Forum Topic

Thanks Sven...

for taking only 4 strikers,2 of whom were unfit and one completely untried and very unlikely to get a game(the stupidity of this will sink in soon...)for'treating'the England fans to complete rubbish football at the World Cup and for the last 5 years when you have earned god knows how many million quid for making England tread water and possibly even regress to the Taylor years. Thankyou and GOODBYE AND GOOD RIDDANCE.

Keith Iddon ● 6909d25 Comments

?????????????????????????????IT'S OVER - WE LOSTAS SAM KINISON WOULD SAY......AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH

Ian Silver ● 6897d

As a rabid ManU supporter, I suppose I should try to make excuses for Ronaldo's behaviour......BUT I WON'T!!! He may be a supremely talented player, but he is also a cheat and I hope SAF gets rid of him (for lots of money - interested Chelski???) a.s.a.p.

John Coxall ● 6903d

That seemed to be the opinion of all but one of the people who were 'phoning and texting Capital Radio the other morning, I hope Wayne resists the temptation to punch his lights out - Ronaldo's had his comeuppance in spades so I hope Wayne will not feel tempted to soil his hands and put his future in jeopardy. The snivelling little creep just ain't worth it.

Vanessa Smith ● 6903d

After last night's game (France v Portugal) my son said that seeing Ronaldo cry (again) after losing made hime feel better about us going out. I so agree.It helps to remember this when think of Sven......

Ian Silver ● 6904d

Agree with you there Dan about Teddy...we surely needed his guile and technique,seemed to be sadly lacking in all the others.Shame Danny Murphy and Nicky Butt weren't fit and on form too.Would have been a stronger squad.I'm sure we're all desperately sad and angry at the failure to live up to expectations,though further post mortems are not necessary.We can only get better...!

Keith Iddon ● 6905d

Sorry John but I thought only a Hammer could have considered picking Marlon whilst leaving Defoe at home. Worst of luck for next season :)

Dan Evans ● 6905d

Just as an aside Dan, I don't know where you got the idea I am a West Ham fan. I am red all the way through and have been since 1958 (ie - proper red - Man U - and I do hope Carrick comes to us next season).Anyway, there's not a lot of point in debating England's failure ad infinitum - let's hope Steve McC gives us something more positive to talk about over the coming months.

John Coxall ● 6905d

John, I'm with Rashmi on this one and I think I detect the claret and blue tinted spectacles of a happy hammer in your case. Hargreaves performance against Portugal was epic. The crowd, which had previously been on his back, was singing his name. He broke up nearly every Portugal attack and his energy was phenomenal. I think we would have really had to have been at the ground and experienced the heat first hand to have fully grasped how good he was.Carrick is undoubtedly more creative with the ball but with 10 against 11 he wouldn't have seen much of it. Hargreaves had the capability to get it for himself. Not getting a game will be good practise anyway for Carrick as he warms the bench at Old Trafford next season.  Defoe may have treated the Hammers with a lack of respect on his departure but 12 months a go he looked the part. He was unlucky that he had two class strikers playing ahead of him at Spurs. Darren Bent had his chances with England and looked woefully out of his depth even against inferior opposition and I don't think even his own mum would argue that the black Homer Simpson should have gone to Germany. Lampard was useless but to suggest he shouldn't have been taken (would I be right in saying Nigel Reo-Coker would have been your replacement?) is stretching it a bit. Reo-Coker would have been an England regular at most other times but he is unfortunate that the midfield currently is packed with world class players. Frank Jnr. may have betrayed his father's heritage but he did it for two champions medals which I think most of us would have done.As for the lost son of Leytonstone being passed it, I agree that he probably should have supported West Ham growing up but surely he has done enough since to be forgiven. The argument against him seems to be apart from scoring key goals and being devasting at set pieces he doesn't do much. By the same logic Johnny Wilkinson probably should have gone to the last rugby World Cup. Beckham for me had his best World Cup (not hard I admit) and particularly when in tandem with Neville was very effective. Did you notice how exposed England got when he got injured in the early part of the second half (resulting in a mouthful from Gerrard). It is often ignore what a phenomenal athlete he is generally running further than any other player on the pitch. Like Zidane his skills are such that as his pace goes he will still be able to play at the highest level.The one hammer I would have considered taking (if he was fit) was Sheringham. The squad system allows you to pick players for 20 minute cameos and he would have been the most effective option to unlock the T&T defense.

