Grant Holt for England!

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,042]

Did I say Grant Holt should have been selected Mrs Miggins?, you explain to me how picking a 31 year old with just ten caps between 2003 and 2012 as captain is building for the future.........

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"][quote user="mrs miggins"]

no alright fine. age doesn''t matter.

lets get scholes out of retirement

what a team

 

-------------------hart-------------

richards---ferdinand--terry---cole

----scholes---lampard----gerrard

-------------wilshire------------

---------rooney---defoe/holt

 

wow. what a team; that would be ab fab. A team that hasn''t won us anything but are probably better than what we have atm with their experience. Forget building for a better future we''ll deal with that when gerrard is 36. I can''t wait to see the pace of the silver generation in the Euro''s.

[/quote]

 

I seriously quite like that. Start afresh after the Euros.

[/quote]

 

 

The only two players I would choose from that lot would be Hart and Holt.    Possibly Wilshire.      Experience?   Too much bad experience if you ask me.    Get some fresh faces in now.            

 

 

 

[mrs miggins 0]

i totally agree with the likes of parker 31 and gerrard 32 playing as they have the experience, but giving holt a place in the team for the euro''s just doesn''t make sense, not when there''s young talent on the bench who need to learn what its like to play for england instead of just getting to a world cup where we have a sqaud who has never played together

[BroadstairsR 2,218]

Ok, but the Euro has virtually been written off before it''s started because of all the cocks-up.

 

In any case, I don''t think that this enigmatic "plan for the future" mantra necessarily works at international level. The work has already been done on these players by their clubs and the England team is no arena to develop youngsters. The finished product should be available for the England manager. It is an international side, not a club side. Any player picked on merit should, by definition, be upto the international mark, give or take some degree of acclimatisation. Some make it, some don''t.

 

It should be just a question of devising the best format and applying good man management.

 

I don''t want Wembley or the Euros to be used as a learning curve.  

 

Too much future planning = too little present success.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,042]

So if Parker is OK for selection, surely Holt must be!! (Parker is not that experienced at international level, eight years between caps 3 and 4), the Euros are in the summer, we should pick a sqaud made up of form players, not "names", so if the likes of Holt and Danny Graham are still knocking them in, and the likes of say Andy Carroll are still not then they should be higher up the pecking order, and that goes for other positions.....

[Alex Moss 2,165]

Mrs Miggins - Again, it''s all very well building for the future, but what about NOW and the immediate future? Does the present not count? Age has nothing to do with it, if I were in charge, which thankfully I''m not, I''d have the likes of both Oxlade-Chamberlain and Scholes (if possible) in my team - players IN FORM.

Half the young players that are being chucked in the deep end now may well look promising, and might look good for the future - but they could quite easily fall by the wayside in the next few years, as many do, therefore leaving that policy basically redundant and us looking for the next bright young things for the following World Cup etc. Vicious circle - If we keep following this policy we''ll get NOWHERE

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]

The fact that Scott Parker aged 31 is playing and capatin kind of blows the age and building for the future reasons out of the water..........

[/quote]

 

No it doesn''t SoB. Quite the contrary in fact.

 

Basically, it all depends on whether your priority is to win one-off games or win tournaments . Because the two things are totally different .  If the idea is to pick a side to beat Belgium or whoever in May, then sure, go for the players who are in form at the time. If that happens to be Holt, (or Lampard, Gerrard, Terry or even Scholes) then, by all means, stick ''em in, and we''d probably get a decent result on the night.

 

However, if the idea is to build a squad that''s going to get some valuable experience in Poland /Ukraine, with a view to Brazil 2014, then go for the youngsters, and build a squad around them. Those kids will have learnt a hell of a lot v Holland last night . Some of the lessons will have been harsh (they often are when playing world-class opposition), but it will not have done them any harm.

 

I know we all wear yellow tinted specs and love Holty for what he''s done for us, but he is NOT representative of potential for England''s prospects for future tournaments.

[Kolin Kob 0]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

 

One-time England hero  Pearce seems to be a bit of a yes-man who is so far up the FA''s collective bum that he can''t see beyond the usual predicted format. Holt would be far too risky a choice for somebody who has openly stated that he wants the job permanently. He couldn''t risk a failure.

