Reasons why Holty shouldnt be picked for England...

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

Erm....anyone?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

The main reason for me is the difference between the international game and the domestic game. All those little moves Holt does where he backs into players to win free kicks, or leans on defenders to stop them jumping - they would all automatically be free kicks against England. I can''t see Holt being able to play 3 international games without getting a red card for his ''enthustiastic'' tackling. Holt had difficulty at the beginning of this season adapting to the difference between Championship refs and Premier League refs (and there really isn''t that much difference) - he would need time to adapt to the international game, and he just hasn''t got that.

 

Also whenever England play with a target man (or someone thought of that way) there is a habit of just lumping balls up front - I''d rather England didn''t take any players like that and force them to play a better and more affective style.

 

I love Holt, like every Norwich fan, but don''t think he would be a success at international level. The critisism he would face would then potentially damage his confidence and Norwich form.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,220]

That lone is not reason enough, Crouch has been doing stuff like that at international level and are you saying because Norwich have Holt in the side we just lump balls forward, if Norwich players can play it around on the edck surely our esteemed England internationals would not resort to "route one"???!!!.........

[Trent Canary 0]

Ive changed my mind and think he should be given a go. However the main reason for not picking him is that some players can just find the right club and the right system. Holt has found that at Norwich - before us he was a journeyman lower league player. Im not convinced that if he went to England or a top 6 team and had to learn a new system that he would be a success. At Norwich he is very much the focal point of our club, and is our cult hero - the pressures of playing for England are immensely different.Either way, he has definitely earned his chance - As frankly there are precious few strikers out there who could do the business for England.

[GJP 79]

I don''t see any real reason why he shouldn''t go.

 

You''ve only got to look at the way he''s made his way up through the leagues. He adapts and improves his game all the time. He''s a clever player.

 

He has "know how" that some younger players won''t have. If you look at someone like Danny Welbeck, he''s obviously got natural ability but he''s not great at leading the line on his own and he''s not a good finisher. He''s struggled to score goals for Man Utd this season, imagine if he''d have been at Norwich - would he have scored more than Grant Holt? Course not.

 

You need options and England run the risk of having too many players who are too similar to each other. Although I assume there will be one "target man" included in the squad.

 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]That lone is not reason enough, Crouch has been doing stuff like that at international level and are you saying because Norwich have Holt in the side we just lump balls forward, if Norwich players can play it around on the edck surely our esteemed England internationals would not resort to "route one"???!!!.........[/quote]

But Crouch was given time in internationals and in Europe with Liverpool to learn to stop doing those stupid things - I would also argue that he has never come close to doing it as much as Holt - who has racked up more fouls than any other player in the Premier League this season.

 

Norwich are use to playing with Holt so don''t resort to the long ball (although if you look at some of the passing patterns from Norwich games you will see we hit more than our fair share of long range passes) - However, if you saw any of the games Heskey or Crouch have recently played for England you will know as soon as there is some big up top they instantly look to hit them with the long ball (Liverpool have the same problem with Carroll). Which is maddness when Crouch is such a poor target man - this stems from the limited training time international teams get together and the lack of understanding of each others games. Again something that would be multiplied by bringing in Holt at the last minute.

 

International football has a much higher weighting towards ball retention than the Premier League, the same applies to European football - Bilbao destroying Man U showed that. With Holt constantly giving away fouls and possession it would hamper England in my opinion. The English tactic of a ''big guy up front'' hasn''t worked in an international competition for a very, very long time.

 

Holt''s a great player for Norwich and for the Premier League - that doesn''t mean he is a great player for international football.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

Nobody will know how he''ll do until he plays.Give the lad a chance I say. He''s earnt the opportunity.

[Absent Friend 0]

I totally agree with the first part of Bethnall''s post regarding the risk of him being "reffed" out of the game.  Crouch has had exactly that problem for England in the past.  He''s also scored a fair number of goals of course and has considerable international experience - so if you are going to pick that kind of player he would surely remain first choice. 

I''d love Holt to be given a shot at it, but can understand why he probably won''t.  It would be a short-term solution for a start.  He''s not so outstanding that he''ll turn failure into success this summer.  Neither are Welbeck or Frazer Campbell, but they do have time on their side; Holt doesn''t. 

