World Cup 2010

[Langdale Wolf]

While that's a true stat, he still compares pretty well with all the other chosen England strikers on that basis.

Crouch only scores against the crap teams.

That's true for Rooney too (tho a long way better than Crouch) - there's a huge gulf in his scoring when you consider the opposition he scores against.

And then you have Heskey and Defoe who don't score at all - and you can see within 5 minutes on the pitch if there's a chance of a goal out of Defoe that day (whether with England or Spurs).

So while Bent's record is certainly poor, that's the case for them all. And why England won't win.

[eFestivals]

He's a far better crosser than Lennon, he's a far better crosser than SWP.

The difference is, he actually tries to make the run and cross.

Anyone can be a star by always playing the easy backwards ball, as England's fat boys (Lumpard & Carrick) get to prove.

[Tugger2k]

Yeah, like he did in those two friendlies, eh?

If you took your blinkers off for a moment, you'd admit that there's no way on earth Lennon deserved to go before Walcott on the basis of those two games. So it's clearly the case that Pat had already made up his mind, barring perhaps a Croatia-type stunner from Walcott.

[ralph250]

Yeah, like he did in those two friendlies, eh?

If you took your blinkers off for a moment, you'd admit that there's no way on earth Lennon deserved to go before Walcott on the basis of those two games. So it's clearly the case that Pat had already made up his mind, barring perhaps a Croatia-type stunner from Walcott.

[Tugger2k]

He's a far better crosser than Lennon, he's a far better crosser than SWP.

The difference is, he actually tries to make the run and cross.

Anyone can be a star by always playing the easy backwards ball, as England's fat boys (Lumpard & Carrick) get to prove.

[Langdale Wolf]

he did no worse than wlacott. so in my eyes it was always a 50/50 (as to who should start - you already know i think walcott should have gone)

but its interesting you talk about blinkers. i may be the most biased, but im certainly not alone in thinking that not only should azza be on the plane, but that he should start

[eFestivals]

Yup - Bent's record of 0 goals and 6 poor performances out of 6 for England means he compares pretty well with the others.

I agree that he's looked poor, but .....

1. he's been played in a team that hasn't been constructed to get the best out of him.

2. the majority of those appearances have been short end-of-game bits.

3. they haven't generally been against the weaker teams (the likes of which has seen Crouch clock up a high number of goals).

If you look at the other strikers, the chances of goals from them ain't much higher, if higher at all. Rooney of course comes out best, but even his record is skewed by goals against the crap teams, and his record against the best ain't good at all.

I'm not saying he should have gone - he'd have been my own choice to be the one to leave behind. But he defo ain't a long way short of those who have gone, cos they're poor too - their records get to show that if you do more than just count the goals scored.

[Steve P]

hes not tho, and recent performances (last 18 months) have proven it. he doesnt make a run, he kicks the ball past the full back and legs it. and at the world cup, any centre back worth his salt is going to work that out. or sides would simply double up on knowing he cant dribble his way past.

azza can, and therefore draws more men to him, freeing up the strikers more often

[Steve P]

I agree that he's looked poor, but .....

[Langdale Wolf]

I agree that he's looked poor, but .....

1. he's been played in a team that hasn't been constructed to get the best out of him.

2. the majority of those appearances have been short end-of-game bits.

3. they haven't generally been against the weaker teams (the likes of which has seen Crouch clock up a high number of goals).

If you look at the other strikers, the chances of goals from them ain't much higher, if higher at all. Rooney of course comes out best, but even his record is skewed by goals against the crap teams, and his record against the best ain't good at all.

I'm not saying he should have gone - he'd have been my own choice to be the one to leave behind. But he defo ain't a long way short of those who have gone, cos they're poor too - their records get to show that if you do more than just count the goals scored.

[Langdale Wolf]

he needed Kenwyn Jones to get the best out of him?

[Tugger2k]

One of the stories leaking now is that Theo wasn't following Fabio's instructions where as SWP & Lennon were.

[Tugger2k]

IMHO Bent has offered the least out of the 5 strikers, and the fact he has shown no signs of a decent partnership with Rooney did him no favours.

