Jump to content

Walcott


Recommended Posts

Sorry if this has been mentioned in other threads but I have to ask:

 

What was the point in bringing him?

 

Surely the time to play him was last night? 2-1 up, we're looking tired and getting penned in to our own half BUT we've already qualified and one of our 1st choice strikers is probably out of the competition with a fcuked knee. Why not bring on the untried "wonder kid" who's inclusion has kept a few proven players with a legitimate claim to a place out of the squad and who has "ledgendary speed" to try and lift the game a bit and run at the Swedish defence?

 

But no, we do what we always do and try and soak up the attack until full time.

 

If Sven wasn't going to give him a run out in this game when is he going to bring him on? In one of the games which we have to win (ie: every one from now on)?

 

I honestly think that Walcott may not play any part in our World Cup and if he doesn't then the descision to bring him will be one of the stupidest manegerial fcuk ups ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely agree, was going to post something similar. Like they said in the commentary last night...can you imagine how Defoe (or AJ) felt last night when Owen came off? No doubt in the world that Sven would have used them in that situation...but he puts Crouch on :o . It is without doubt one of the dumbest decisions ever to take the lad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth he took crouch is beyond me. The guy IMO is not an international or premiership footballer, he makes me frown whenever I see him play he just isn't great.

Anyway, Sven obvioulsy wanted to start with 2 'short' strikers so Walcott was the obvious replacement but no he sticks the big useless tool up front who did....absolutely...nothing.

 

Think Sven is playing games, he needs stewing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth he took crouch is beyond me.  The guy IMO is not an international or premiership footballer, he makes me frown whenever I see him play he just isn't great.

Anyway, Sven obvioulsy wanted to start with 2 'short' strikers so Walcott was the obvious replacement but no he sticks the big useless tool up front who did....absolutely...nothing.

31631[/snapback]

 

I disagree with that. I like Crouch. I think that he has a very good touch, holds the ball up well, distributes it well and although not prolific has already scored some important goals.

 

I just don't think we have played Crouch well - he's better with his feet than he is with his head so why not keep the ball on the ground rather than keep punting lofted crosses into the box in the hope that he'll get on the end of one of them? We used to do exactly the same with Big Dunc and 9 times out of 10 we would give the ball away. Ok, so you manage to score the odd goal like that but its not the way to play international football. The teams that do well are the teams that link up, overlap, run at defences, stretch them and most importantly keep posession (Argentina, Brazil etc..) not the ones like us who fire in 40 yard long balls at every given chance. When Crouch has actually had the ball to feet he has looked capable, but that hasn't happened often enough.

 

But back on topic..........I think Crouch has a legitimate claim to a place in the team, I don't think Walcott does.

Edited by chronic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Walcott decision is all that Sven is going to be remembered for, if it works out people will praise him (thats not going to happen though) and if it turns out to be a psychotic decision, which it will, then he will be slated.

 

Crouch shouldnt be in the England team IMO, the team play such poo football when he is on the field and he is just not a good enough player to warrant an international call up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that. I like Crouch. I think that he has a very good touch, holds the ball up well, distributes it well and although not prolific has already scored some important goals.

 

I just don't think we have played Crouch well - he's better with his feet than he is with his head so why not keep the ball on the ground rather than keep punting lofted crosses into the box in the hope that he'll get on the end of one of them? We used to do exactly the same with Big Dunc and 9 times out of 10 we would give the ball away. Ok, so you manage to score the odd goal like that but its not the way to play international football. The teams that do well are the teams that link up, overlap, run at defences, stretch them and most importantly keep posession (Argentina, Brazil etc..) not the ones like us who fire in 40 yard long balls at every given chance. When Crouch has actually had the ball to feet he has looked capable, but that hasn't happened often enough.

 

But back on topic..........I think Crouch has a legitimate claim to a place in the team, I don't think Walcott does.