And over the years various players have been given a chance on the back of one good season.  Players like Zamora, Kevin Beattie and Andy Johnson.  Paul Warhurst, the centre half turned front man   - remember him?  They''ve been "form" picks, but they haven''t really cut the mustard. 

The real puzzle for me is how they can leave Ruddy out, but that''s another matter.....

[Rob Sims 0]

Alot of valid points for Bethnal and agree with absent friend. I can see why he won''t be picked but it still doesn''t mean i don''t want him there! My new england shirt with holt 9 on the back will be hot off the press regardless of whether he goes to the Euros.

I''d love to see him fulfil his and probably most english professional footballers dream to play at least once for england. Get his cap, nugent and boothroyd have got one ffs!  I think then he can say that all the work he put in before and since with Norwich he has achieved in football everything he had ever dreamed of. I will probably die at my desk because i haven''t got enough money to retire! That is not my dream!

As soon as rooney is eligible they will bring him in and that will be around about the time the tounament ends for england.

 

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="Absent Friend"]

The real puzzle for me is how they can leave Ruddy out, but that''s another matter.....

[/quote]Indeed.Agree with the comparisons to the past as well. Kevin Phillips was top scorer one season and never did anything for England. James Beattie is the other that springs to mind. Michael Ricketts anyone?However as said, whether he would cut it at the highest level or not is unknown, but he definitely deserves the chance.

[Robert N. LiM 6,274]

When he scored goals in L1 there were lots who thought he wouldn''t do it in the Championship.

When he scored goals in the Championship there were lots who thought he wouldn''t do it in the Premier League.

I know.

I was one of them.

Is there a step up from the Premier League to the group stages of a European Championship?

He''s scored goals against Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd.

I never thought I''d say this at the start of the season, but he''s worth a go.

And you get the impression that, unlike many of the present shower, he would be pleased to be in the team and give it his all.

From a Norwich point of view, he''d be better off having the summer off. It''s great to see so many Norwich fans wanting him to be picked. Says a lot for the affection he is held in here.

[Dave 0]

I would love him to have a shot playing for england but have 2 good reasons for not too.

1. he may get injured and miss a considerable period for us.

2. If he does well other clubs come sniffing around and unsettle the team.

[Absent Friend 0]

[quote user="Trent Canary"][quote user="Absent Friend"]

The real puzzle for me is how they can leave Ruddy out, but that''s another matter.....

[/quote]

Indeed.

Agree with the comparisons to the past as well. Kevin Phillips was top scorer one season and never did anything for England. James Beattie is the other that springs to mind. Michael Ricketts anyone?

However as said, whether he would cut it at the highest level or not is unknown, but he definitely deserves the chance.
[/quote]

 

Er, yes, when I said Kevin Beattie obviously I meant Kevin Phillips, or James Beattie, or both.... 

"And you get the impression that, unlike many of the present shower, he would be pleased to be in the team and give it his all."

Spot on with that.  Maybe that''s something the Manager will take into account, assuming we ever get round to appointing one.

 

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

Holt should not be picked for the euro''s because

1. he would miss David Fox''s wedding

2. his level of commitment and pride of representing his country would humiliate the other England regulars

ermmm.. cant think of any others not already mentioned.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Lots of people on here are using the old "pick the man in form" argument as a reason why Holt should be going to Ukraine. That''s one of those blithe statements that sounds pretty good on the surface, but you do not have to scratch far beneath to see that it''s rarely, if ever, a successful policy, especially these days. The inclusion of  such in form (at the time) players as Kevin Davies, Jay Bothroyd, Bobby Zamora and David Nugent, are proof that it never works.

 

The usual counter argument cites Peters and Hurst in ''66, but a lot of water has flown under the bridge since then.

 

It''s OK saying GH should be given his chance. There might just be a case for that if we were a year away from a major tournament, and he''s have time to buy into the International football philosophy, but the fact is he has not got the luxury of that time.

 

I''m really not expecting much from England this time round, so, to my mind let''s pick the young up and coming ones for the future and give them a baptism of fire . At the very least whoever is in charge will see first hand how these players cut the mustard in a tournament situation, and whether they are worth persevering with.

 

I love Grant Holt as much as anyone, but he does in NO WAY represent the furure for England.

