Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It is very odd isn't it. I guess he has made the decision to keep Terry and Ferdinand apart, and as long as Terry remains in the squad he feels he can't go back on it. I'm not a huge Ferdinand fan, and think his fitness is a worry, but how is he still out.


I also think Richards could play centre, yet Roy continues to ignore him. Bit odd.

I think we all know why he's not picking Rio.

But maybe there is method in his madness for his subsequent decisions...

midfielder (Barry) gets injured and he drafts in a centre half (Jagielka);

centre half (Cahill) gets injured and he drafts in a full back (Kelly);

ergo, a full back will get injured and he'll draft in a midfielder...as you were

Saw this comment on BBC website, and think it's a good summary.


Ever since Roy Hodgson was appointed we've been told by the media that Rio Ferdinand

did not want to play alongside John Terry and

that Roy had a big decision to make regarding

which (if either) to take to Euro 2012.

He made that decision, and now we're being

told by the media that Ferdinand SHOULD'VE

been picked as a replacement for Gary Cahill,

to be in the squad WITH John Terry. He even

posted on Twitter to air his own frustrations

about not being called up.


So which one is it? Either way, yet again, the

media and tabloid press have been making

up stories to the detriment of the England

team.



Lets also not forget that Ferdinand's own club manager basically said he wasn't up to playing the amount of matches in a short space of time that the tournament requires.

Otta Wrote:

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

> To be fair, Rio wouldn't exactly be a move for the

> future. Not that Terry or Gerrard are, but there

> you go.

>

> I certainly don't agree with Rio's

> "representative" saying it's disrespecting Rio.

> That is arrogance.


This representative's comment implies that Rio never had an issue with playing with JT or he would hardly have made it. In which case the managers reason for not picking him must still stand. I don't buy into the concept you have to prepare for 'the future' giving that a tournament only comes round every 2 years and in England's case they've been preparing for the future since 1966. Play your best team if you can work out what it is.

Despite believing he has shortcomings as a manager, I've always thought Hodgson was an honourable and honest bloke.

He said he didn't pick Rio for 'footballing reasons', nothing to do with the media claim that it had to be Terry or Ferdinand...fair enough, despite Rio being the best footballing centre back we have, let's give Hodgson the benefit of the doubt, move on and get behind England etc.

But with the loss of Cahill and then bringing in a virtual rookie at full back, the 'fotballing reasons' excuse has totally been blown out of the water...bang goes Hodgson's credibility.

Fergie's statement didn't surprise me, he will always put Utd first before country, many fans of all clubs think that way too.

I'm not sure when Fergie made that statement, as Rio actually played 3 games in 10 days towards the end of the season in April...in The Euros England have play something like 3 games in 9 days.

Kelly won't even play if Johnson stays fit, and if he did get injured Jones can play there.

Hodgson has lost a lot of his integrity over this matter.

Otta Wrote:

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

> For all we know, SAF had a word with Hodgson and

> asked him not to pick Rio. I wouldn't put it past

> SAF, and I wouldn't be surprised if Roy obeyed.

>

> Personally I'd be happiest with an England without

> Terry or Rio.


You are completely wrong there Otta. No England manager would put SAFs needs before that of England.

Doesn't really matter who England have at the back thoygh does it? I don't believe they are good enough to scrape past group stage with any convincing style. At the moment on a good day , with the wind behind them they're as good as perhaps Sweden.


What's wound up the Celtic nations for years has been the sense of English (fame/media) entitlement to win major tournaments bordering on arrogance at times. "England expects"....a legacy of 1966, now half a century ago. The only glimmer of hope is the tiny spark of a reality check setting in - Roy Hodgson is low key . As soon as everyone stops expecting they might start doing alright again.


Predictably it's the Irish for me - I always enjoy watching them.

MrBen Wrote:

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


> What's wound up the Celtic nations for years has

> been the sense of English (fame/media) entitlement

> to win major tournaments bordering on arrogance at

> times.


maybe we need to learn a lesson like you did in '78...


 

MrBen Wrote:

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

> Doesn't really matter who England have at the back

> thoygh does it? I don't believe they are good

> enough to scrape past group stage with any

> convincing style. At the moment on a good day ,

> with the wind behind them they're as good as

> perhaps Sweden.

>

> What's wound up the Celtic nations for years has

> been the sense of English (fame/media) entitlement

> to win major tournaments bordering on arrogance at

> times. "England expects"....a legacy of 1966, now

> half a century ago. The only glimmer of hope is

> the tiny spark of a reality check setting in - Roy

> Hodgson is low key . As soon as everyone stops

> expecting they might start doing alright again.

>

> Predictably it's the Irish for me - I always enjoy

> watching them.



Furthermore the realism has ruined the betting opportunity that laying England has offered for many a year. At 5s this is nearly free money at 14s+ it gets a bit hairier :'(

"Proper footballing lesson here"


What was the lesson?


Surely in football the only 'lessons' that can't be learnt are those regarding behaviour, strategy or tactics?


You could learn a lesson about concentration, or bad field placing, or preparation.


You can't learn a lesson about skill when facing Brazil, unless the lesson that you learnt was about impoverishing 200 million people, restricting their access to education or employment such that all they had to do all day was play football well, hope to be spotted and signed up before you and your family died an early death from malnutrition or a curable disease?


Great teams are always linked with economic failure.


England will do well this tournament with no heroes and a failing economy ;-)

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

    • Hello,  I feel as though our apartment is damp. I would like to borrow a dehumidifier to ascertain whether it is or not. Does anyone have a dehumidifier that I could borrow for a week?  thank you,    Brigid
    • Post much better this Xmas.  Sue posted about whether they send Xmas cards; how good the post is,  is relevant.  Think I will continue to stay off Instagram!
    • These have reduced over the years, are "perfect" lives Round Robins being replaced by "perfect" lives Instagram posts where we see all year round how people portray their perfect lives ?    The point of this thread is that for the last few years, due to issues at the mail offices, we had delays to post over Christmas. Not really been flagged as an issue this year but I am still betting on the odd card, posted well before Christmas, arriving late January. 
    • Two subjects here.  Xmas cards,  We receive and send less of them.  One reason is that the cost of postage - although interestingly not as much as I thought say compared to 10 years ago (a little more than inflation).  Fun fact when inflation was double digits in the 70s cost of postage almost doubled in one year.  Postage is not a good indication of general inflation fluctuating a fair bit.  The huge rise in international postage that for a 20g Christmas card to Europe (no longer a 20g price, now have to do up to 100g), or a cheapskate 10g card to the 'States (again have to go up to the 100g price) , both around a quid in 2015, and now has more than doubled in real terms.  Cards exchanged with the US last year were arriving in the New Year.  Funnily enough they came much quicker this year.  So all my cards abroad were by email this year. The other reason we send less cards is that it was once a good opportunity to keep in touch with news.  I still personalise many cards with a news and for some a letter, and am a bit grumpy when I get a single line back,  Or worse a round robin about their perfect lives and families.  But most of us now communicate I expect primarily by WhatApp, email, FB etc.  No need for lightweight airmail envelope and paper in one.    The other subject is the mail as a whole. Privitisation appears to have done it no favours and the opening up of competition with restrictions on competing for parcel post with the new entrants.  Clearly unless you do special delivery there is a good chance that first class will not be delivered in a day as was expected in the past.   Should we have kept a public owned service subsidised by the tax payer?  You could also question how much lead on innovation was lost following the hiving off of the national telecommunications and mail network.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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