Dan Evans ● 6905d

Hi Rashmi,I don't disagree that they both played their socks off, There's no way they could be faulted for effort. It is the effectiveness of their effort I have misgivings about, which is why, personally, I would have plumped for Carrick - a much more creative player than Hargreaves.In any case, it's all a bit academic now - let's see what Steve McC comes up with.

John Coxall ● 6906d

As I said before,keep taking the tablets...

Keith Iddon ● 6906d

I don't know; I thought Hargreaves did a really good job - he got the Man of the Match for the Portugal game. I thought both he and Crouch played their socks off in the last game; both players who've been booed by their own fans...

Rashmi Chavda ● 6906d

"If you say you believe that England's performance proves the 'experts' got it terribly wrong then you would have to also believe that a goal shy striker would have belied his club form and, playing at a higher level, suddenly become more effective."I would not have considered Defoe for a moment. I would have selected Darren Bent and Marlon Harewood - two very much in-form strikers who have had great success playing for not very good teams in the premiership. I would also have left Beckham (past it) and Lampard (exhausted and a little overrated)on the bench and played Carrick (who can pass the ball) as the holding midfielder rather than Hargreaves (who ran around like a loony, but in real terms contributed little that was positive) plus Cole, Lennon and Gerard. Rooney (if he was fully fit) could have been partnered by Harewood or Bent.

John Coxall ● 6907d

Oh my Gawd!

Vanessa Smith ● 6907d

John, how is it that they have got it terribly wrong? If Defoe had been selected he would have necessarily been part of a 4-4-2 formation. I think most people would have agreed that whilst you could probably have justified playing Cole Gerard Lampard and Beckham as a four in midfield against weaker opposition they wouldn't have had enough defensive strength against the better quality teams. Therefore you would need to play Hargreaves or maybe Carrick. You would then have had to had decided whether or not to play 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 and drop one of your midfielders. The obvious duplication is Lampard and Gerard so one of them would have had to make way. I think Sven thought that a 4-5-1 formation offered more of an attacking threat than a 4-4-2 with Defoe therefore there wasn't a circumstance in which it was likely he would have been played and it would have been pointless to take him. The choice was between an out of form Tottenham reserve and the captains of the European and English Champions respectively. In the event the decision did go 'terribly wrong' but only because Lampard had such an appalling tournament. He had more off target shots than most teams let alone individual players and should have put England through with a golden chance against Portugal. You cannot blame Sven for a key individual player's sudden lack of form. If you say you believe that England's performance proves the 'experts' got it terribly wrong then you would have to also believe that a goal shy striker would have belied his club form and, playing at a higher level, suddenly become more effective. Why do you think this would have happened?

Dan Evans ● 6907d

Dan wrote: "You may disagree with the decision but the England management team will have spent a lot longer looking at the players in question than you and, I strongly suspect, have a far greater knowledge than you."Sorry Dan, that's like saying "you can't criticise Bliar because he spends more time analysing the issues and has a greater knowledge than you" - sometimes, even a blind man can see when the "experts" have got it all terribly wrong!!

John Coxall ● 6907d

@ Vanessa - Of course it can - we've got Stevie Mac now!!!! - be afraid, be very afraid!!!