[Tetteys Jig 851]

Key thing is, we don''t have to decide yet, there''s 2 friendlies to play first, give him a run out in either of them, if he doesn''t do anything then i''ll rest easy, but he''s earnt a cap even if not a place to Euro 2012

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

 

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

Lots of people on here are using the old "pick the man in form" argument as a reason why Holt should be going to Ukraine. That''s one of those blithe statements that sounds pretty good on the surface, but you do not have to scratch far beneath to see that it''s rarely, if ever, a successful policy, especially these days. The inclusion of  such in form (at the time) players as Kevin Davies, Jay Bothroyd, Bobby Zamora and David Nugent, are proof that it never works.

 

The usual counter argument cites Peters and Hurst in ''66, but a lot of water has flown under the bridge since then.

 

It''s OK saying GH should be given his chance. There might just be a case for that if we were a year away from a major tournament, and he''s have time to buy into the International football philosophy, but the fact is he has not got the luxury of that time.

 

I''m really not expecting much from England this time round, so, to my mind let''s pick the young up and coming ones for the future and give them a baptism of fire . At the very least whoever is in charge will see first hand how these players cut the mustard in a tournament situation, and whether they are worth persevering with.

 

I love Grant Holt as much as anyone, but he does in NO WAY represent the furure for England.

[/quote]

I do understand your point Mr Pickles, building for the future is probably how most England fans view this euro''s however, how many clubs are currently 8 or 9 years into their ''5 year plan'', how long have Arsenal been a team in transitionl, how many successful managers build a team from kids to champions (one notible exception in SAF). Play for now and put out the best team we can. If Wellbeck or Sturidge are going to be world class players they will reach their potential wheather they go to the euro''s in a few months or not. Can you honestly say Walcott benefited from going to the world cup with Sven? A footballers development will be dictated by the coaching and games he plays for week in week out and when finally they do break into the national side because they are performing consistantly in the Prem (or champ) it will mean so much more to them rather than a divine right that some players seem to think playing for England is if you are at a big club and hyped my the media.

Reading that back it sounds more aggressive than it is supposed to be, just annoys me that sometimes players are picked on reputation rather than current ability, or form if you want to call it that (form throughout a full season is abit different to ''form'' as most people use it). Should Holt go to the Euro''s.. maybe, its not always about goals scored, should Ruddy go..definately 100% the second best English goalkeeper currently available to us.

[It's Character Forming 1,204]

Interesting thread.  Fact is for England we don''t have an established centre forward, so the choice is either revert to someone who''s past their best like Crouch, or you go for someone new and inexperienced at international level.  The aim should be to put out a team that can do as well as possible at the Euros - forget building a team for the next World Cup, the aim is to win the Euros, nothing more, nothing less.

 

And when players come in to play for England, some don''t make the step up, and some do - it''s hard to predict in advance.  Some players come in and look comfortable immediately, others always look out of their depth.  The only way to find out is to give them a go.

 

I think Holty has definitely done enough to be given a chance in the friendlies before the tournament.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

The aim should be to put out a team that can do as well as possible at the Euros - forget building a team for the next World Cup, the aim is to win the Euros, nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]

I think you need to aim to do both. You want to go to the Euros and give it your best shot but given the choice you''d surely rather win the World Cup than the Euros.

 

So, in my opinion, it''s a case of finding a squad of players that can be competitive at the Euros but with the longer term view of using that as a platform to build on for the next World Cup and beyond.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Some of you still seem to view Holty as an old-fashioned battering ram centre forward who can''t play anything but the physical game. That''s poppycock! If you watch Holty he is far more than just that. He picks a pass as well as any in our team. He''s the best finisher at the club by a country mile. He''s the best crosser of the ball in open play. (Just ask Morison). Just watch him play sometimes without following the ball. On Monday he dropped back from the Spurs defence into space to receive the ball. He then has the ability to play someone else through on goal. He could quite comfortably play tip of the diamond.

 

Robert calls it right. First of all he "wasn''t good enough for the Championship". Then he "wasn''t good enough if we wanted to get out of the Championship". Then he "wasn''t good enough for the Premier League". And now he "isn''t good enough for England". We won ''t know until we try will we? But many of the reasons given here don''t relate to the Grant Holt I''ve been watching!

 

 

[chicken 0]

Right, first off I would like Holt to go because I genuinely feel that he offers something different. He isn''t an out and out target man and he isn''t the little pacey man - that alone throws teams because they can''t push and batter him like they do smaller players, he also has good skill and a great eye for goal so they can''t just let him have the ball and not let him turn. To me he has a lot to offer even if it is coming off the bench.