 

[/quote]What evidence is there of this? I have seen none.

[Kolin Kob 0]

[quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"] we are seriously bereft of quality strikers. .[/quote]No we are not. We just only have one outstanding one. All the others mentioned are quality players.

[BroadstairsR 2,218]

[quote user="Kolin Kob"][quote user="BroadstairsR"]

 

One-time England hero  Pearce seems to be a bit of a yes-man who is so far up the FA''s collective bum that he can''t see beyond the usual predicted format. Holt would be far too risky a choice for somebody who has openly stated that he wants the job permanently. He couldn''t risk a failure.

 

[/quote]

What evidence is there of this? I have seen none.
[/quote]

 

True. Neither have I. It''s just the impression I gleaned from his willingness to jump into Capello''s shoes at a sensitiv time, and subsequently tout himself for the permanent job thus implying acceptance of the fact that the FA, and not the manager, should decide who is the captain of the national side. Capello resigned out of principle after all.

 

He may not be a yes man, but he ain''t no Jose M.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

He seemed to be giving slightly mixed messages when interviewed on ITV last night, though I appreciate that what he says for public consumption on the telly, and what he says behind the scenes are probably two different things.

 

He appeared to suggest that he''d be "at the FA''s disposal" should they want to use him in any capacity, including going to Euro 2012 with them . But then he implied that he was not ready for the England job yet. I suppose he''s just keeping his options open . I gues that if and when Spurs qualify for the CL, they''ll let Harry go, and then he will take over for the Euros. No doubt he''s already doing a spot of back seat driving.

[mrs miggins 0]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"][quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]

The fact that Scott Parker aged 31 is playing and capatin kind of blows the age and building for the future reasons out of the water..........

[/quote]

 

No it doesn''t SoB. Quite the contrary in fact.

 

Basically, it all depends on whether your priority is to win one-off games or win tournaments . Because the two things are totally different .  If the idea is to pick a side to beat Belgium or whoever in May, then sure, go for the players who are in form at the time. If that happens to be Holt, (or Lampard, Gerrard, Terry or even Scholes) then, by all means, stick ''em in, and we''d probably get a decent result on the night.

 

However, if the idea is to build a squad that''s going to get some valuable experience in Poland /Ukraine, with a view to Brazil 2014, then go for the youngsters, and build a squad around them. Those kids will have learnt a hell of a lot v Holland last night . Some of the lessons will have been harsh (they often are when playing world-class opposition), but it will not have done them any harm.

 

I know we all wear yellow tinted specs and love Holty for what he''s done for us, but he is NOT representative of potential for England''s prospects for future tournaments.

[/quote]

 

agree totally with this

[Michael Starr 522]

Really bored with this "build for the future" thing we seem to be obsessed with. It''s simple really, play the form players now regardless of age, height, size, style, favourite movie. If you have 11 English players in form, those 11 places should start the next game for England. Right now, that means Holt starting for England. Next week who knows, who cares. We MUST play by form and not reputation. Earn your place in the England shirt and bring some pride back to the nation. The cream will float to the top as the players who stay in form will be picked regularly and therefore build our squad for major competitions.

We also need to get out of this underdog David / Golith mindset we seem to have embedded in us all as a nation. Brazilian players believe they''re winners, and actually, often they are.

[Michael Starr 522]

...and throwing "prospects" into a team in 2012 in the hope they''ll learn lessons in time for 2014/16 is a terrible way of doing things. Make the players earn the right to play for England, but only when they''re ready. If they need experience fine, get that from club football / Champions League/ Europa or whatever.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Oh dear Michael. If only it was as simple as you are suggesting !  I''m afraid that your little plan would''ve worked 40 yrs ago, but, sadly, with all the intricacies of the modern game, it''s a non-starter. Club football is totally different from International football, and, to a certain extent, always has been.

 

You hero-worship Brazil, saying that their players are always "winners". Well, I''ve got news for you, mate. They haven''t been lately......

