• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Ingerlund

I think Cahill is better than Stones, even though he hardly starts for Chelsea. I also think his experience would be valuable in a young team. Walker should be played as right-wing back imo, I think him not being a natural centre-half would be costly in a big game with fine margins. Gomes at Liverpool is a better fit for the right-side of the back 3 imo. I'd go with Butland in goal I think, more confidence in him keeping the ball out of the net than Pickford.

For midfield and upfront, I'd say Kane and Sterling are the only shoe-ins. The rest of the places are up for grabs.
 
I quite liked the Walker at RCB experiment, but I also think against teams better than us, the ones where we will most likely be defending on the edge of our box for long periods, that a more natural, backs to the wall CB would be better. You can always just move Walker to wing back for those games.
 
I liked what I saw last night, pace is frightening to be fair and thats said as a total hater of the national side.

I worry about us being exposed against better sides, but Sterling, Rashford, Walker, Jesse and even Young will scare teams.
 
StephenH said:
Sooo iffff Harry was Italian we would have lost........doh! ;)
Click to expand...
If anyone half decent (insert name ie aguero,jesus,costa,ronaldo messi,lewandowski,muller etc) is given those opportunities like in the first 30 mins last night we're heading for the airport.

You knew what i meant anyway :)
 
I agree that Gomes seems the better fit at RCB. It's odd that Southgate was trying him on the left against the Netherlands. I also find it odd that Walker played both games at RCB.

Adding 2+2 and getting 5, I'd say ...

1. We will be playing a back three in Russia, with Stones in the centre.

2. Southgate is concerned about the LCB position, at least the backup (if Maguire is the first choice), hence the Gomes experiment.

3. Not sure who is first choice RCB. It's odd that Gomes wasn't given the chance in the first game as he can't have cemented his place there. That and Walker playing there twice has me leaning to Walker as first choice, although he has established credentials as a quality RB so perhaps the RCB experiment and giving Trippier more game-time was more helpful.
 
the dza said:
I think Cahill is better than Stones, even though he hardly starts for Chelsea. I also think his experience would be valuable in a young team. Walker should be played as right-wing back imo, I think him not being a natural centre-half would be costly in a big game with fine margins. Gomes at Liverpool is a better fit for the right-side of the back 3 imo. I'd go with Butland in goal I think, more confidence in him keeping the ball out of the net than Pickford.

For midfield and upfront, I'd say Kane and Sterling are the only shoe-ins. The rest of the places are up for grabs.
Click to expand...

I like Cahill for the reasons you stated. But Stones is the future and only by playing will he eliminate the mistakes. Cahill must go for his experience.
No need to send Hart as well to do the same job.

Butland is a typical british goalkeeper and has poor ball disruption no outstanding attributes, thus a good number two.

Sterling is good City player.

Dele and Harry are my two to lead the line both versatile and now with bags of top experience and street wise. We need Wheelchair or Lallana fit, that looks a tall order at the moment. Dier and Henderson can do do the defensive midfield thing, with Henderson just ahead due his slightly better positive distribution.

I like what southgate is attempting and I think he needs support.
 
Last edited:
jts1882 said:
I agree that Gomes seems the better fit at RCB. It's odd that Southgate was trying him on the left against the Netherlands. I also find it odd that Walker played both games at RCB.

Adding 2+2 and getting 5, I'd say ...

1. We will be playing a back three in Russia, with Stones in the centre.

2. Southgate is concerned about the LCB position, at least the backup (if Maguire is the first choice), hence the Gomes experiment.

3. Not sure who is first choice RCB. It's odd that Gomes wasn't given the chance in the first game as he can't have cemented his place there. That and Walker playing there twice has me leaning to Walker as first choice, although he has established credentials as a quality RB so perhaps the RCB experiment and giving Trippier more game-time was more helpful.
Click to expand...
If he is worried, Southgate needs to get the whole squad comfortable with 4 or 3 at the back and a seamless transition during a game if need be.

