Smirking_Saint

Ive never read so much crap in my life, had a few did we ?

Ill let you into a secret Most fans are idiots who base opinion on media coverage and common conjecture.

Can see where your coming from as personally I dont think he is international standard however there isnt many more options out there. He has had a good season for us and is overlooked for Lampard which for me is rediculous. Theres no real ball winner or DM in the England set up, Gerrard has had a great season for Liverpool but A. Their set up gives him protection and B. He looks knackered Behind Gerrard who is there ? Barkley and Henderson normally operate further forward, unfortunately Wilshere flatters to decieve and then there is Milner or Lampard. Surely Hodgson should've gambled on Cork or even Huddlestone or Livermore FFS. As per Johnson, he isnt rediculously terrible, he plays ok in tournaments and was steady against Uraguay, but again Woys backups are pish, an injured Jones and Smalling (who is as terrible at RB as he is CB) its a shame that Clyne wasnt even our first choice but if thats the case surely take Flanagan or Stones etc ? Not out of the realms of possibility that Cork and Clyne could have offered more

Probably happens all the time, be good to know who it is though, then maybe Dyke can ask what the issues are in an attempt to sort it out. In the whole itll be ignored though, which is rediculous really. Id much rather have had HR at the helm the RH.

I do think a lot of this is true, more glaringly obvious however is for a 'national anthem' it isnt really a portrayal of England (or Britain) and realistically could be about any nation with a monarchy. But it is what it is, not particularly patriotic in my view. Rule britania, land of hope and glory and jarusalem are infinately more rousing IMO. As per the Monarchy, if you really think that we live in a 100% democratic society you are just plain wrong, you have the opportunity to vote for your prefered choice out of a select bunch at which point all the power then resides in parliament and decisions are taken not for the people but more often then not for those in power. The monarchy also brings in a heavy amount of tourism that we would lose should we abandon it. No we dont vote them in, but if we did all sense of intrigue around that particular establishment will vanish. Let them carry on, they barely harm you. Religion and the connection between the state and the church, realistically it probably shouldnt be so, we live in a world of which the views are now accepted that a finite creator is unlikely, I agree, but many dont. And the majority if this country still holds beliefs in god. For that reason I can accept the odd mention of god here and there. Do you never attend a funeral or wedding ? Or are you one who sits at the back and tuts at every mention of anything religious ? Like it or not the democratic system we have is based entirely on appeasing the beliefs and wants of a majority, and in that end means that equality doesnt exactly work in reality as much as many wish it so, its about compramise.

Well, I imagine you writing those letters anyway mr legod. The national anthems not the best but you cant change it to exclude monarchy or religion because its what you think it should be. Im mostly Pro Monarchy, they do more good then bad, not entirely sure what the arguements against are ? Except of course the "I didnt vote for them" which is rediculous anyway. As per religion, personally I dont believe in god, but Im not going to stand and throw my thoughts on the subject down somebodies throat. People are free to believe in what they want and do what they want. I mean, its slightly pretentious believing that you are the man to decide on what is representative of the people, and frankly thank christ.

Do you find yourself writing letters of complaint to the local Co-op when someone accidentally puts frozen brocolli into the mixed Broc/cauli floret section ?

He has had a poor workd cup but obviously he is a tremendous player who I believe is off to Athletico Personally I think Benteke is better, but not by much, he just hasnt had a chance at a bigger club

You may well be right, but its still better then god save the queen. As is Land of hope and glory

Still should be jarusalem

Mullet thats a pretty spot on assessment in my view

Delph and Huddlestone arent good enough for England, Cork possibly should have played. Who exactly is better then johnson at Liverpool ? It certainly isnt Flanagan !! You can hate on Welbeck all you want, he is decent, technically not too bad, honest and hard working, had a great start to this season playing centrally. Whats the alternative exactly as Barkley and Lallana barely lit up the games they came on as sub did they ? Like it or not picking players on form alone would be a complete mistake Jamie so stop talking complete ****e

