|
|
Post by The Stubborn Optimist on Nov 15, 2017 17:40:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Nov 15, 2017 17:46:47 GMT
I would personally, its a different option, if we’re chasing a game get people in and around him looking for knock downs, flick ons or even bury one in himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Nov 15, 2017 18:37:07 GMT
I would personally, its a different option, if we’re chasing a game get people in and around him looking for knock downs, flick ons or even bury one in himself. Agreed - not as a starter but as a genuine game changer. A plan B or C is something any middling World Cup squad needs and Crouch provides that in 3 ways. He can hold the ball up, he is a great target man (which none of our other strikers are) and he remains one of the best headers of the ball in the penalty area. These attributes if used late in the game can make up for his lack of pace. Unlike Carroll, he will probably remain fit throughout the tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Nov 15, 2017 18:40:45 GMT
We (almost) always take far too many defensive and midfield options. I would have no problem with a few different styled options up front. But let's not kid ourselves, if fit, Andy carroll would be the 'big man' back up option.
Shame, a few good characters like crouchy are needed in a squad IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Nov 15, 2017 19:32:51 GMT
Don't let putin hear you saying this hell have him assassinated if he thinks crouch is attempting a take over  |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 15, 2017 19:39:16 GMT
Then listen to the moaning when he gets injured at an England training camp.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Nov 15, 2017 19:42:26 GMT
England's forwards are all much of a muchness, and Crouch is at least an alternative.
No doubt that when he comes on for the last five minutes and we get knocked out, the press will lament that England could only muster up the long ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Nov 15, 2017 20:00:40 GMT
Nah, I mean why would you pick a proven international with a good goal record for England when you can select a kid who hasn't even started a premier league game? The other factor of course is he plays for Stoke. Crouchy needs a move in January to have any chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 15, 2017 20:02:32 GMT
Very interesting that 2 out of 7 of those journos have put him in.
|
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Nov 15, 2017 20:32:15 GMT
Nah, I mean why would you pick a proven international with a good goal record for England when you can select a kid who hasn't even started a premier league game? The other factor of course is he plays for Stoke. Crouchy needs a move in January to have any chance. I'd rather the kid get the experience than take a bloke because he's tall. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcwebby on Nov 15, 2017 20:43:07 GMT
Interesting (probably absolutely nothing in it) what order they have all put the goalkeepers down, non of them have listed Hart 1st and pretty much half and half who put Pickford or Butland first. Is it in the order that they think or random?  |
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Nov 15, 2017 21:14:04 GMT
Nice thought but no chance
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 15, 2017 21:19:01 GMT
Andy Carroll is the better option for that sort of player but he probably won't be fit.
If Kane, Vardy, Welbeck and Rashford are fit though, neither of them stand a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Nov 15, 2017 22:01:22 GMT
Andy Carroll is the better option for that sort of player but he probably won't be fit. If Kane, Vardy, Welbeck and Rashford are fit though, neither of them stand a chance. Crouch is smarter than Carroll Would have to be a lot of injuries for it happen, be great fun if it did though. |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Nov 15, 2017 22:55:45 GMT
We (almost) always take far too many defensive and midfield options. I would have no problem with a few different styled options up front. But let's not kid ourselves, if fit, Andy carroll would be the 'big man' back up option. Shame, a few good characters like crouchy are needed in a squad IMHO. Carroll will get injured on the plane, though. Brittle bastard. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 15, 2017 23:03:29 GMT
Given we've got a cats in hell's chance of winning it why not? If the dream of Crouchy coning onto the pitch in the 80th minute to head the goal to win a vital game (preferably the final) and celebrating with the mother of all robots doesn't make you well up you're dead to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Nov 15, 2017 23:33:31 GMT
Nah, I mean why would you pick a proven international with a good goal record for England when you can select a kid who hasn't even started a premier league game? The other factor of course is he plays for Stoke. Crouchy needs a move in January to have any chance. I'd rather the kid get the experience than take a bloke because he's tall. I get the sentiment but what would you do if crouch comes on in the 85th in the final and nods in the winner? bang your table and say "he shouldn't even be there!!"? you take your best squad and right now no one is scoring enough or offering anything even remotely different other than peter. |
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Nov 15, 2017 23:49:30 GMT
I'd rather the kid get the experience than take a bloke because he's tall. I get the sentiment but what would you do if crouch comes on in the 85th in the final and nods in the winner? bang your table and say "he shouldn't even be there!!"? you take your best squad and right now no one is scoring enough or offering anything even remotely different other than peter. What a stupid question, I'm giving an opinion, if he goes he goes and he gets supported regardless. So Kane is the same as Rashford and Vardy, there's more difference than you're suggesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 0:21:58 GMT
Crouch for Russia.
Here are some Cossack dancers.