As they are at Hotspur Way, why not just get Poch to take the sessions as we have this on lockdown already.

£200k per hour?
 
StephenH said:
I like Cahill for the reasons you stated. But Stones is the future and only by playing will he illuminate the mistakes. Cahill must go for his experience.
No need to send Hart as well to do the same job. Butland is a typical british goalkeeper and a poor disruptor of the ball and no outstanding attributes. Thus a good number two. Sterling is good City player.
Click to expand...

It sure will be! For all to see.
 
Grays_1890 said:
I liked what I saw last night, pace is frightening to be fair and thats said as a total hater of the national side.

I worry about us being exposed against better sides, but Sterling, Rashford, Walker, Jesse and even Young will scare teams.
Click to expand...

What concerns me more is that all the pace in world will never make them world beaters and they'll struggle against teams happy to clobber them 30-40 yards from goal. Pace is no good when you're lying on the floor.
 
Jordinho said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/987001673225777158
Click to expand...
Begs so many questions.

Was he depressed because he got so few games?
Because in tournaments we keep losing to lesser teams?
Because players form into cliques?
Because team morale was so low?
Because the manager is always crap?
Because the meeja gives the England team such a hard time?
Because some fans' behaviour always lets us down?

Because, because, because ...

Grrrr.
 
The reports seem unclear on whether he was depressed in a clinical sense or just hacked off with the England set-up. If the former it is worthy news as depression is a serious issue. If the latter it is self-serving and counter-productive to the mental health debate.
 
jts1882 said:
The reports seem unclear on whether he was depressed in a clinical sense or just hacked off with the England set-up. If the former it is worthy news as depression is a serious issue. If the latter it is self-serving and counter-productive to the mental health debate.
Click to expand...

I watched the interview, I thought that Gabby Logan kind of put the word depressed into Carrick's mouth.

He said that going away with England was getting him down, more so than going away on pre-season friendlies with United. She then mentioned depression and asked if it made him feel unwell, which he kind of went along with, without really committing.
 
It got me down too. He should have been a mainstay in that team and could only get appearances when other players werent fit.

Other players who had proven ill suited. It was a fudging farce, much like Hoddle being sidelined.

EDIT: And Scholes being permanently compromised for a fudging Gerrard/Lampard midfield
 
Last edited:
milo said:
I watched the interview, I thought that Gabby Logan kind of put the word depressed into Carrick's mouth.

He said that going away with England was getting him down, more so than going away on pre-season friendlies with United. She then mentioned depression and asked if it made him feel unwell, which he kind of went along with, without really committing.
Click to expand...

These type of witless interviews. So he didn’t like playing for England. Bit sad for him....move on!
Thought Michael had some stones obviously I was wrong!
 
milo said:
I think that the problem was that he wasn't playing for England. I'm sympathetic, he should've been a fixture in that team for a decade.
Click to expand...

So its because he wasn't playing? Thought he didn't want to play? yes of course he should have been a fixture....

"He asked not to be picked" OK I'll go out and come back in later on this one.......
 
StephenH said:
So its because he wasn't playing? Thought he didn't want to play? yes of course he should have been a fixture....

"He asked not to be picked" OK I'll go out and come back in later on this one.......
Click to expand...

I can imagine thinking "Why fudging bother" in his shoes. Going to training, being drafted into the squad, and then watching the brick that gets picked ahead of you and wondering what the point of it all is...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I can imagine thinking "Why fudging bother" in his shoes. Going to training, being drafted into the squad, and then watching the brick that gets picked ahead of you and wondering what the point of it all is...
Click to expand...

That unfortunately is the attitude of most of the fans today brought up on a diet of wall to wall football.........but I would have thought Carrick would have and I believe should have been proud to play for his country. Silly me I expected more from him. Obviously playing under SAF at United had turned him. Shame.

So if you were called up to play even say tiddlywinks for England you would say "Why fudging bother"?
Personally I would have loved to play for England at anything even shove ha'penny!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back