Clyne and Forster called up for England

QUESTION

 

Just a hypothetical one really, but CLUB or COUNTRY? Would you rather Southampton win Premier League OR England win Euro and World Cup consecutively?

 

For me, definitely the former- would love to see my Saints lift the title!

Club every time for me. The last England match I actually enjoyed was the one against Scotland (where Lambert scored the winner) before that I can't really remember.

AS for the Clyne discussion.

It had been Clyne ahead of sub. Chambers up until the end of last season, Clyne who played so well and scored goals, but Chambers who gets picked JUST because he's now playing for Arsenal.

 

What other explanation can there be ...? Hardly logic is it Woy ?

Look, I agree that Clyne is playing better this season, but can people stop re-writing history. Chambers started 18 league games last season (out of 38), he was often picked ahead of Clyne by Pochettino (Clyne started 24). Last season there was little to choose between Chambers and Clyne (in fact many considered Chambers to be marginally better, and given he is 3 or 4 years younger might be the better prospect). I agree its a bit daft that Hodgson did not give Clyne a start, but it really isn't that surprising and it really is not just because Chambers now plays for Arsenal. From my pov I'mglad Clyne didn't play, at least he won't be tired like little Raheem

QUESTION

 

Just a hypothetical one really, but CLUB or COUNTRY? Would you rather Southampton win Premier League OR England win Euro and World Cup consecutively?

 

For me, definitely the former- would love to see my Saints lift the title!

The former, not even hint of debate in my mind. I would take hardly any pride at all in watching Rooney and the rest of the overpaid, overrated, big time, Champions League old boys club lifting the World Cup.

Look, I agree that Clyne is playing better this season, but can people stop re-writing history. Chambers started 18 league games last season (out of 38), he was often picked ahead of Clyne by Pochettino (Clyne started 24). Last season there was little to choose between Chambers and Clyne (in fact many considered Chambers to be marginally better, and given he is 3 or 4 years younger might be the better prospect). I agree its a bit daft that Hodgson did not give Clyne a start, but it really isn't that surprising and it really is not just because Chambers now plays for Arsenal.

 

From my pov I'm glad Clyne didn't play, at least he won't be tired like little Raheem

and I agree totally with that comment. There are some games it does better to miss...and that was a good one for Nat to stay on the bench...

However, I don't think Woy had any intentions of starting Clyne. After Stones got injured, he pulled Chambers back out of the U21s..... in order to play him at RB.

Might just as well have left Clyne home. The whole charade was a ploy from Woy to put Nat in the sqaud and get the media off his back.

QUESTION

 

Just a hypothetical one really, but CLUB or COUNTRY? Would you rather Southampton win Premier League OR England win Euro and World Cup consecutively?

 

For me, definitely the former- would love to see my Saints lift the title!

So p!ssed off with the whole England set up over the years, I'd even settle for The League Cup, unless of course the England squad had several Saints players who had publicly pledged their futures wih sfc and we win The Prem as well!!

QUESTION

 

Just a hypothetical one really, but CLUB or COUNTRY? Would you rather Southampton win Premier League OR England win Euro and World Cup consecutively?

 

For me, definitely the former- would love to see my Saints lift the title!

Club

Club, and that position has changed in the last decade.

Club and that will never change.

Another couple of very good independent articles

http://thepremierleagueowl.com/dismayed-by-nathaniel-clynes-lack-of-england-involvement/

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/FAN-VIEW-Calum-Chambers-Nathaniel-Clyne-favour/story-23133051-detail/story.html

Look, I agree that Clyne is playing better this season, but can people stop re-writing history. Chambers started 18 league games last season (out of 38), he was often picked ahead of Clyne by Pochettino (Clyne started 24). Last season there was little to choose between Chambers and Clyne (in fact many considered Chambers to be marginally better, and given he is 3 or 4 years younger might be the better prospect). I agree its a bit daft that Hodgson did not give Clyne a start, but it really isn't that surprising and it really is not just because Chambers now plays for Arsenal. From my pov I'mglad Clyne didn't play, at least he won't be tired like little Raheem

....think your stats. maybe a little wayward Vectis, (18 +24 is more than 38)....but there's another explanation, too.

Firstly .I calculate that they started 19 league games each . There was no element of eqaulity or democracy in that figure but merely ....injuries.

Chambers started the first 3 games (because of Clyne's pre-season injury).

Clyne then played 11 consecutive games before getting injured...

Chambers took over again for 9....and was then injured himself.

Clyne came back for 1 game, (clearly not 100%) before being replaced by CC

Chambers played 4 on the trot - before getting injured again.

......the remainder of the season was Clyne for 3, then Chambers for 3 and it was Clyne who played out the last 4 games. Pretty equal selection stats, but mostly based on who was fittest on the day.

