World Cup 2010

[oafc0000]

Yet England were completely shit in the first half hour.

The only light in that first half hour were Walcott's runs. Yep, they were a long way from being great, but given how badly the rest were playing that made him England's best player in that first half hour.

(I'll just say that as I was writing that post, Green made his second great save. If I'd not been writing that post on my phone I might have qualified those words with a mention of Green).

Why is it that there's great expectations of Walcott and huge criticism if he doesn't have a blinder, yet (as an example - he was far from the only one, and was actually one of the better players) Rooney, aside from a few touches, was no less of a flop last night, he was mostly barely in the game (as was the case for nearly all of them).

[Langdale Wolf]

I don't think you are being fair really. I am judging what I have seen. I don't think these games are meaningless and I will fairly rate the opposition.

We was totally bossed by Spain, I reckon if you run that game again we lose 1-0... Not 3-0...

Edited May 25, 2010 by Langdale Wolf

[Cardboard Box City]

im still not convinced who should start

[Langdale Wolf]

I am, not Walcott - final ball was poor, runs were poor, very much like he's been this season.

I also thought Mexico were a decent side who played some tidy moves occasionally.

[oafc0000]

Yet you make no mention of the fact that England were weakened for a friendly game with Spain FIFTEEN MONTHS AGO.

That line up:

James (Green 46), Johnson, Ashley Cole, Carrick, Jagielka (Upson 46), Terry, Wright-Phillips, Barry (Lampard 46), Heskey (Crouch 46), Downing (Beckham 46), Agbonlahor (Carlton Cole 75).

Subs Not Used: Hart, Bridge, Ferdinand, Milner, Ashley Young.

Hardly our best side, was it?

Edited May 25, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

Yup - had a very good end to their qualifying campaign after Sven tried his best to stop them from qualifying. I heard someone say that was their first defeat in 10 games?

They looked very good coming forward.

[TheGayTent]

Why is it that there's great expectations of Walcott and huge criticism if he doesn't have a blinder, yet (as an example - he was far from the only one, and was actually one of the better players) Rooney, aside from a few touches, was no less of a flop last night, he was mostly barely in the game (as was the case for nearly all of them).

[Langdale Wolf]

I was hardly are worse either.... Fifteen months is not a long time in international football...

We seem to be in agreement overall though...

[Langdale Wolf]

Err perhaps because Rooney has done it for England and Man Utd before. Where as Croatia aside, Walcott hasn't for England and rarely for Arsenal.

After 4 years at 86 games at Arsenal, and 10 games for England, it's about time Walcott stopped being Linford Christie and started learning how to actually find an England player at the end of one of his admittedly electric runs...

[TheGayTent]

I also thought Mexico were a decent side who played some tidy moves occasionally.

[oafc0000]

It was far from our best.

It was different enough that people would moan that we beat a weakened side if it was the other way around.

[Cardboard Box City]

It was a crap performance overall.

[oafc0000]

We won 3-1 without getting out of second gear.

Edited May 25, 2010 by oafc0000

[Tugger2k]

We won 3-1 without getting out of second gear.

[eFestivals]

I am, not Walcott - final ball was poor, runs were poor

In which case Lennon doesn't get on the plane either. Lennon did even less than Walcott, despite the added advantage of being fresh against tired opposition.

I reckon that Townsend probably called it right in the commentary last night, in saying that Walcott already has his place off the back of his Croatia hat-trick - cos let's face it, we don't have the players with enough skill and consistency to win it via that skill and consistency, so we're going to need a player who can pull something extra special out of the hat and keep our fingers crossed that they'll do that at the right moment. And that's Walcott*, not any other player in the squad.

(* I'm discounting Rooney from that consideration. He needs to be doing that as well, in every game, for us to even get out of the groups.)

I also thought Mexico were a decent side who played some tidy moves occasionally.

Mexico have been one of my favourite sides to watch in many world cups - they always play a very decent style of football with a decent amount of skill. They're a much better side to watch from a neutrals viewpoint than England are.

[oafc0000]

yep, won while playing badly. had chelsea done that, or utd, we'd be talking about their resiliency and their ability to get the job done even when not playing well

because its england its the end of world and we shouldnt even bother getting on the plane.

[Langdale Wolf]

Maybe its time England started be more level headed about our chances instead of putting an unfair amount of weight on the players...

[oafc0000]

No matter how well we play, do you really think people would say otherwise if we would have been beaten last night?

Edited May 25, 2010 by oafc0000

[Langdale Wolf]

(* I'm discounting Rooney from that consideration. He needs to be doing that as well, in every game, for us to even get out of the groups.)

[Langdale Wolf]

You keep going on about "people" FFS, can't we just have a conversation between us two without second guessing the world

[Cardboard Box City]

In which case Lennon doesn't get on the plane either. Lennon did even less than Walcott, despite the added advantage of being fresh against tired opposition.

[eFestivals]

Err perhaps because Rooney has done it for England and Man Utd before. Where as Croatia aside, Walcott hasn't for England and rarely for Arsenal.

After 4 years at 86 games at Arsenal, and 10 games for England, it's about time Walcott stopped being Linford Christie and started learning how to actually find an England player at the end of one of his admittedly electric runs...

He finds a player with his crosses far more than SWP ever does. He finds a player with his crosses far more than Lennon ever does.

Simple fact is, if the players who have received the balls from Walcott had made the most of the more than decent ball they've so often been played, then there wouldn't be these criticisms of Walcott. It's perhaps the case that those attackers who have messed up the very decent balls that Walcott has played them have messed them up simply because they never expected to get the ball to their feet. Whatever, Walcott can only send the ball in, what happens next isn't in his control.

The one thing that Walcott perhaps does 'wrong' (not really wrong, just different to what other players do) is run for the line on more occasions. If he took the easier options of coming inside or playing it back or playing a cross in early as much as Lennon or SWP do then I reckon he'd get none of the criticism that he does, and would be universally recognised as better than those. While those easier options might see us keep the ball, they rarely lead to the sort of goal threat that Theo creates when he gets to the line and gets a cross in.

[ampersand]

The rest of your post was good, but I disagree here.

We should be topping the group even if Rooney wasn't playing. Against the better teams - absolutely - but not the group games. The players we will have to leave out of the 23 would all easily get in to all of the other 3 sides in the group.

[eFestivals]

We won 3-1 without getting out of second gear.

True.

But there was no third gear if we'd have needed it - and given the chances they created in the first half, it was very lucky that we didn't need it.

[Langdale Wolf]

i call complacency!