World Cup 2010

[Steve P]

Overreaction?

[oafc0000]

Cool - that'll be an amazing day. What other games are you seeing?

And to add to my previous post - Mexico beat the US in qualifying. Link

And looking at the CONCACAF qualifying group (here), they hardly swept everyone aside on their way to qualification.

Edited May 25, 2010 by oafc0000

[Tugger2k]

The USA have a habit of beating us, and Algeria ain't gonna roll over in a WC game where England will have their own big nerves after having already lost to the USA, and an Algeria win would see them qualify.

OK, it might not go like that, but I'll be far from surprised if it does.

[Cardboard Box City]

Which pans out as a win, a draw, and a loss for England. If we get out the groups, we'll scrape thru.

[Langdale Wolf]

well you've obviously done more homework than me. but just don't write anyone off. remember senegal in 2002? and south korea that same year.

[oafc0000]

Absolute bollocks.

[eFestivals]

A penalty a yard wide is a good ball?

it was still the best cross of the game, and into the space where the striker(s) needs to be running into. A ball like that leads to a goal in 1 in 3 times.

I'm glad to see that you admit Walcott has made zero improvement in two years though. Which makes your continued defence of him all the more strange.

he's a game-changer - what we don't have with any other player outside of Rooney.

And I'm still far from convinced about Rooney - while he's had a fantastic season, he's been somewhat anonymous against the better international teams in the past, so that might well still be the case this summer.

As for your last paragraph complete piffle. Wenger and Capello have made Walcott ineffective through the tactics they asked their respective teams to play?!

If that's how both managers wanted their right sided player to play, they wouldn't have bought him, or pick him.

Wenger has tried to make Walcott more of a rounded player, rather than just a run-to-the-line-and-cross player.

IMO, while that might mean the team keeps the ball, it's simply keeping the ball without making a goal threat. Goal threats make goals, and goals win games.

If you give Theo the ball, you might as well have him make the most of it - by having him try to create a goal threat. That's how he's most effective.

[Langdale Wolf]

The USA have a habit of beating us, and Algeria ain't gonna roll over in a WC game where England will have their own big nerves after having already lost to the USA, and an Algeria win would see them qualify.

OK, it might not go like that, but I'll be far from surprised if it does.

[Cardboard Box City]

The USA have a habit of beating us

[oafc0000]

I am actually extremely jealous of you. That sounds fantastic. You'll have to get some photos and post them on here.

I'm sure the opening game in the Cape Town fans fest will be an unreal atmosphere. Just don't go deaf from exposure to vuvuzela!

[eFestivals]

is your glass ever half full?

I'm just not getting carried away by believing we might win it when we simply don't have the players to win it on their normal performances.

[Cardboard Box City]

As for the Koreans, the officials certainly didn't help their opponents!!

[oafc0000]

I'm just not getting carried away by believing we might win it when we simply don't have the players to win it on their normal performances.

[Steve P]

His game has defo changed tho - he's far less forward focused, and is much more prepared to play a simple ball inside than used to be the case, and that's the sort of thing that managers beat into players in England - don't show your skill, play it safe and boring instead. As is so often the case with the tactics of the English game, it doesn't improve players, it just has them playing to formula.

[ampersand]

That's rubbish Neil. Are you seriously telling me that Wenger has coached Walcott into playing the simple ball rather than using his skill? Not a chance. He couldn't be at a better club or have a better manager in terms of being encouraged to take players on and show his skill, but the simple truth is that he doesn't have the ability. Believe me, there is nobody on this board that would like him to start delivering more than me but I just don't think he has it in him.

As a bit of an aside on this I think a lot of Walcotts problems stem from him taking up football relatively late. In an interview I read it said he didn't start playing until he was around 12-14 (can't remember exactly). When he started playing, his pace meant he could outrun any other players of his age and so never needed to develop the skill to take players on. Now he's stepped up to top level, where he faces other pacey players, the lack of skill is shown up.