I wouldn't argue for one minute that Chambers did well most of the time he played, (although some people felt a bias towards a new talent who'd already been with the club for 10 years.)

The ultimate question is; Would Chambers have been selected for England had he still been a Saints' player. Instead of which, he was selected to play for England after only 4 games with Arsenal. The answer to that one must surely speak for itself. Any English born player, who is lucky enough to be selected to play for a top four Prem. club...(and there aren't that many) gets an immediate invite to the England squad.....after which Woy looks beyond the pale to players in clubs in the lower echelons of the Prem. There can be no other explanation.

We were all pleased for Rickie's sake that he finally got his call last season (much deserved), but now he gets a place on the England bench, without having started more than a couple of League games for his new club and still not having scored a goal. I'm not criticising RL, but the system that excludes players in Non-Euro qualified Prem sides, and uses only top 4 club players.

Now we have reached the point where the England team has become ....." a sort of Academy ".....for the Big Four Prem. sides. who want to win the CL.

Look, I agree that Clyne is playing better this season, but can people stop re-writing history. Chambers started 18 league games last season (out of 38), he was often picked ahead of Clyne by Pochettino (Clyne started 24). Last season there was little to choose between Chambers and Clyne (in fact many considered Chambers to be marginally better, and given he is 3 or 4 years younger might be the better prospect). I agree its a bit daft that Hodgson did not give Clyne a start, but it really isn't that surprising and it really is not just because Chambers now plays for Arsenal. From my pov I'mglad Clyne didn't play, at least he won't be tired like little Raheem

Its not rewriting history. Look at the article by "Premier League Owl" posted above and more usefully the comments on the article, they sum up the situation well. The fact that Clyne didn't get to play one minute against either Estonia or San Marino is unbelievable. Who has Hodgson played at right back ahead of Clyne now - Jones, Smalling, Stones, Chambers - how many of them even have a liely future in the game as a right back? But Hodgson sees it as more worthwhile that intergrating Clyne into the team at all.

Worse thing about this is that none of these are regularly playing RB!

Worse thing about this is that none of these are regularly playing RB!

On a separate, but related matter, how bad has Hodgson's management of the Sterling situation been? Embarrassing.

Yes, exactly. What would you think if you were Clyne? Chambers wasn't even in the original England squad, yet Clyne can't get a kick against San Marino or Estonia.

 

On a separate, but related matter, how bad has Hodgson's management of the Sterling situation been? Embarrassing.

His management of Clyne has been embarrassing, his management of the Sterling situation has been spot on. He was honest about it rather than spouting a load of flannel.

Yes, exactly. What would you think if you were Clyne? Chambers wasn't even in the original England squad, yet Clyne can't get a kick against San Marino or Estonia.

 

On a separate, but related matter, how bad has Hodgson's management of the Sterling situation been? Embarrassing.

Spot on I think

Sterling told roy he was too tired to train..in what was a 'light' training session.

This is clearly a hang up from the Sturridge issue and sterling was probably told by his club that he REQUIRED 48hours off after a game

Roy, basically said if you dont train, you will lose your starting place and got in there first regarding the questions and told everyone why

Roy is a totally depressing manager, awful tactics and crap football but I feel he was right about sterling.

Notice that he picked another liverpool player in his place. I feel this is a mini battle between roy and liverpool/rogers

Roy is a totally depressing manager, awful tactics and crap football but I feel he was right about sterling.

Notice that he picked another liverpool player in his place. I feel this is a mini battle between roy and liverpool/rogers

Its not really his fault, it happens to all the England managers after a year or so. There's something about the combination of media pressure and players who dont really want to be there or to fit into a different system to one they might play at their own clubs.

Top of the table, no goals conceded good stuff. Can't wait for the next round.

Saw Holland lost to Iceland

QUESTION

 

Just a hypothetical one really, but CLUB or COUNTRY? Would you rather Southampton win Premier League OR England win Euro and World Cup consecutively?

 

For me, definitely the former- would love to see my Saints lift the title!

that would be a 100% one way poll. Most here would take a win against Sunderland over any England glory.

Gets more depressing every year but at least the other home nations making international football less dull than normal.

that would be a 100% one way poll. Most here would take a win against Sunderland over any England glory.

Gets more depressing every year but at least the other home nations making international football less dull than normal.

This, and to be honest, I would rather watch some of the others! The problem is, now that we have reverted to type, is that the national team has little relevance to anyone outside of the "elite" clubs, who dislike letting their players go. It is also the attitude. I'd rather 10 Delphs who want to play, rather than those on six figure weekly wages whose ultimate loyalty lies with their employers. Ok , Delph has loyalty to his employers, but unlike the CL where the "elite" club players can have a stage, this is Delph's big stage (at the moment!)

Would be great if Wales or NI managed to qualify for a tournament at the expense of a so called bigger football nation.