John Coxall ● 6907d

Keith, I would have thought you would have avoided any further comment on football after your 'sweeper' faux pas.The thinking behind taking four strikers was very clear. The only alternatives (Darren Bent and Jermain Defoe) were considered not good enough for this level. Sven had clearly decided that he would always have chosen to put one of his attacking midfielders (Cole, Gerrard, Lampard) in a more advanced role than play Bent or Defoe therefore it was pointless taking them. You may disagree with the decision but the England management team will have spent a lot longer looking at the players in question than you and, I strongly suspect, have a far greater knowledge than you.Walcott's pace did mean that he was a potential weapon to use in certain circumstances as outlined elsewhere but those circumstances never applied in this tournament. So just like Bridge, Jenas and Scott Carson, he never played. The other reason for taking him which was relayed by Sven yesterday was to give him the experience so next time out he knows what it is like to have played in a World Cup. This sort of forward planning belies the image of Sven as some sort of incompetent mercenary. If he is to be criticised for it then perhaps it could be argued that he should have taken Rooney to Japan/Korea. He was already at that point recognised as a prodigious talent and perhaps the experience would have given him just that extra bit of maturity that would have avoided the stamp on the Portuguese defender.It is very easy to join the media bandwagon of condemnation of Sven to make him the scapegoat for the failure to win the World Cup. England's performances were professional and competent without being pretty. The shots on target of the opposition was probably one of the lowest in the tournament. People have already forgotten the glorious away victory in Germany, the masterful performance against Argentina, the tremendous games in the last European Championships where I think we were top scorers, the effortless qualification for every tournament. Contrast this with the humiliations of the seventies or Graham Taylor's reign or even the hugely embarrassing Euros in 1988 where your beloved Bryan Robson led England to their worst ever tournament showing where we didn't 'win ugly' we 'lost ugly'. With a little bit of time for reflection and maybe a few poor England performances in qualifying people will start to recognise that Sven may not have been a great manager but he was a good one. He is the second best England manager after Sir Alf Ramsey in terms of his record. The main reason we are not playing France this week is that a Wayne Rooney lost his head and Ricardo guessed which way the England penalties were going 4 times out of 4. Perhaps the difference between being great and being good is luck but it certainly isn't failing to follow the advice of the tabloids.

Dan Evans ● 6907d

I think this quote form today's Mirror sums it up - "He banked, he bonked & he ballsed it up" "He took £20m of the F.A.'s money, he bedded everything in sight and worst of all, he trashed hopes of England's golden generation". Can it get any worse?

Vanessa Smith ● 6907d

"was completely overlooked for the England job,partly I'm sure because he is not a 'yes' man and not easy to manipulate"I think that is probably why Martin O'Neil was rejected as well - now he would have made a great England manager!

John Coxall ● 6908d

PS...Dan 'you're not spinning any more....'

Keith Iddon ● 6908d

'spose we've to hope for the best with McClaren ,remembering of course that he reaped the benefit of the Kidd set-up at Old Trafford and the best years ended when he was no2 to Fergie.In The Times recently there was an article that claimed that he was constantly giving Sven ideas and recommending changes etc.,only to have the majority of them rejected(including starting with Lennon in a 3-5-2).He has done well at Middlesbrough, all things considered,although Bryan Robson achieved more(championship and 3 cup finals)and was completely overlooked for the England job,partly I'm sure because he is not a 'yes' man and not easy to manipulate(shades of Terry Venables ?).Robbo would have been a much better choice I think,though it's all done and dusted now.

Keith Iddon ● 6908d

But he must get rid of his silly bit of hair - it shows him to be a weak-minded fool who cares too much about his baldness,. Sad. He'll be useless, wait and see.

Ian Silver ● 6909d

With or without the silly bit of hair, it remains to be seen whether McLAren actually has any ideas of his own (not immediately obvious from his Middlesborough experiences) or whether we will just get more of the same. At least he might pick 5 fit strikers for the next tournament, instead of 2 unfit guys, Peter Crouch and a completely untried 17 year old. I echo the previous sentiment: Sven - Goodbye and Good Riddance!!!

John Coxall ● 6909d

And the silly bit of hair that usually wears the 7 shirt

Keith Iddon ● 6909d

It is a real shame - we could have done so well.Needed an attack (1 man doesn't qualify - especially if it's Crouch)Thank god Sven is going now - perhaps we'll hear what some people really thought of his rubbish tactics - they certainly played themselves out fully here today and everyone could see how daft they were.Steve McClaren??? - He should get rid of that silly bit of hair for a start.

Ian Silver ● 6909d