 

Modern football requires teams buying into the same ethic, and playing to the same tactics . Lok at all the successful teams, and thay are settled sides who are used to playing with one another. Your idea of playing players who are in form, then changing it all around a couple of months later will work, as I said earlier on one-off fixtures, particularly against second rate opposition. But if England are once again to compete with the world''s best (and it''s a big "if"), the only way will be to build a squad/team for a particular tournament. Dammit, Germany have been doing just that for years. France did it in 1998 to 2000. Brazil and Argentina used to, but have not been doing that recently . England did it with the Rugby in 2004, and look what happened .

 

One area where I do agree with you is that the "prospects" have got to be pretty good and coached to the highest standard, and it''s those aspects where England have been found wanting over the last 30 odd years.

[Sing up the river end 0]

Hart

Richards

Ferdinand

Jones

Cole

Johnson

Parker

Wiltshire

Chamberlain

Rooney

Walcott (where he should play)

Holt on the bench for something a bit different if things go wrong.I see no reason not to take him though.Something international defenders aren''t used to

[Alex Moss 2,165]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

Oh dear Michael. If only it was as simple as you are suggesting !  I''m afraid that your little plan would''ve worked 40 yrs ago, but, sadly, with all the intricacies of the modern game, it''s a non-starter. Club football is totally different from International football, and, to a certain extent, always has been.

 

You hero-worship Brazil, saying that their players are always "winners". Well, I''ve got news for you, mate. They haven''t been lately......

 

Modern football requires teams buying into the same ethic, and playing to the same tactics . Lok at all the successful teams, and thay are settled sides who are used to playing with one another. Your idea of playing players who are in form, then changing it all around a couple of months later will work, as I said earlier on one-off fixtures, particularly against second rate opposition. But if England are once again to compete with the world''s best (and it''s a big "if"), the only way will be to build a squad/team for a particular tournament. Dammit, Germany have been doing just that for years. France did it in 1998 to 2000. Brazil and Argentina used to, but have not been doing that recently . England did it with the Rugby in 2004, and look what happened .

 

One area where I do agree with you is that the "prospects" have got to be pretty good and coached to the highest standard, and it''s those aspects where England have been found wanting over the last 30 odd years.

[/quote]

I''m afraid I think it is as simple as Michael Starr and BroadstairsR etc are suggesting. We have the Under 21''s setup for giving the youngsters their international experience - the exceptional ones whom are in form now I.e Ox-Cham can play now of course with the other form players at THIS years tournament. They were ''youngsters of the future'' once y''know, Pickles ;)

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me there, Alex. Because what you are saying above is pretty much also what I''m saying . Broadstairs and Starr are (unless I''m mistaken) suggesting that we play anyone of any age and any experience on a match by match basis, just because  they happen to be in form (eg Holt).  I do not think that that idea will work in the long term with a view to winning tournaments.

 

My view is pretty similar to yours in that now is the time to blood the current U21 form players,wherever possible stick with them . If they do OK in Poland then all to the good. But we will then have the nucleus of an experienced well drilled squad for Brazil in 2 years time.

 

To be fair, it''s a bit soon to say Oxlade Chamberlain and Campbell are "in form" on the basis of a couple of goals in a handful of matches, but I beieve that playing them and sticking with them will bear far more fruit than kep chopping and changing with older players . Which, I guess, is what you are saying too ?

[CantonsHero 0]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

Oh dear Michael. If only it was as simple as you are suggesting !  I''m afraid that your little plan would''ve worked 40 yrs ago, but, sadly, with all the intricacies of the modern game, it''s a non-starter. Club football is totally different from International football, and, to a certain extent, always has been.

 

You hero-worship Brazil, saying that their players are always "winners". Well, I''ve got news for you, mate. They haven''t been lately......

 

Modern football requires teams buying into the same ethic, and playing to the same tactics . Lok at all the successful teams, and thay are settled sides who are used to playing with one another. Your idea of playing players who are in form, then changing it all around a couple of months later will work, as I said earlier on one-off fixtures, particularly against second rate opposition. But if England are once again to compete with the world''s best (and it''s a big "if"), the only way will be to build a squad/team for a particular tournament. Dammit, Germany have been doing just that for years. France did it in 1998 to 2000. Brazil and Argentina used to, but have not been doing that recently . England did it with the Rugby in 2004, and look what happened .

