Richard was 24 like many others in the team they only picked 2 senior players when 3 was allowed I think
Maybe I am missing something here, but why was leaving beckham out of the squad a shallow decision. If he was to have been included it would have been for PR purposes only not footballing reasons.
Beckham didn't deserve to be included. He deserved recognition for hs help in bringing the Olympics to London. Not for the GB football team playing in the tournament. He was not as good as the 3 selected and media circus would ave been unbearable.
it was for marketing.. isn't? if you just read what i mentioned before, that including him would had boosted the income for marketing to the Olympics as one of reasons why he should had been their.. but you never read just comment .. sure he would had added more than what Jack Cork could had both in term of football or marketing and footballing wise, well he had scored 8 goals and 8 assists in 31 match that season in USA just before the Olympics, not bad for a midfielder
What's Jack Cork got to do with it? The ONLY players you should be debating are Bellamy/Giggs/Richards. Now this being the Utd board I'm sure you'll all agree that Giggs should have been there with his vast experience and he's obviously still got the talent. Bellamy was one of the best players in the league that year and was easily there on merit. There could be a question over Richards but as far as I remember he also had a good season (in a title winning team) and I would guess the idea was to have an over-aged defender to add some experience at the back. Adding Beckham instead would mean 3 experienced players in midfield and 2 of them who probably wouldnt be able to play a full 90 mins. Like I said you can probably question Richard's inclusion but I definitely wouldn't have replaced him with Beckham.
Jack Cork plays for a "small" club so shwan will consider him beneath contempt. Obviously if at any stage Cork is linked with, or indeed signs for, United shwan will argue long, hard and tediously in his usual ill informed and illogical manner that he is better than Hazard and only slightly below Messi. It is the way of the shwan. I remember Alan Cork and his Jim Royle-esque beard.
Joe Allen was playing for Swansea , did i complained about him or the other 7 players in the list playing for smaller clubs? Ramsey was playing for Arsenal , but i complained about him too? .. guess you are right, so if a player plays for a big club, i rate him highly, but if plays for small club, he must not be that good.. nothing to do with their form, isn't? as usual you just rush into conclusions just bcz it is me .. that is your way so Richard is the experienced one in the back? he was 23 like many other players in that GB team, sure there were better defensive options than him if we wanted an experienced defender at the back again am not saying Beckham is the best, but he would had ticked many boxes for why he should had been selected, for marketing purpose to generate more money, to make more people interested and watch the boring football tournament or as a thanks for his role to land the Olympics to the city of London , ..etc
How would it have generated more money when it was common knowledge that the games were sold out well in advance? Or are you suggesting a ten pound supplement on the gate because the all mighty David Beckham is making an appearance? Can't for the life of me see how much more interest in the Olympics could have been generated. Maybe you had to be in Britain last summer to get that.
you know that marketing is not about ticket sales alone, don't you? is about sponsors, ads, ..etc not to mention making more people watching the boring football tournament.. i actually didn't watched a single match as many i know here in london too PSG signed him for marketing reason .. we passed that occasion and never used it well
All of which were in place long before the football squads were picked. That is, quite frankly, obvious. Not remotely interested in what PSG did, that's completely irrelevant to this thread.
