Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

England v USA

Hargreaves, Gerrard and Barry were great. but the team is still uninspiring. hopefully Capello can turn them all into a good team before they all get too old
 
Exactly - as I said to Dwyer above. There are plenty of shit hot teams (Netherlands in 98/2000, Argentina in 2006, Czechs in 2004, etc) who for one reason or another do not do the expected. If they can't, why Dwyer thinks it's likely that they can win the WC within the next 4 tournaments is quite beyond me.

Well basically what I expect to happen is that soccer will replace basketball as the sport of the ghetto. Why? Because you have to be a physical freak to play professional basketball, whereas men of almost any shape and size can be professional soccer players. So once the cultural influence of the unprecedentedly huge immigration from Latin America perculates to the blacks and Puerto Ricans they will all realize that soccer is the best way out of poverty, and they will learn to play it to a high level and win the world cup. Also the USA will start scouting in poor countries and offering promising 9 year-olds citizenship.
 
Oh i agree its his best position just pointing out you were wrong!
I was not! I didn't say his position was down the middle, I said he scored down the middle, the point being that he should have been positioned there in the fitst place :p

Barry has done well for England though, and I'm really glad Hargreaves is getting the recognition and success he deserves, so, erm... :confused:

Can Barry play on the left, or would that just be the same problem with different personnell?

Would also be a bit hesitant to leave J.Cole out as he's often one of our most dangerous and troublesome players, and brings something to the team that few of the other 'starters' do.

Bloody hell this managing lark aint easy.
 
I totally agree. I couldn't believe we'd gone back to having Gerrard on the left to accomodate Lampard :mad: :rolleyes:

What happend when he went off? Gerrard promptly scored down the middle, and his link up play with Rooney was much more effective than anything Lampard did.

Lampard can be a good player (though all too oftennot for England) but it's just bad luck that he happens to be playing at the same time as someone who plays in the same position who is more consistent, more versatile and, in my opinion, simply better.

Lampard should basically be used as (literally) a substitute for Gerrard, when Gerrard is either injured or under-performing. It's very unfortunate for him, but that's the situation as it is.

Other than that I thought the second half wasn't too bad. We started stringing some passes together and looking like we had some notion of how to play on the ground (until Crouch came one :rolleyes: - though I suppose it might work as a 'Plan B' when we're losing/drawing with X minutes to go and just need to pile on the pressure).


The good thing is that capello HAS got the balls to drop top players if they aint performing!

we shalle see if he does it for us
 
imo the way forward is

foster

brown richards ferdinand witter
hargreves barry
gerrard
ashton young
rooney

problem is we don't have out an out right winger thats good enuf. lennon and right-philips have the pace but just ent consitent or good enuf once they get past. and considering rooney ent exactly prolific the only option is to someone like ashton playing wide but coming inside allot.


i dont agree with this team
 
The good thing is that capello HAS got the balls to drop top players if they aint performing!

we shalle see if he does it for us
That's what I'm hoping for - it's the reason I wanted Scolari way back when.
I cant even work out what my team would be untill one of the strikers steps up and prooves thier worth.

dave
Ain't that truth. I'd swear a couple of years back we were spoilt for choice with strikers :confused: Can't remember who I think they were though :o

How about 4-3-3, with Hargreaves, Gerrad and Barry in midfield, A.Cole and Richards (if fit) bombing down the wings, and Rooney playing behind In-Form-Striker-A and In-Form-Striker-B?

That was an off the top of my head idea and I do not stand by it when it is pointed out to be tacically very stupid :p
 
The good thing is that capello HAS got the balls to drop top players if they aint performing!

we shalle see if he does it for us

he might want to think about dropping Rooney at some point and try two other strikers together.

actually, he'll have the chance against T&T as Rooney's not travelling..
 
Well basically what I expect to happen is that soccer will replace basketball as the sport of the ghetto. Why? Because you have to be a physical freak to play professional basketball, whereas men of almost any shape and size can be professional soccer players. So once the cultural influence of the unprecedentedly huge immigration from Latin America perculates to the blacks and Puerto Ricans they will all realize that soccer is the best way out of poverty, and they will learn to play it to a high level and win the world cup. Also the USA will start scouting in poor countries and offering promising 9 year-olds citizenship.

A good point, but I still strongly doubt it will happen as near in the future as 2022. Maybe 2050.
 
A good point, but I still strongly doubt it will happen as near in the future as 2022. Maybe 2050.

By 2050 there's a good chance the USA will be a 'poor' country ;)

The potential's there, but i just can't ever see Americans embracing football above their own sports, and even if it does get popular with immigrants and ghetto societies, the mainstream establishment (NFL, NBA, MLB) will always ensure that it doesn't get the kind of foothold it needs to explode.

I think for the forseeable future the US could expect to have a side on par with Portugal or Sweden, that is decent sides who regularly qualify, and usually expect to get out of their group, with the occassional generation that can mount a challenge, but will probably lack that extra edge.
 
Yes, I think Sweden is a very good analogy. They always strike me as being a well organised side, and they've improved since the days of France 98 when they were like a league two side, but I really can't see them actually winning a world cup.
 
who is witter? and fuck brown at rb. Johnson or ryan taylor(in a couple of years) would be my choices.

dave[/QUOTE

sorry weater not witter

i used to hate brown but i think he has proved himself this season,he can crooss a ball to ya know, the ball in in the clf wern't exactly bad. you could have richards but he is allot better in the middle, he openly admits he is way more cumfortable playing in cd. If more managers listend to where players are happyest/affective we might even have a proper team. Plus with richards in the middle over terry you wud have pace at the back . we need players who get forward with the ball at thier feet not just come up for corners or hoof it up to the tall cunt. Crouch shud be outlawed, not fair on him but his hight encourages shit play.

plus subs wud be agbongalar , luke young, right-philips and any other idiots that ent realy that good.
 
Definatly agree richards should be a centre back rather then an rb and it aint all about playing people out of position.


dave
 
I think for the forseeable future the US could expect to have a side on par with Portugal or Sweden, that is decent sides who regularly qualify, and usually expect to get out of their group, with the occassional generation that can mount a challenge, but will probably lack that extra edge.

There's a bit of a difference between Portugal and Sweden though. I'd say the USA can aspire to Portugal status, though it doesn't necessarily take a great team to win a major tournament; organization and discipline and a bit of luck can be enough, e.g. Greece in Euro 2004.
 
Yes, I think Sweden is a very good analogy. They always strike me as being a well organised side, and they've improved since the days of France 98 when they were like a league two side, but I really can't see them actually winning a world cup.

Agreed. But I equally can't ever imagine England beating them.
 
There's a bit of a difference between Portugal and Sweden though. I'd say the USA can aspire to Portugal status, though it doesn't necessarily take a great team to win a major tournament; organization and discipline and a bit of luck can be enough, e.g. Greece in Euro 2004.

Portugal are a decent side at the moment and Sweden are in decline, but ten years ago Portugal were pretty rubbish and Sweden were a side that regularly qualified and did pretty well (eg USA 94).

My guess is the USA will (if they're not already) become much like this, going from fairly poor sides to fairly good sides as and when they produce a few players to lift them up (eg Ronaldo, Figo, Henrik Larson etc)
 
Back
Top Bottom