Heskey has undeniably been poor, but I understand his inclusion.

Defoe hasn't been too shit hot for England but again - I understand his inclusion.

Crouch consistently scores.

Rooney is the first name on the team sheet.

If he was only planning on taking 4 strikers out of the 5, it was always a no-brainer IMHO.

[eFestivals]

I think Lennon was on the plane already, but Lennon played on the left against Japan (which isn't his normal flank) and whilst I didn't see the game got 6 ratings in most of the papers compared to Walcott's 5. I think Japan was Walcott's last chance and so Capello went with him in his normal position. He came up short again.

I only saw the last 40 minutes of the Japan game. Was Lennon even on the field?

He might as well have not have been for the Mexico game. How anyone can say he was worth taking over Walcott on the basis of that I just don't know.

If you want to do your digging out posts thing again (which you seem to save only for certain posts )) then you'll find a post by me in which I say that on this seasons form, Lennon defo has the upper hand - BUT .... I also point out that Lennon's great form was prior to him getting injured, and that he's shown none of the same since coming back. There was no improvement in those friendlies, he was no less 'shit' than people say Walcott was.

So Pat has taken a player that's going to be no less flaky than Walcott can be, but without the impact that Walcott sometimes can bring to game but that Lennon never does.

[ampersand]

my algeria top has arrived. fear not

[eFestivals]

IMHO Bent has offered the least out of the 5 strikers, and the fact he has shown no signs of a decent partnership with Rooney did him no favours.

Heskey has undeniably been poor, but I understand his inclusion.

Defoe hasn't been too shit hot for England but again - I understand his inclusion.

Crouch consistently scores.

Rooney is the first name on the team sheet.

If he was only planning on taking 4 strikers out of the 5, it was always a no-brainer IMHO.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree with all of that.

But it's still true that

- Crouch only scores against the crap teams.

- Defoe doesn't score or look like scoring.

- Rooney has a poor record against decent teams.

We can ignore Heskey as a 'striker' really, he's not on the field to score goals (tho it would be nice all the same Emile ).

[Langdale Wolf]

my algeria top has arrived. fear not

[oafc0000]

my algeria top has arrived. fear not

[ampersand]

You sad, sad, sad, man.

I hope a pigeon shits all over you and your new fashion accessory, though I predict you'll come out in a rash when you put it on as your brain won't be able to cope with a garment designed for the World Cup.

X

[oafc0000]

You sad, sad, sad, man.

I hope a pigeon shits all over you and your new fashion accessory, though I predict you'll come out in a rash when you put it on as your brain won't be able to cope with a garment designed for the World Cup.

X

[Langdale Wolf]

am i not allowed an adopted nation at this grand spectical? and what better team than one that contains madjid bougherra?

[TheGayTent]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree with all of that.

But it's still true that

- Crouch only scores against the crap teams.

- Defoe doesn't score or look like scoring.

- Rooney has a poor record against decent teams.

We can ignore Heskey as a 'striker' really, he's not on the field to score goals (tho it would be nice all the same Emile ).

[eFestivals]

hes not tho, and recent performances (last 18 months) have proven it. he doesnt make a run, he kicks the ball past the full back and legs it. and at the world cup, any centre back worth his salt is going to work that out. or sides would simply double up on knowing he cant dribble his way past.

azza can, and therefore draws more men to him, freeing up the strikers more often

Yeah, Barca stopped Walcott in his tracks.

Even in the 2nd game they were shit scared of him and didn't know how to handle him.

Lennon doesn't often try going past anyone (whereas Walcott tries most times) - he only really ever runs when there's an empty pitch in front of him. Lennon also rarely goes for the line, he puts his crosses in from the same place on the pitch as G.Johnson does, or plays the safe ball backwards, neither of which adds anything much to the attacking options.

Lennon is very decent player, but he's a squad player for England, he doesn't bring enough. Hopefully Pat will show he thinks the same, by starting with Cole and Milner at the sides.

[Langdale Wolf]

Do people think it would be wrong for me to wear a SA top to the opening game Going watching the game at a fan zeon in Cape Town...

[eFestivals]

You sad, sad, sad, scotsman.

Corrected for you.