31667[/snapback]

Agree holds the ball up well and a great first touch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said this throughout the entire tournament ok take Walcott if you wanted but wtf was the point of Jenas if there is an injury to Gerrard or Lampard he will bring in Hargreaves or Carrick I have said this since the start I guarantee Jenas will not play a single minute of football in the entire tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if crouch were 5 "10 he would never be in the england team.

31687[/snapback]

 

But thats not a valid argument, is it? If Beckham couldn't cross he wouldnt have been in the Man U squad, let alone in the England setup when younger. If Raul wasnt such a prowler he would be in the spanish squad. Thats not even an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But thats not a valid argument, is it? If Beckham couldn't cross he wouldnt have been in the Man U squad, let alone in the England setup when younger. If Raul wasnt such a prowler he would be in the spanish squad. Thats not even an argument.

31764[/snapback]

 

Thats true, every player is in the squad because they have a quality to add to the team and if they didnt have that quality they wouldnt be in the squad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that. I like Crouch. I think that he has a very good touch, holds the ball up well, distributes it well and although not prolific has already scored some important goals.

 

I just don't think we have played Crouch well - he's better with his feet than he is with his head so why not keep the ball on the ground rather than keep punting lofted crosses into the box in the hope that he'll get on the end of one of them? We used to do exactly the same with Big Dunc and 9 times out of 10 we would give the ball away. Ok, so you manage to score the odd goal like that but its not the way to play international football. The teams that do well are the teams that link up, overlap, run at defences, stretch them and most importantly keep posession (Argentina, Brazil etc..) not the ones like us who fire in 40 yard long balls at every given chance. When Crouch has actually had the ball to feet he has looked capable, but that hasn't happened often enough.

 

But back on topic..........I think Crouch has a legitimate claim to a place in the team, I don't think Walcott does.

31667[/snapback]

 

lol I disagree with your disagreement...he doesn't bring anything to the England team. The one point I will agree with is his touch it is OK, much better than his heading...apart from his goal I don't think I have seen him head the ball well. He is in the squad for his height, which is not used as he can't head so I just don't see what he brings. As already mentioned, when he plays England look crap.

 

I think Walcott should be played instead, just as Sven wanted to play short Owen with short, ugly, granny boiling Rooney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol I disagree with your disagreement...he doesn't bring anything to the England team.  The one point I will agree with is his touch it is OK, much better than his heading...apart from his goal I don't think I have seen him head the ball well.  He is in the squad for his height, which is not used as he can't head so I just don't see what he brings. As already mentioned, when he plays England look crap.

 

I think Walcott should be played instead, just as Sven wanted to play short Owen with short, ugly, granny boiling Rooney.

31835[/snapback]

 

:D and I disagree with your disagreement of my disagreement. Wouldn't life be dull if we all thought the same things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol I disagree with your disagreement...he doesn't bring anything to the England team.  The one point I will agree with is his touch it is OK, much better than his heading...apart from his goal I don't think I have seen him head the ball well.  He is in the squad for his height, which is not used as he can't head so I just don't see what he brings. As already mentioned, when he plays England look crap.

 

I think Walcott should be played instead, just as Sven wanted to play short Owen with short, ugly, granny boiling Rooney.

31835[/snapback]

:( lets be honest about this, crouch is ok , wallcot untried, owen out, rooney not fit,this in my opion is where svens cocked up he should have taken strikers that are fit and can score goals ie aj defoe bt bent ,or will sven play 5 in midfield now iff so we will not get very far in this torniment iff you carnt defend against sweden with 5 in midfield then we are up poo creek iff we play one of the better teams like brasil argintina germany spain i could go on, also this is the first time i have seen are defence look weak very weak, lets hope its sorted soon ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think were in a real nightmare of a situation. i thought at frst Walcott cud prove to be really good cos he was an unknown quantity but if the lad hasnt been given ago in the group stages can you really see him being brought on against the likes of Holland or Portugal. Defoe should have gone inplace of Jenas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that. I like Crouch. I think that he has a very good touch, holds the ball up well, distributes it well and although not prolific has already scored some important goals.