Exactly, the old rule of thumb is to spread an attack and get compact in defence, I am a massive advocate of that regardless how good you are on the ball as ball playing through the centre against organised opposition is a difficult and intricate way to play successfully and we are poor at it. Like it or not England arent good enough, as much as he gets stick, Gerrards still arguably are best CM, and he needs major help in there due to his age. We arent good enough in attack and woefull at the back. Uraguay sucked in the middle last night and barely at all did we look to get around and inside, similar to Italy really. But going back to Pearces post its spot on IMO, its a system adopted by the better club academies and certainly by the major nations. You get a team playing together as much as possible with similar systems so they adopt it, otherwise it looks like the cluster**** we have seen so often. Spain, germany even Chile dont do this by accident ! Its coached until its instinct. As a coach myself I can relate how hard this must be to coach at National level with littke time in reality to integrate systems into instinct which IMO is why I think you get players called up in groups (man utd, liverpool, saints etc) as they already are used to each other and play a similar way to how the coach wants them too. Basically what Im saying is because of this lack of time you need players playing regularly together utilising similar systems as often as possible from young levels up in order for them to play with organisation and realustically dropping out like flies of the youth tournaments is massively damaging, atleast as much as that of the PL influence on young englishmen

Thats the crux of the PL predicament, and no, I dont think there is much they can do until they start installing Quota systems, and if that happens I think itll be a UEFA directive and not the FA. From another side of the coin the FA dont really help themselves with footballer development, or, have not in the past. The introduction of the EPPP is a massive step forward and the NextGen series was a massive breath of fresh air (the latter not an FA initiative). But even from grassroots level we struggle, we simply do not have the level of able coaches that they have on the continent and most of that is the cost imposed by the course providers (of course governed by the FA)

Good listen except for his last sentance http://tlks.pt/YCopRx

Ive basically said this for years, all the time Jack glasslegs wilshere can refuse to play for the U21s and then walk into the senior side then we are sending out the wrong message, decide on our probable formation and play similar tactics at all age groups keeping the younger players playing games rather then sit on the bench

Thats a pretty good analysis, though as I said playing Gerrar is a gamble Id have taken though you would have needed to either use defensive minded FBs or employ 3 in the middle. How Hodgson missed that I dont know. It can work with two there by the way, but that would mean Henderson would have to be an exceptional midfielder covering around everywhere (think schneiderlin) and he simply isnt. As for the two goals blaming gerrard is a bit OTT, he had involvement, but it depends how far you go to look for blame. Essentially the first was a combination of Johnson failing to close down, cahill getting drawn in and I dont really know what jagielka was doing. The second was essentially poor positioning from Jagielka, whether he was overconfident that Gerrard would win it or what I dont know, he half followed Cavani and was lost.

I have in an England sense, its difficult as passing wise he is still Englands best midfielder, but playing him in just a bank of two and still allowing the FBs to bomb on was suicide. Others have said aswell as me, to accomodate him (which I would do too) would be to play him in a bank of three, we didnt.. The team was ultimately disjointed and midfield overrun

If you play that Id honestly swap Welbeck for Sturridge, DS scores the odd goal as he is so ****ing greedy but ultimately wastes so much, the quartet would be much more fluid without him

Pretty much how I saw it except for a few bits, I said the same to the lads re Gerrard, if Woy wanted to use Gerrard in the Pirlo role then he definately needed screening. Why we dont go 433 anyway is beyond me. Largely though England are poor, we dont have a top class CB, CM or striker

Well, out of the team only really Hart has any top level class to him, perhaps Cahill, I really like Cahill as a player. As good as Gerrard has been in the past his legs have gone and I feel we were relying on him far too much in that role, ok, he is a decent ball player but he isnt a ball winner, he hasnt the legs, and so that responsibility laid at Hendersons feet who equally struggled. The two CMs are far too far away from the front quartet meaning transition is difficult and basically they were very isolated. Rooney was pretty poor in the number ten role, sterling ran into trouble too often though thats partly due to isolation and the more I see of Sturridge at the highest level the more its painfully obvious that he isnt all that great. Jagielka was terrible, at fault for both goals, why was he so high up the pitch ? Regardless of gerrards 'flick' (he was caught out of position too but cavani is a handful) jag got drawn to the ball and basically got caught in no mans land, no reason for a CB to be that far up, especially occupied by a striker. Baines isnt a great LB, good going forward, poor defensively. *and breathe* TBH we all expected this didnt we ?

Id have replaced Baines with Shaw, Baines will struggle

Playing an entirely different system, more often then not J Rod ended as the furthest forward as Lambert dropped back so Jay Rod was our outlet, Welbeck wasnt

It wouldnt work with the current personel and I think we will play 433 with a holding midfielder dropping between the two CBs when the FBs bomb on.. Like we do now Imo

For a start he plays on the wing for them, secondly he rarely starts up top for them and didnt play every game, he played up top for them start of this season and played very well, he scored 8 goals in qualifying for england. If you honestly think he is crap your just bandwaggoning and wrong basically