Viewing Thread:
"England Squad Named for Argentina"

Robinson (Tottenham)
Green (Norwich)
James (Man City)

Neville (Everton)
Young (Charlton)
Bridge (Chelsea)
Konchesky (West Ham)
Ferdinand (Man Utd)
Terry (Chelsea)
Campbell (Arsenal)
King (Tottenham)

Beckham (Real Madrid)
Gerrard (Liverpool)
Lampard (Chelsea)
J Cole (Chelsea)
Wright-Phillips (Chelsea)
Jenas (Tottenham)
Smith (Man Utd)
Carrick (Tottenham)

Owen (Newcastle)
Rooney (Man Utd)
Defoe (Tottenham)
Crouch (Liverpool)

Bloody hell Sven, why do we have makeshift defensive midfielder Alan Smith in there instead of Scott Parker? Christ, that really, really irritates me. Seriously, what more can he do? He is vastly more talented in that position that Smith could ever hope to be.

He doesn't way up the pros and cons of each, but it's still a comparison. Otherwise how would you judge?

The Argies would love Beckham, he'd be one of their best players. A midfield of Mascherano, Cambiasso, Beckham and Riquelme would be amazing.

Blank wrote:
> So he is saying Riquelme etc. are better. They're very good players,
> I like them all very much, but as I said, direct comparisons are
> ridiculous.

Theres no direct comparison between beckham and any player in the squad though.

Mav wrote:
> And I'm nowhere near convinced enough with King. Sure, he's got the
> physical presence to do well against a poor side, but to be a world
> beater you need to master that position by playing there every week.
> You can't just throw him into the team over someone like Parker, who
> I'm convinced would do a better job given the chance.

King was excellent against France. I know he played centreback, but when the opposition have an attack, he'll pretty much be playing as a third centreback. That's one of the advantages of using him over anyone else. Can Hargreaves/Parker/Carrick play centreback? Not really. Of course the downside is that Hargreaves and co are better going forward, but isn't the whole point that we have a defensive player to allow Gerrard/Lampard to go forward? Defensive qualities are what we're after.

And anyway, you know that Hargreaves is going to come on as a sub whatever happens, you may as well play someone else.

or†ega!!!!! wrote:
> Did you even read the whole article?
>
> He never compared beckham to any of those players. He just said
> Theres better players in the argentina squad.
>
> Ronaldinho/Aimar/Riquelme only came into it when he was mentioning
> lampard.

'Barcelona’s Lionel Messi does not believe that David Beckham would warrant a place in the Argentina team ahead of Pablo Aimar or Román Riquelme and that he would also choose the pair over Chelsea’s Frank Lampard.

"I rate Beckham as a player, but personally I prefer my team-mates," he said. "The Argentina squad does not need players like Beckham"'

So he is saying Riquelme etc. are better. They're very good players, I like them all very much, but as I said, direct comparisons are ridiculous.

Stryke wrote:
> The first half where Shevchenko didn't get any assists or goals? Or
> the whole match...where Shevchenko didn't get any assists or goals?

Got an assist on one of the Crespo goals I think you'll find.

Plus, it's not much use saying "Well Shevchenko didn't get past Carra to score" when another striker scored two.

therage79 wrote:
> Does anyone else think that the reason the formation we used against
> Poland was so successful (apart from the fact that it was Poland) was
> that both Joe Cole and SWP played very wide, which stretched the
> Polish back four (and midfield to a certain extent) allowing plently
> of room for Lampard and Rooney to exploit just behind Owen?

Yeah I agree it created holes in the back 4 which let Lampard and Rooney slip through to goal or a lot of space to get the ball to Owen.

Blank wrote:
> Ah, you didn't see the first half then.
>
> And Carrick is better than Hargreaves and Parker. King for England.

Rubbish. Parker is a far better tackler, has equally strong distribution, a wonderful natural off-the-ball talent and a valuable organisational head on him that tends towards a strong tactical awareness. Perhaps most importantly however, is that his work rate never falters and he genuinely loves playing in that position, whereas Carrick would feel his attacking abilities were being strangled.

And I'm nowhere near convinced enough with King. Sure, he's got the physical presence to do well against a poor side, but to be a world beater you need to master that position by playing there every week. You can't just throw him into the team over someone like Parker, who I'm convinced would do a better job given the chance.

Unfortunately I can't really comment on Hargreaves - unless on the off-chance that I catch Eurogoals I don't really get a chance to follow the Bundesliga.

Does anyone else think that the reason the formation we used against Poland was so successful (apart from the fact that it was Poland) was that both Joe Cole and SWP played very wide, which stretched the Polish back four (and midfield to a certain extent) allowing plently of room for Lampard and Rooney to exploit just behind Owen?

And by the same rationale playing Gerrard and Beckham there will be less successful as they prefer to play further inside meaning that space will be more cluttered, especially as Argentina (as far I remember) play with 3 in central midfield?

Thoughts?

Blank wrote:
> Mav wrote:
> Sure, Carragher let Henry past him once, but look at how he handled
> Shevchenko in the CL final
>
> Ah, you didn't see the first half then.

--

The first half where Shevchenko didn't get any assists or goals? Or the whole match...where Shevchenko didn't get any assists or goals?

--

>
> And Carrick is better than Hargreaves and Parker. King for England.

--

Balls to you.

Smedlos wrote:
> How come it's in Geneva anyway?

Argentina want to play in a country similar to Germany to get ready for the World Cup. (im probably wrong tho)