|
|
Post by slpmarc on Jun 6, 2014 7:02:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jun 6, 2014 7:12:45 GMT
He was sat on his arse watching Southampton 5000 times that's why. The friendly against Ecuador proved Smalling just isn't good enough, for England and Man Utd.. he even made Phil Jones look solid!!
|
|
|
|
Post by nottspotter on Jun 6, 2014 7:14:20 GMT
I personally, living outside of stoke, have the benefit (if such a word can be used) of living amongst other fans than stokies/vale/manure fans. This means I've looked for sympathisers to the cause of Shawcross amongst a more neutral backing. Whilst a lot of my mates who I would consider 'real' football fans who actually know a thing or two about nogger all agree that Ryan should have had a seat on that plane over Smalling any day of the week, I find it alarming the number of people who don't.
'Shawcross? naah he's fuckin wank!'
'Shawcross? naah he's a leg breaking twat'
'Shawcross? who?'
and it continues in the same vein. There are lots of people who just don't agree with me no matter how I put the case to them!
Should we be pissed off? or should we be grateful?
Pissed off: Ryan should get the respect and appreciation he deserves for being one of the most solid, honest, hard-working defenders in the country
Grateful: I like to think that the footy following populace of this country is split into 80% of general football fans who love the game but honestly know feck all about it and the remaining 20% of people who are able to do a little more thank wank themselves silly over the Liverpool quotient in the england squad whilst simultaneously droning 'Roooooooney' and actually know a thing or two.
It's because of this 80% that perhaps there'll be little/no buzz or call from fans of the 'big' clubs for Shawcross to join them... and perhaps that (hopefully) means we can hang onto him for a bit longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 6, 2014 7:19:34 GMT
I suppose the only consolation is that in a year's time after Roy has been sacked, has relegated Southampton and is finally committed to a home for the bewildered, Shawcross might actually be getting fair crack of the whip with England.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Jun 6, 2014 7:29:08 GMT
Whether Ryan deserves a chance to play for England is not the issue here. England don't need three orthodox centre halves at the World Cup, so he could only have been selected at the expense of Jagiellka or Cahill.
Ryan has twenty minutes experience as a England player, he was never going to be chosen and in this particular case it was the correct decision, in my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 6, 2014 7:41:22 GMT
Whether Ryan deserves a chance to play for England is not the issue here. England don't need three orthodox centre halves at the World Cup, so he could only have been selected at the expense of Jagiellka or Cahill. Ryan has twenty minutes experience as a England player, he was never going to be chosen and in this particular case it was the correct decision, in my view. Out of 23 players it is prudent to pick only two players for two positions?! Its that sort of barmy thinking that has resulted in in the farcical situation of Smalling being in Rio because he can play right back equally as shit as he can play centre back, Geoff! |
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Jun 6, 2014 7:57:02 GMT
Whether Ryan deserves a chance to play for England is not the issue here. England don't need three orthodox centre halves at the World Cup, so he could only have been selected at the expense of Jagiellka or Cahill. Ryan has twenty minutes experience as a England player, he was never going to be chosen and in this particular case it was the correct decision, in my view. Yes he has only 20 minutes experience, but how is he going to get more experienced if the management, don't even acknowledge his existence, 18 months worth of friendlies he could of been looked at, and know doubt would have shown he has better positioning in defence areas than any of the 4 defenders picked |
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Jun 6, 2014 8:00:21 GMT
It's right momo that Smalling gives us cover at right back, whether he's a good/bad player is open to debate.
If Ryan had been selected, and Jagiellka or Cahill got injured, then Shawcross would have to play, otherwise there would be no point in taking him.
The idea of Shawcross playing at the World Cup, with no previous international experience, would not only be a risk to England, but for the future of Ryan himself, should things go badly wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Jun 6, 2014 8:05:29 GMT
Whether or not Shawcross is good enough is irrelevant here.
The fact that Hodgson has not communicated with Shawcross since his debut, where frankly, I am guessing Shawcross would have been feeling slightly disappointed and concerned for his national team future given his 'below par' performance, shows Hodgson's total lack of man management skills.
Not even a simple phone call to allay Ryan's fears and confirm that he would still be in and around the England team, if his club team performances were of a high enough standard to merit such inclusion. That doesn't take a lot. It's not like he actually has a demanding job, struggling for time on a daily basis.
I didn't think Hodgson could plummet further down in my estimations. After that revelation, it would seem that I was wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 8:09:47 GMT
It's right momo that Smalling gives us cover at right back, whether he's a good/bad player is open to debate.If Ryan had been selected, and Jagiellka or Cahill got injured, then Shawcross would have to play, otherwise there would be no point in taking him. The idea of Shawcross playing at the World Cup, with no previous international experience, would not only be a risk to England, but for the future of Ryan himself, should things go badly wrong. Debate away then. Is Smalling better than Shawcross? I would say nowhere near personally..... |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jun 6, 2014 8:13:05 GMT
The Mr. Bean of world football Roy Hodgson has picked the very worst central defence in the World Cup competition.Bumbling lisping idiot!