 

One area where I do agree with you is that the "prospects" have got to be pretty good and coached to the highest standard, and it''s those aspects where England have been found wanting over the last 30 odd years.

[/quote]

I disagree with nearly all of this. The players who should regularly be in the England squad are the players who class is permanent. The players who play well season after season will get into the team and will become your regulars. Then you add in the odd one or two are supremely on form. This will add energy and drive to your team, as well as fresh impetus every game, weekend, tournament.

English squad should have been:

Hart, Green (regulars) Ruddy

Ashley Cole, Leighton Baines, Glen Johnson, Phil Jones, Micah Richards, (regulars on form) Kyle Walker

Gareth Barry, Stewart Downing, Adam Johnson Steven Gerrard, James Milner, Scott Parker, Ashley Young, Theo Walcott, (regulars) Tom Cleverley, Leon Britton, Anthony Pilkington (new)

Daniel Sturridge, Jemaine Defoe, Danny Welbeck, Grant Holt, Danny Graham,

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="CantonsHero"]his. The players who should regularly be in the England squad are the players who class is permanent. [/quote]

 

Don''t quite understand the consistency of this CH.

 

On the one hand you say you should pick people whose class is permanent, and then on the other you pick Holt, Graham, Sturridge  and Welbeck, who''ve all got well less than one season''s Prem experience under their belt .

[Yellow Messiah 0]

If Pilkington can make it in to the England squad, then so surely can Elliot Bennett who I have always thought is the better player. Stewart Downing is over-rated massively I doubt he''s much better than Surman a similar player who didn''t cost us £20 million.

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="Ncfc123"]

If Pilkington can make it in to the England squad, then so surely can Elliot Bennett who I have always thought is the better player. Stewart Downing is over-rated massively I doubt he''s much better than Surman a similar player who didn''t cost us £20 million.

[/quote]

 

 

Would much rather have any of our players instead of Downing.   Never understood why he is considered England material. Surman would be much more useful, reliable and consistent.      They just need to get ''good'' players in who will just do the job, not  ''special'' players who rarely live up to their potential.  

 

 

 

[Michael Starr 522]

What I think is quite interesting is that we all seem to have various ideas on how to move forward with the whole England thing which suggests there is perfect way. Perhaps success to some degree is also down to good old fashioned luck also? i.e. Geoff Hurst playing ahead of Jimmy Greaves in the 66 tournament following a Greaves early tournament injury? Interestingly, Hurst was the form player that time.

[Michael Starr 522]

I meant no perfect way!

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Michael Starr"]What I think is quite interesting is that we all seem to have various ideas on how to move forward with the whole England thing which suggests there is perfect way. Perhaps success to some degree is also down to good old fashioned luck also? i.e. Geoff Hurst playing ahead of Jimmy Greaves in the 66 tournament following a Greaves early tournament injury? Interestingly, Hurst was the form player that time.
[/quote]

 

There is some truth in what you say, Mike, but I think that was indeed more relevant 40 yrs ago. Don''t forget then that most of the teams in the world were absolute no-hopers then . The likes of England would pitch up to play Finland, Denmark, Ivory Coast, Paraguay etc and they''d be able to run up a cricket score. Now there really are not any easy games in World Football . I really do not think that there''s as much an element of luck involved nowadays.

 

One thingI think we are all agreed upon is that to be serious England contenders you''ve got to be a regular starter for a Prem team, and have been over a decent period of time. So that''s one reason why I agree with you about Downing. He cannot even be sure of a place in Liverpool''s team, so why is he an England player. But...to be fair, the same COULD be said of Pilkington !!!

[CantonsHero 0]

Don''t quite understand the consistency of this CH.

Regarding my statement. The players where "class is permenant," should be the players who are always playing well, therefore they will always make up the up of the team. For example, Gerrard, Cole, Rooney etc always seem to be playing well.

Then you have a series of players who are whitehot on form now that you also bring in. You''ll have a central squad of around 16/17 players who stay roughly similar, with 6 or 7 interchangable players keeping it all very fresh and competetitive.