Euro 2008

[Y 2 Jake]

Lol well at least you'll get something then.

He'll lose more than he makes.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Probably. Which is why you vote for Portugal, because you know you'll get so much more back.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

It's because I think they'll win.

 

[Father:_Polley]

I think Portugal are strong enough to win provided they don't bottle it as usual.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I'm hoping it's like 4 years ago, and a team you wouldn't expect wins it.

 

[Father:_Polley]

how did Greece win that? It was Portugal they beat in the final if i'm correct

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Yeah. But Greece aren't awful. Just not as good as the top teams. It's not like they're Austria.

 

[Father:_Polley]

Spain always amuse me in these tournaments. The players they have should make them favourites for almost every tournament, yet
a) Northern Ireland beat them and almost qualified in their place...except for the fact they couldn't beat latvia or Iceland
b) they choke in EVERY tournament

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Like England.

 

[Father:_Polley]

England fit both criteria too...good point

 

[Y 2 Jake]

It'll be because England are shit. Well not shit. It's just teh gulf between most internation teams isn't that big.

 

[Father:_Polley]

it's because they don't play overly well as a team. they're good players as individuals, but there seems to be a lack of team spirit and they don't know what the other players are doing.
Add to that, the fact that the manager changes his squad a lot and they have no idea what to do.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

True. I don't see the point in friendlies. When the played the US they used a normal team, I don't see why they didn't try out something new. Walcott & defoe could be the best strike pair of all time, but we don't know because nobody tries it.

 

[Father:_Polley]

yeah, it's not like they have anything to lose by trying out new things in the friendlies. Personally, I think the fact that they refuse to change their line-ups is harmful to them. Honestly, when will people realise that Michael Owen is not good enough to be England's striker anymore. Yet when Andy Johnson gets an England call-up, he plays as a right winger. It makes no sense. Defoe played reasonably well against T&T to merit a chance at playing a full international game instead of a washed up injury-prone forward.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Dafoe is a waste of space for England. He misses too many chances. Walcott is worth a shot, Johnson isn't playing well for Everton at the mo, so I can understand him not getting a call up.

 

[Father:_Polley]

I'd give Walcott a go. His goal in the Champion's League against Liverpool showed that he has the pace and ability to do well for England. I mean, pace is what Owen was there for, so at least Walcott has that to bring to England. I think Arsene Wenger actually did a smart thing signing him and giving him the chance to build himself up before pushing him.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

He does that with a lot of them. In the long run it'll stop him getting a big head.

 

[Father:_Polley]

and stop the pressure building up on him to perform which the English media seem to do with the younger guys such as Rooney. Honestly I think Walcott will be a very good performer in the years to come.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Certainly for Arsenla. It's hit and miss with England.

 

[Father:_Polley]

That's because England are more hit and miss than anything else. There main problem is relying on the established order they have, as opposed to introducing new guys in. Same problem all the national teams have...cricket and rugby. There needs to be a better balance. They're good, but until they have that, they will never be great.

Also, the number of foreign players in English club football doesn't help. That's why Northern Ireland look so amateur looking, simply because (Fulham aside thanks to Lawrie Sanchez), most of their players are stuck in Leagues 1 and 2

 

[Y 2 Jake]

With England it's all about the names. That's the only reason you get Beckham, Lampard and others in the team. Beckham is only in the team because he's good at set pieces. Even though he only scores for sets up goals with about 5% of them.

 

[Father:_Polley]

He's not the player he was with United, but that being said, the likes of Van Nistelrooy is a damn sight better than Crouch when it comes to getting on the end of any crosses he puts in. And Lampard does nothing for England, because he's beside Gerrard who makes him look ineffective. I dont think they get away with both together, because it restricts Gerrard as he's the stronger defensive player so ends up having to drop back because Lampard can't

 

[Capt. Charisma]

Somebody please explain why Defoe is suddenly England's number 1 striker he's absoloutaly shit.

Dean Ashton> Peter Crouch> Micheal Owen> Theo Walcott> Jermain Defoe

 

[Father:_Polley]

Is Cappello not just trying things out at the minute though. As for you're order...Owen is vastly over-rated and doesn't really deserve be on the team, i'd put walcott over him, and especially over crouch. Out of those, Dean Ashton is the only really one I'd go with alongside Rooney.

 

[Capt. Charisma]

Is Cappello not just trying things out at the minute though. As for you're order...Owen is vastly over-rated and doesn't really deserve be on the team, i'd put walcott over him, and especially over crouch. Out of those, Dean Ashton is the only really one I'd go with alongside Rooney.

Walcott is overated, he's fast but not much else. He'd be ok for a RW sub but he can't play upfront cos he can't score goals thats why I put Owen over him. Your right about Ashton though, but looks like were stuck with Defoe. Looks like were not qualifying for the world cup either...