Though technically they adopt more of a squat than a crouch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger Everyone on Nov 16, 2017 1:10:05 GMT
at this moment in time, yes. As a super sub. He is more likely to come on and score than anyone else
|
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Nov 16, 2017 1:55:53 GMT
Like stoke we’d have to learn how to cross the ball for it to work. But playing him in the qualifiers against all the shit teams he would have had a field day. He knows where the goal is and leaves it to others to deliver. You won’t find crouchie taking a corner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 2:04:37 GMT
The biggest difference for me though between Crouch and Carroll would be the professional attitudes they would / would not bring.
Crouch would be beaming and knuckling down to make sure he gets the most of an unexpected last chance in a major tournament. Just his attitude alone might make some of the younger players think if I show that kind of dedication I might have a long career and get some media attention / media jobs out of being a decent and honest guy and professional.
Carroll would be one of those whinging because he’s got to go a month without a beer. Carroll should have an unbelievable goal record for club and country, he’s shown glimpses of being capable of being as good as Drogba was. Every time he’s injured though he’s popping off to Dubai for all you can eat and drink buffet blow outs instead of focusing on the long boring rehab required. If the money for a Premier League footballer wasn’t so ridiculous I honestly think he’d be one of those footballers who retires before 30.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Nov 16, 2017 2:06:16 GMT
Of course yes.
On so many levels.
His feet, his heart, his head, his brain, and his stature.
Bring him on for 17 minutes if it's gone stale or a deadlock.
Replace Vardy and fuck the oppos head up for a bit.
A proper case of 'Everywhere he goes...'
|
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Nov 16, 2017 3:26:56 GMT
Nah, I mean why would you pick a proven international with a good goal record for England when you can select a kid who hasn't even started a premier league game? The other factor of course is he plays for Stoke. Crouchy needs a move in January to have any chance. I'd rather the kid get the experience than take a bloke because he's tall. I understand your point but disagree. Crouch (or Carroll) offers an option when we are desperate in the last 10mins or so when things are not working. I disagreed with Erickson taking Walcott to the finals in Japan 2002 ( apologies if I have names and dates mixed up) for the "experience". He should have been prepared to use him. I thought it was a reasonable decision to take him but I thought he had plans to use him. I did not realize at the time that he had no intention of using him. For me that was a waste of a squad position. |
|
|
|
Post by StokieBoy31 on Nov 16, 2017 3:53:23 GMT
He’s the best plan B in football, or in our case plan A 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by s7oke on Nov 16, 2017 4:39:55 GMT
Yep
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Nov 16, 2017 7:45:45 GMT
I get the sentiment but what would you do if crouch comes on in the 85th in the final and nods in the winner? bang your table and say "he shouldn't even be there!!"? you take your best squad and right now no one is scoring enough or offering anything even remotely different other than peter. What a stupid question, I'm giving an opinion, if he goes he goes and he gets supported regardless. So Kane is the same as Rashford and Vardy, there's more difference than you're suggesting. Yes, Kane, Rashford and Vardey all offer differing attributes. That is not the point. None of England's current crop of strikers (decent strikers though they certainly are - and in Kane's case close to World class) can hold the ball up, or are as effective as target men, or score as many headed goals as Crouch. His minutes per goal ratio is still as as good as it was in his prime - and in his prime he scored international goals at the rate of 1 in every 2 games. Southgate would be daft not to take him. The fact that he is a fantastic character in the dressing room is another bonus even if he was never needed on the pitch. |
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Nov 16, 2017 9:10:35 GMT
I would find a place in the 23 for Peter for all the reasons above. He is a genuine plan b, and going into extra time before the lottery of a shoot out, or when you're chasing a goal, surely he poses tiring defenders a totally different problem.
He's kept himself fit and is a fantastic professional who would be a great influence in the dressing room.
There is a decent history of the big man doing well at World Cups - Hakan Suker, Jon Dall Thomasson and Jan Koller - why not Peter Crouch?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdollar on Nov 16, 2017 9:25:39 GMT
Unbelievable!
Peter Crouch has had a fantastic career and has a tremendous goal scoring record when playing for England and it is difficult to be in anyway negative about this idea without insulting Peter. Our younger players are setting the world on fire winning major tournaments and people are suggesting Peter Crouch at 37 years of age should be going to Russia? Really?
We have plenty of young players who would do the job better. Peter's record cannot be criticised but it has gone. It is in the past!
|
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Nov 16, 2017 9:28:30 GMT
I'd rather the kid get the experience than take a bloke because he's tall. I understand your point but disagree. Crouch (or Carroll) offers an option when we are desperate in the last 10mins or so when things are not working. I disagreed with Erickson taking Walcott to the finals in Japan 2002 ( apologies if I have names and dates mixed up) for the "experience". He should have been prepared to use him. I thought it was a reasonable decision to take him but I thought he had plans to use him. I did not realize at the time that he had no intention of using him. For me that was a waste of a squad position. I agree about Walcott by experience I mean playing, if you're not going to play them you may as well give them a few match tickets and have them watch from the stands. |
|
.
.
.
.