[Langdale Wolf]

yes there is. you're talking to him

[Tugger2k]

I'm just not getting carried away by believing we might win it when we simply don't have the players to win it on their normal performances.

[Langdale Wolf]

believing that we might is not the same as believing we will

it would be a tremendously hard ask to win it, it would require the players to raise their game, it would require a large slice of luck (but nearly every team that wins it needs that) and it would require a coach that knows what hes doing

weve got one of those already - the other 2 are unknowns as yet

id prefer to believe that we can, but probably wont, than simply we wont. besides, i have form when it comes to your predictions

[Cardboard Box City]

believing that we might is not the same as believing we will

[Tugger2k]

That's rubbish Neil. Are you seriously telling me that Wenger has coached Walcott into playing the simple ball rather than using his skill? Not a chance. He couldn't be at a better club or have a better manager in terms of being encouraged to take players on and show his skill, but the simple truth is that he doesn't have the ability. Believe me, there is nobody on this board that would like him to start delivering more than me but I just don't think he has it in him.

As a bit of an aside on this I think a lot of Walcotts problems stem from him taking up football relatively late. In an interview I read it said he didn't start playing until he was around 12-14 (can't remember exactly). When he started playing, his pace meant he could outrun any other players of his age and so never needed to develop the skill to take players on. Now he's stepped up to top level, where he faces other pacey players, the lack of skill is shown up.

[ralph250]

IMO, while that might mean the team keeps the ball, it's simply keeping the ball without making a goal threat. Goal threats make goals, and goals win games.

If you give Theo the ball, you might as well have him make the most of it - by having him try to create a goal threat. That's how he's most effective.

Edited May 25, 2010 by ralph250

[eFestivals]

That's rubbish Neil. Are you seriously telling me that Wenger has coached Walcott into playing the simple ball rather than using his skill? Not a chance. He couldn't be at a better club or have a better manager in terms of being encouraged to take players on and show his skill, but the simple truth is that he doesn't have the ability. Believe me, there is nobody on this board that would like him to start delivering more than me but I just don't think he has it in him.

As a bit of an aside on this I think a lot of Walcotts problems stem from him taking up football relatively late. In an interview I read it said he didn't start playing until he was around 12-14 (can't remember exactly). When he started playing, his pace meant he could outrun any other players of his age and so never needed to develop the skill to take players on. Now he's stepped up to top level, where he faces other pacey players, the lack of skill is shown up.

Has Walcott's play changed so that he's more often playing the safer ball? Yep it has. There's your proof. Even Wenger is smart enough to know that you can't win much with players who can only attack.

You're defo right about him starting to play late. From memory, I don't think he kicked a ball until he was 12.

And I agree, his pace isn't as pacey as it's often talked up as being. Yet he skips round players anyway - showing it's more than just pace he has. His major failing IMO is that he draws too many fouls in doing that, so the ability he has of skipping around players doesn't actually lead to what it would do if the game was played on a more honest basis than it is.

I really don't see him as the failure that you do. I reckon he gets labelled as that on the basis of unrealistic expectation - as last night proves for example, where in this very thread a post was made after his first proper use of the ball from which came a rubbish cross, saying it was rubbish (which it was) - yet where were the posts about the other 9 rubbish outfield players to that point? At least Walcott had created the possibility of something via that run, which was far more than the rest of the team had achieved to that point.

[eFestivals]

id prefer to believe that we can, but probably wont, than simply we wont. besides, i have form when it comes to your predictions

Oh, my predictions are rubbish, I'll happily admit that.

So in this instance, when we fail I won't be sad, and if we win (which we won't) I'll be ecstatic.

[eFestivals]

Some people don't know much about supporting a team.

And some people don't know much about realism.

[oafc0000]

Oh, my predictions are rubbish, I'll happily admit that.

So in this instance, when we fail I won't be sad, and if we win (which we won't) I'll be ecstatic.