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Jun 6, 2014 8:17:37 GMT
If it's correct Hodgson has not spoken to Ryan, or had him watched, then the only conclusion you can draw is that he doesn't see him as an England player.
In those circumstances what could Hodgson say to Ryan?
|
|
|
|
Post by scfc5 on Jun 6, 2014 8:24:01 GMT
For all this apparently valuable experience, Smalling is still awful!
And Fraser Forster, Ross Barkley, Luke Shaw, even Ben Foster, have all had truck loads of this apparently valuable experience, haven't they?!!
As to the point about 3 orthodox centre-halves, yes we should have 3 - the contrary is players who are picked just for their versatility but aren't much good anywhere - Smalling, even Milner you could argue. Pick a proper right-back as cover instead of one of the pointless midfielders like Wilshere, who won't get near the team, or Milner, and then have Shawcross in for Smalling. You still then have Jones if we must indulge this apparent versatility theory...
Geoff, I might think you were fishing a little with your comments. If you are satisfied Smalling isn't good enough but neither is Shawcross, who would you have taken? Can't be Caulker or Dawson because they can't play full-back, so who...?
|
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Jun 6, 2014 8:26:46 GMT
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Whether or not Shawcross is as good or better than those that were picked is debatable. But whichever defence plays, it will get found out on the international stage.
Why do I think that? Because it has at virtually every tournament I can recall over the last 40 odd years.
I imagine it is frustrating for Ryan, but at least he will have the comfort of retaining his dignity as the rest of the golden (shower) generation try to sneak through the arrivals lounge at Stansted at 3.00 am sometime in the first week of July - before being lynched and disembowelled by the tabloids.
|
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jun 6, 2014 8:28:31 GMT
Whether Ryan deserves a chance to play for England is not the issue here. England don't need three orthodox centre halves at the World Cup, so he could only have been selected at the expense of Jagiellka or Cahill. Ryan has twenty minutes experience as a England player, he was never going to be chosen and in this particular case it was the correct decision, in my view. "England don't need three orthodox centre halves at the World Cup" - so there's no risk of injuries or suspensions then? Absolute madness. The fact that he got to the point of selecting the WC squad and hadn't bothered to give one of, if not the best centre half's, sufficient game time is negligent. |
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jun 6, 2014 8:30:52 GMT
It's right momo that Smalling gives us cover at right back, whether he's a good/bad player is open to debate.If Ryan had been selected, and Jagiellka or Cahill got injured, then Shawcross would have to play, otherwise there would be no point in taking him. The idea of Shawcross playing at the World Cup, with no previous international experience, would not only be a risk to England, but for the future of Ryan himself, should things go badly wrong. Debate away then. Is Smalling better than Shawcross? I would say nowhere near personally..... There's no debate. It's like discussing if Jeanette Krankie or Lionel Messi is the best football in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Jun 6, 2014 8:36:50 GMT
You can't take three of every position, so you pick your main centre halves, and then for balance and cover, you need the guys who can play different positions.
Whatever Hodgson is, a good or bad manager, in my view he has picked the correct squad, the Shawcross issue is a good debating subject on here, but the rest of the football world isn't talking about this.
I do agree there are weaknesses in this squad, but that's about the state of English football in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 8:39:54 GMT
You can't take three of every position, so you pick your main centre halves, and then for balance and cover, you need the guys who can play different positions. Whatever Hodgson is, a good or bad manager, in my view he has picked the correct squad, the Shawcross issue is a good debating subject on here, but the rest of the football world isn't talking about this. I do agree there are weaknesses in this squad, but that's about the state of English football in general. But Phil Jones is already there as a centre half cum reight back so Smalling not required even going off your theory. So I'll ask you again, is Smalling better than Shawcross? |
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Jun 6, 2014 8:44:03 GMT
I don't know prestwich, but he's a different player because he can offer cover in different positions, what's important though is that Roy thinks he's the correct choice for this tournament, and I think he's right.
|
|
|
|
Post by MuddyWoody on Jun 6, 2014 8:44:19 GMT
Have to agree. Saying we only need to take 2 specialist centre halves to a major tournament is crazy. Roy has got his selection wrong to start with. Smalling has been shite whichever position he plays in and we are short of cover in defence even with him.
