason.
He cost england **** all. Poor refereeing cost us when he disallowed Campbells goal. What do we expect against the Argie scum though.
England would've had a much better chance of winning the game in normal time/extra time with 11 men though mate, that is undeniable!
Maybe so but had the ref not made that mistake Beckhams red card would of been forgotten at FT. He was a scapegoat in the end.
I pretty much agree with this, sans swearing. The only mistake Roy has made, in my opinion, was to take Johnson over Richards. But Capello didn't want to pick Richards either, so it's hardly that controversial to stick with Johnson. The nonsense spouted about players like Carrick who declined to be considered is ridiculous; there are a lot of loud-mouthed ignorant English "fans". Carrick made his choice and that is his right, rather than Roy's fault. Rio's reaction to not being picked completely justifies his exclusion, in my opinion. England will be better off for dumping Rio now, like they would if they dumped Gerrard and Terry. Unfortunately Roy hasn't been able to pick players like Walker or Wilshere and has shied away, sensibly, from taking risks on players who have missed alot of gametime this season (aside from Gerrard) like Cleverly, so players like Gerrard and Terry get their final hurrah. I for one will be glad then the last of the "golden generation" ride off into the blue yonder and we can start again with talented youngsters.
You need a mixture of experience and youth. Most successful teams both at club and national levels have shown this. How can lampard, Gerrard be ok but Ferdinand too old? There is no doubt that Hodgson has messed up big time. he should have handled the situation better. Not communicating with Ferdinand was quite bad. Excluding him in favour of Kelly and saying it was for footballing reasons was really insensitive. I hope we do have a successful tournament. If we don't Hodgson will face a torrent of criticism.
I understand there's alot of ill-taste for Liverpool players on this board, but I don't understand why you're making it a 'Kelly over Ferdinand' selection choice, when it was clear from day of Hodgson's reign that it's either Ferdinand or Terry - not both. With Terry picked (no idea why), Ferdinand won't be going, regardless of other injuries. "Footballing reasons" is a farce of an excuse, we all know that. Kelly, incidently, is a CB by trade but playing RB for us whilst we lack cover there and still have decent CB cover. He'll move back inside as he develops. He's also a fine prospect, certainly no worse a player than Jones (I won't say either is better than the other, don't want to start an arguement), but suffice to say they're both good long term prospects, both can play RB or CB and both will learn alot from this experience. Richards has been dropped by alot of managers - there's clearly something we're all not being told. His performances warrant a start, so again, clearly we don't know everything here. He also, apparantly, declined to be on the reserve list - so he gets what he deserves, dropped in favour of someone who wasn't 'too good' for the reserve list. His own fault. Walker is, imo, no better or no worse than Jones or Kelly. He's over hyped currently, he's just another good prospect. Johnson is not half as bad as people make out and when you're starting Milner wide right (no idea why we do that), you need an attacking fullback - which Johnson is. I understand Carrick's disappointment having been around so long now that he's only deemed good enough for the reserve list - but in reality he would be 4th pick centre mid behind Gerrard (captain), Parker (also a given to start) and Lampard. He would end up on the bench the entire tournament anyway imo...at least Henderson will learn something from being around the England camp, Carrick will just get bored.
Lol and u lot all moaned that we gave him only 6 months. England fans havent even given him 6 weeks!! But understandable, he's a ****e manager
I see it as disrespectful to Hodgson and to the shirt. Carrick's a decent enough player but, like Richards, hardly merits refusing to be on a standby list that in all likelihood was going to mean he was in the squad anyway.
I don't see it as disrespectful, Carrick isn't a young player anymore (unlike Richards) and has always been overlooked when it comes to England even though he has been a consistent part of a United team that won 4 titles in his 6 years at the club, Carrick only having 22 caps in 11/12 years is unbelievable in my opinion, maybe this is his way of giving up on international football altogether and I wouldn't blame him, after a long season he may of just decided he would rather spend more time with his family this time round rather than sitting on his arse on England's bench yet again.
Hodgson is making the classical mistake of treating his job like a club manager's post. You just cannot treat the players the same way. In the England post they can choose to ignore you and slag you off if they feel wronged. At a club the players have (in general and there are exceptions which prove the rule ) to toe the manager's line. They have signed contracts. Why can't he have a word with Ferdinand and explain his decision?
because he'd have to go on record and say only one of Terry and Rio is allowed in the side and he wanted the one who is a worse footballer and probably going to prison.
I had thought in the past that Hodgson was an experienced and able manager at all levels. It already looking like the FA has made a terrible blunder and appointed someone not up to the job.
I have to say that there is something that stinks in this whole episode. Footballing reasons? possibly but not likely if you listen to all the pundits, managers (like Redknapp) players (here - Fowler and abroad - Dutch ones like Heitinga, Kuyt, Van Der Vaart). Other reasons: more likely and the issuie of unity within the squad. Ferdinand has already made it clear to Hodgson that he is willing to play alongside Terry. So why should he because he is related to an alleged victim of racial abuse suffer the consequences of that incident? It does not seem fair and Hodgson must look at the big picture quickly or the whole issue will explode with involvement of other groups (which we do not necessarily want).
