Big club bias

Status
Not open for further replies.


So why did he take Wiltshire, sterling and rashford then?

Its because they play for the 'glamour' clubs, pure and simple.

It's because he rates them. He f***ing adores Wilshire, he thinks he is the best thing since sliced bread and always has. He was always going to make space for him. Sterling is, in his opinion and many, a very encouraging young player with shitloads of talent who is going through a severe crisis of confidence. He probably thought he could manage them through it. Rashford played his way into the squad and considering how he played in the two games he came on, it weren't a poor decision.
 
There was an incident last night where he could have stretched to keep a ball in but he didn't dare and pulled out
He looked slow over the first few yards aswell for me

It's because he rates them. He f***ing adores Wilshire, he thinks he is the best thing since sliced bread and always has. He was always going to make space for him. Sterling is, in his opinion and many, a very encouraging young player with shitloads of talent who is going through a severe crisis of confidence. He probably thought he could manage them through it. Rashford played his way into the squad and considering how he played in the two games he came on, it weren't a poor decision.
Rashford played his way with a man united top on of course
 
He looked slow over the first few yards aswell for me


Rashford played his way with a man united top on of course

:lol: damned if he does, damned if he doesn't really. Rashford played outstanding since February, scored for a top team in very big matches, and scored on his England debut. There was no media clamour to include him, and he could have easily picked Theo Walcott ahead of him (also picked for a big club).

But don't worry, you continue spout stupid, factless conspiracy theories based on nothing but a desperation to blame someone for something, anything, to deal with your anger that we lost.
 
It's because he rates them. He f***ing adores Wilshire, he thinks he is the best thing since sliced bread and always has. He was always going to make space for him. Sterling is, in his opinion and many, a very encouraging young player with shitloads of talent who is going through a severe crisis of confidence. He probably thought he could manage them through it. Rashford played his way into the squad and considering how he played in the two games he came on, it weren't a poor decision.
I'll never understand his love for Wilshire?? A Billy big bollocks who just hasn't done it for me but in his defence injuries has stopped his progress I suppose, but he still get into the national side.... ridiculous.

Sterling, the less said about this twat the better. If you have no confidence the worst possible thing to do would be to put him in front of a world wide audience. Was never going to end well.

As for rashford???? What a waste of a fcking place that was. Undoubted talent, potentially, but he shouldn't have went considering he's only just made the team at club level.

All about opinions mate but Roy got these three badly wrong for me.
 
:lol: damned if he does, damned if he doesn't really. Rashford played outstanding since February, scored for a top team in very big matches, and scored on his England debut. There was no media clamour to include him, and he could have easily picked Theo Walcott ahead of him (also picked for a big club).

But don't worry, you continue spout stupid, factless conspiracy theories based on nothing but a desperation to blame someone for something, anything, to deal with your anger that we lost.
No just damned when he falls over himself to pick a kid who offers nothing different to what we already had, as far as form goes Defoe was in outstanding form scoring goals in but games.
 
I hate all this guff about big club bias, and picking "form players". Two of the biggest disappointments of the tournament, Ali and Kane, we're two of the best players in the league last year. You can't more in form than them.

England were rubbish for a few reasons. One is that our players aren't good enough - the ones we picked were by and large the best (you could squabble if you wanted to about one or two but it's borderline stuff), and they just aren't as good as we think. Secondly, Hodgson went from a man who has built his career on being organised, clear thinking and logical/pragmatic suddenly went ducking barmy and couldn't make his mind up. He played 433 for two years, then one injured striker and he builds a squad for a diamond system he's never tested, before changing his mind and reverting back to 433, by which point we have no wingers. He's got a striker in midfield, a striker on the wing but constantly cutting inside. A shot to bits winger playing in a role which isn't his best and his biggest, best centre forward taking set pieces , but never getting an actual cross into the box.

Just utterly muddled thinking all around really. But nothing to do with a big club bias or anything like that. That's just silly.

Absolutely spot on. We could have taken others, including Defoe whose omission seems to have annoyed many on here but realistically, as you say, we're talking about borderline decisions. I'd have taken Townsend for some width, I'd have taken Carroll for a genuine alternative option if the others weren't working but no one player would have significantly improved us. Maybe Defoe would have grabbed a goal in the 10 minutes he might have got against Iceland (it's unlikely, we weren't exactly creating much) but equally Rashford might have created something. With luck we might have sneaked into the quarters with a few different players but the nucleus of the squad and the manager were never good enough for us to do anything. I said before the tournament started and during it that we'd lose to the first decent team we played. We ended up falling short even of that but our limitations were well known before we went out there.

People say about big club bias, I don't really think it exists. There is a lot of pressure when playing for England so I suppose if someone, like Rashford, has proved themselves able to cope with the similarly high pressured rule of playing for man united then maybe managers think they're more likely to cope with the step into international football. If they've been playing European football maybe a manager thinks they'll be more used to playing against other styles which are more similar to what we'll pay against at a tournament. These things would make it look like people are picked just because they're at a "big club" but realistically they're sensible enough decisions.
 
Well my point is I wouldn't turn my back on Sunderland if they got shit results (and they usually do) and it's the same for England. Yes, I'm pissed off, but I'll still be hoping we qualify for the world cup.
Tbh I can remember the back end of the Bruce days and MON days where the games were so dire I almost did, that sounds pathetic and it probably is and the Iceland result the way we played was exactly like that . I want England to do well and I loved going to the game at SOL. BUT the thing is what annoys me the set up we had vs Germany was perfect, and then Roy said 'nah lets not have that set up'. I want England to win something, but the last two tournaments have been a joke
 
Tbh I can remember the back end of the Bruce days and MON days where the games were so dire I almost did, that sounds pathetic and it probably is and the Iceland result the way we played was exactly like that . I want England to do well and I loved going to the game at SOL. BUT the thing is what annoys me the set up we had vs Germany was perfect, and then Roy said 'nah lets not have that set up'. I want England to win something, but the last two tournaments have been a joke
The difference with the Germany game though was that they came out and attacked us so we could counter. All 4 sides at the Euros put 10 men behind the ball so we couldn't.

Not an excuse, breaking defensive teams down is part of football and it doesn't excuse Rooney's lack of control (again) or his ability to do anything other than 25 yard passes to the full back.

England have no system full stop, there's far too much emphasis on 'form' and shoehorning 11 players in and changing it every game instead of building a team.
 
The difference with the Germany game though was that they came out and attacked us so we could counter. All 4 sides at the Euros put 10 men behind the ball so we couldn't.

Not an excuse, breaking defensive teams down is part of football and it doesn't excuse Rooney's lack of control (again) or his ability to do anything other than 25 yard passes to the full back.

England have no system full stop, there's far too much emphasis on 'form' and shoehorning 11 players in and changing it every game instead of building a team.
It was obvious this was going to happen and Roy is paid to know this. We should have gone 442 and played two wingers and two strikers in these types of matches
 
Iirc I was slaughtered on here when I took umbrage with the decision to take Wilshere instead of Drinkwater.

Wilshere was a disgrace all tournament as he usually is. There is no way Drinkwater would have done any worse IMO.
The problem I had was I don;t think Drinkwater would have done any better. Imo he wouldn't have improved us one bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top