As soon as the Ox got injured the calls for Stones to replace him in the squad if he wasn't able to get fit started.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 8:46:37 GMT
Whether Ryan deserves a chance to play for England is not the issue here. England don't need three orthodox centre halves at the World Cup, so he could only have been selected at the expense of Jagiellka or Cahill. Ryan has twenty minutes experience as a England player, he was never going to be chosen and in this particular case it was the correct decision, in my view. It was, if we are using this World Cup Finals simply to confirm that some of those chosen ahead of him aren't good enough. If the end result is a line drawn under 'players picked because of who they play for' then yes, keep Ryan at home and give the current crop enough rope. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 8:48:02 GMT
Its pretty simple, if ryan played for man utd then he would be in the squad, and if smalling played for us then he wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 8:49:36 GMT
You can't take three of every position, so you pick your main centre halves, and then for balance and cover, you need the guys who can play different positions. Whatever Hodgson is, a good or bad manager, in my view he has picked the correct squad, the Shawcross issue is a good debating subject on here, but the rest of the football world isn't talking about this. I do agree there are weaknesses in this squad, but that's about the state of English football in general. out of interest geoff.....is there any reason why every england manager since the world cup began disagrees with you on the idea of not taking at least 3 designated CBs to the world cup? what do you know that they haven't realised over the years and why haven't you ever applied for the manager's job...or does Brazil not have reliant enough wifi for you to be able to google all of your football related information? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 8:51:39 GMT
Whether Ryan deserves a chance to play for England is not the issue here. England don't need three orthodox centre halves at the World Cup, so he could only have been selected at the expense of Jagiellka or Cahill. Ryan has twenty minutes experience as a England player, he was never going to be chosen and in this particular case it was the correct decision, in my view. Out of 23 players it is prudent to pick only two players for two positions?! Its that sort of barmy thinking that has resulted in in the farcical situation of Smalling being in Rio because he can play right back equally as shit as he can play centre back, Geoff! Don't you just love it when these pair get together to define the blueprint of the modern game? It's quite exhilarating to behold...  |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 6, 2014 8:58:16 GMT
Out of 23 players it is prudent to pick only two players for two positions?! Its that sort of barmy thinking that has resulted in in the farcical situation of Smalling being in Rio because he can play right back equally as shit as he can play centre back, Geoff! Don't you just love it when these pair get together to define the blueprint of the modern game? It's quite exhilarating to behold... **************, you remind me of a young Jimmy Hill, you know, a bit of a visionary, ahead of your time, a pain in the bollocks. What are your views on the 'modern game'  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 8:58:43 GMT
You can't take three of every position, so you pick your main centre halves, and then for balance and cover, you need the guys who can play different positions. Whatever Hodgson is, a good or bad manager, in my view he has picked the correct squad, the Shawcross issue is a good debating subject on here, but the rest of the football world isn't talking about this. I do agree there are weaknesses in this squad, but that's about the state of English football in general. has anyone said to pick 3 of every position? no, they said pick 3 players for TWO positions geoff (i presume you're aware that there are TWO centre backs yeah...we're not saying pick 3 players for each CB spot) basics........... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 9:12:33 GMT
The only consolation I can take from a teat like Hodgson is that his defence is going to get bum raped and I for one cannot wait for his interviews after this World Cup is over,
Hodgson is a twat.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Jun 6, 2014 9:27:26 GMT
Whether Ryan deserves a chance to play for England is not the issue here. England don't need three orthodox centre halves at the World Cup, so he could only have been selected at the expense of Jagiellka or Cahill. Ryan has twenty minutes experience as a England player, he was never going to be chosen and in this particular case it was the correct decision, in my view. So they don't need to take three centre halves but they need to take TWO players who can cover both CB and RB (badly) in Smalling and Jones? What are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 6, 2014 9:40:19 GMT
Geoff, what is wrong with taking the following players to cover the back four positions?
2 right backs
4 centre backs
2 left backs
Obviously it would be useful if two of the centre backs can cover full back and vice versa, but this idea that you only need 2 centre backs to cover 2 centre back positions is plain daft.
And if we took 4 centre backs it is difficult to make a case for not including Ryan as one of them, as I doubt there are 4 English cbs who are better than him - certainly not Smalling and Jones. And that isn't a reaction to Wednesday night - they've never looked any good to me.
As things stand we are an injury and a red card away from a Smalling & Jones central defence in a vital game - sheer madness!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 9:46:27 GMT
Don't you just love it when these pair get together to define the blueprint of the modern game? It's quite exhilarating to behold... **************, you remind me of a young Jimmy Hill, you know, a bit of a visionary, ahead of your time, a pain in the bollocks. What are your views on the 'modern game' Not sure, give me a mo' and i'll just PM Geoff. Joking aside, Ryan's one of those players that would be a shoe-in if he was at Man U, although Steve Bruce was never capped. Hodgson's moment of free expression has been used up on the south coast by Rickie Lambert and his Southampton wank fantasy.
With Ryan in central defence, combined with a 4-0 drubbing at the hands of the Italians, the outcome is predictable. "Why the fuck did Hodgson go with a defender from Stoke?" on every back page. It's a political decision at the end of the day and it's precisely this that needs to change. Roy is too weak, feels lucky to get the chance and is playing it the FA way. That's my take. |
|
