Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Usual timid and clueless 1st 20 minutes for England. Looks like Uncle Roy has told them they're not allowed to score unless they take it right through the middle and make 17 passes first.


Against a better side (like Bury for example) they'd be in trouble.


Maybe it's the fact that San M. have a (4th div Italian league) pro in their ranks.


I know they'll go on to win by a hatful but this is unimaginative and even looking a little panicky.

Ha! England need a goal to get going so Wellbeck goes down... again. There was contact and yes it was a pen but even Owen might have been a little ashamed of that one.


Still now they're off and running so it's alright. They'll get the hatful now and the first half hour will be forgotten. Until they get slaughtered by a team that can play.

Roy needs to make a big decision tonight, Defoe or Welbeck...or maybe Carroll?

Defoe is a better finisher than Wellbeck, but Wellbeck's all round play and linking-up with Rooney makes me think he'll get the nod. Either way, after the luxury of Friday's turkey shoot, expecting a typical England nailbiting performance, with honours even...

He'll need Wellbeck to dive for a penalty if thigs are tight.


The interesting thing will be whether, if England look ineffective again, he will abandon the idea of passing the ball into the net via the crowded midfield and tell Lennon and Ox-C to put in the crosses and bring Carroll on to head them in.

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> maxxi Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ...tell Lennon and Ox-C to put in the

> > crosses and bring Carroll on to head them in.

>

> Glad to see you're succumbing to the new West Ham

> way...

>

> ETA Typo



Unlike England, when Carroll was out injured the rest of the team upped their game knowing that when he was fit BFS would go route 1 a lot of the time (not always surprisingly) and they might be sidelined. I just wonder whether Hodgson can sacrifice his vision (blurred and myopic though it is) of England as a passing side (even if there's too much bloody passing) in favour of Carroll's robust approach - I think to be successful he has to be able to play both ways.


You're right about it being one of the West Ham ways - did you never see Hurst's first goal in the '66 final? The long free kick floated in by Moore onto his head?

I'm not sure that the rest of England needed to 'up their game' in Carroll's absence, it's not like he's ever been an automatic first choice striker, like Shearer. The position alongside Rooney has been up for grabs for a while, in time I expect Welbeck will fill the role, with Carroll a Plan B option a la Crouch...

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure that the rest of England needed to

> 'up their game' in Carroll's absence, it's not

> like he's ever been an automatic first choice

> striker, like Shearer. The position alongside

> Rooney has been up for grabs for a while, in time

> I expect Welbeck will fill the role, with Carroll

> a Plan B option a la Crouch...


Yeah I didn't mean England - the 'up their game' thing was just about WH and to repudiate the idea that they only play the long ball option - they don't but they have it in their arsenal (doh) and I think it's the reason Jarvis was bought.


I do think though that England are in danger of becoming one dimensional the other way - like a poor man's barca swansea.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...