chronic Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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 . It is without doubt one of the dumbest decisions ever to take the lad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everton_Worshiper Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 to be honest, there was no point in bringin him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chronic Posted June 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 (edited) 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 June 21, 2006 by chronic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callan Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 if crouch were 5 "10 he would never be in the england team, and as for walcott he should never have gone, now owen is injured we are thread bare up front. sven has messed up their! shoulda taken AJ or defoe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L_Blue Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xavier Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xavier Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everton_Worshiper Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chronic Posted June 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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] and I disagree with your disagreement of my disagreement. Wouldn't life be dull if we all thought the same things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ola Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celtic ultra Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 sven has made a fecking big mistake not bringing in defoe.defoe has more experience in top class football than walcott has in his big toe.maybe if he was older and has got a couple of seasons under his belt at arsenal it would have been realistic to pick him but not now hes to young Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 agree and now its gona back fire on him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny the Blue Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 yeah defoe should have defently gone but suprise suprise sven dosnt pick him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 I actually dont think Defoe should have gone, i dont rate him for England for at all. I wanted AJ to go, and that was before hed signed for us so im not being biased Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 i was thinkin that but id say defoe is better but then again defoe is greedy so i dint no who, bit id pick defoe if i had to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 if crouch were 5 "10 he would never be in the england team,31687[/snapback] if Crouch was 5"10 he'd be more usefull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Because then he wouldnt foul other defenders so much, and may actually be able to head the figing ball oh and he might stop thinking hes a figing midfielder and get up top where hes supposed to play Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 why? 32003[/snapback] he'd be more mobile, possibly be able to get a bit of pace? his height is wasted as he cant head the ball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 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 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Thats quite scary to see it written down like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.