 

I just don't think we have played Crouch well - he's better with his feet than he is with his head so why not keep the ball on the ground rather than keep punting lofted crosses into the box in the hope that he'll get on the end of one of them? We used to do exactly the same with Big Dunc and 9 times out of 10 we would give the ball away. Ok, so you manage to score the odd goal like that but its not the way to play international football. The teams that do well are the teams that link up, overlap, run at defences, stretch them and most importantly keep posession (Argentina, Brazil etc..) not the ones like us who fire in 40 yard long balls at every given chance. When Crouch has actually had the ball to feet he has looked capable, but that hasn't happened often enough.

 

But back on topic..........I think Crouch has a legitimate claim to a place in the team, I don't think Walcott does.

31667[/snapback]

 

Sorry mate, that view on Crouch is floored. yes, hes better with his feet than his head, so his feet are his reason for being in the team? coz his goals arent! Defoe has much better feet, has a higher goals to games ratio, has pace. to be honest so does Bent.

and to compare the long ball with Dunc is again floored, BIG DUNC COULD HEAD THE THING!!!!

 

Crouch is either in the team because he has height (which goes to waist) or because of the shirt he wears

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats true, every player is in the squad because they have a quality to add to the team and if they didnt have that quality they wouldnt be in the squad

31765[/snapback]

 

i normally agree with you Mark, but i cant on this mate.

i dont believe Crouch and Walcott are in the squad for their qualities, and i also do not believe they are some of the top 4 English strikers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i normally agree with you Mark, but i cant on this mate.

i dont believe Crouch and Walcott are in the squad for their qualities, and i also do not believe they are some of the top 4 English strikers

32005[/snapback]

 

True, im of the opinion that Crouch and Walcott shouldnt be in the squad. I would have brought AJ and Defoe in their place myself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, im of the opinion that Crouch and Walcott shouldnt be in the squad. I would have brought AJ and Defoe in their place myself

32007[/snapback]

 

id have taken Bent, as first and foremost he is the highest scoring English man in the Prem, i dont think i would have taken AJ as he missed alot of football and also played on a lower stage, but im not sure if that is a valid point :lol:

 

id pick the highest scoring Englishmen from the prem first.

1. Bent (18)

2. Lampard (16)

2. Rooney (16)

4. Harewood (14) (cant belive he didnt even get a shout!)

5. Beattie (10)

5. Gerrard (10)

5. Shearer (10)

8. Andy Cole (9)

8. Ameobi (9)

8. Nolan (9)

 

thats the top ten going into the final day of the season, with Prem goals only.

 

From the highest scoring top 10 English players, we have 3 in the national squad at a World Cup, and 2 of them are midfielders! FFS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and to compare the long ball with Dunc is again floored, BIG DUNC COULD HEAD THE THING!!!

32000[/snapback]

 

My point was that if you have a big target man up front the temptation is to start trying to land the ball on his head at every oportunity. I know Big Dunc could head the ball, but I honestly think we played better football when he wasn't starting because we actually had to work the ball. Regardless of who you've got up front, if all you do is send in long balls then the majority of them will go to waste and straight off you've given the ball away.

 

Its personal opinion but I do like Crouch. I didn't think he would be our first choice up front (I saw him as a good utility player for England) but it seems like we don't have a lot of options now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but Crouch is not a target man!

32158[/snapback]

I know, that's the problem because they keep trying to play him like one!

Regardless of who you've got up front, if all you do is send in long balls then the majority of them will go to waste and straight off you've given the ball away.

32076[/snapback]

So the fact that he's not as good in the air as Big Dunc was, means that we lose possesion even more.

Edited by chronic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the point of Walcott i think that David Dein had a lot to do with him going, that may be the reason he's been voted out of the FA's head office!! The mans looking after Arsenals intrests while at the same time crapping all over ours!!! They signed him for 12 million he goes to the World Cup and comes back worth more!!!

 

I thought that Sven was a dopey back stabbing tosser but Dein takes the piss!!! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...