However, putting my other cap on I can also see why some may not take him. To me it is not just about form it is about experience. Rooney is going to miss a couple of games but after that he simply has to start the games because he is the best forward thinking player we have.

The question is that second birth. Now you have the likes of Abonlahor, Wellbeck and Crouch who have all played at international level before and so understand what that level of football demands.

Now most people accept that at the begining of the season Holt appeared to have to adjust to the prem, what if he needs three or four games to adjust to the international game? Remember he has no Champions League experience.

Another thing is if the England manager has an idea of who his top three strikers are it''s also about what will players gain from an experience of seeing a tournament from the bench? Holt is 31, he will be 33 come the next world cup. He may well still be good then as his overall game does not rely upon pace but do you take him ahead of a youngster who may not have the experience as of yet but who could come good in the next two years and be pushing for an England start?

There is more to consider.

Like I said, I think he should go. I would like to see what if his energy and enthiusiasm can rub off on the national team too, a bit like how Gazza did in ''96.

[Devils Advocate. 0]

My heart says that Holt deseves a chance to play for England , as a reward for his monumental efforts since joining us. I would love to see him play and do well because he seems to represent the ordinary man in the street rather than the so called superstars. Because I love Norwich above England however, I wonder whether he needs a rest after a gruelling season in the Prem, after all we need him more than England and the thought of him sustaining an injury would be to much to bear.

  The question of his age doesn''t enter into it for me. Lampard, Cole, Terry, etc are all around the same age and are not the future, the future starts in September when the World Cup qualifiers begin. Euro 2012 will be the beginning of the end for this golden generation and Grant Holts England career would only last as long as Rooney''s suspension.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

Hes plays for "Little ole Norwich"

 

Hes too old!

 

Hes fat!

 

Hes a lower League player got lucky!

 

This is how many fans outside of East Anglia will think!

[Clever Farke 75]

He deserves to be selected in a friendly and take it from there. England have nothing to lose and I would burst with pride for him if it happened.

[ellis206 0]

He has to go, he is a threat that England haven''t had in ages, and with Rooney (our only real world class striker) out, Holt is the best of a bad bunch so to speak. All this talk about England resorting to playing long ball if we had a target man etc, well we kind of have too, if we try and play "football" against Spain, Germany, even France, we will get played off the park, we are years behind these countries, we need to play neat tidy football and have the ability to play long ball, exactly like Norwich do these days!!! Holt is far more dangerous than Welbeck, Sturridge etc, Holt and Defoe strike force would be pretty mouthwatering in my opinion.

[Monty13 2,736]

I can''t believe some people are suggesting that the euros should be used, and the team should be picked, as preparation for the world cup. I want us to win it, every fan should, the manager (whoever the he''ll it is) should and every player going should.

The team that''s picked should be for one purpose, bringing that trophy home, if it isn''t then we may as well not turn up. And if we seriously want players determined to bring that trophy home then Holt should be going and he''s not the only unfashioned yet passionate player I''d rather see there. The world cup is 2 years away and we have a qualifying campaign and numerous friendlies to prepare players, but at the end of the day when that team gets picked I want Englands best team capable of winning at that time to go. People can dismiss 66 as a different era and passed glory, or maybe we should be analysing a bit more why that team was quite so successful, I honestly think the only thing that''s really changed substantially in football since then is the money.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Monty13"]. People can dismiss 66 as a different era and passed glory, or maybe we should be analysing a bit more why that team was quite so successful, I honestly think the only thing that''s really changed substantially in football since then is the money.[/quote]

 

I can only surmise that Monty is posting that comment tongue in cheek . What''s changed about football since 1966, apart from money ? Well, where do you want me to begin. ?

 

Completely different tactical ideas. Better coaches. Different formations. Better organised defences. Far higher levels of fitness. New, more effective ways of dealing with injuries. Played at a much quicker pace. Even "smaller countries" are now more tactically aware and thus more difficult to beat. Substitutes allowed.

 

Where do you want me to stop ?!

 

The reason why some of us are suggesting using the Euros as a testing ground for the World Cup, Monty, is that IS the reality of the situation. Whatever team England puts out has not a snowball  in hell''s chance of winning it, but, we do have some very promising young (untried) players who could make an impact in a couple of years.

[Shack Attack 0]

Looking back at previous squads I would presume that there are four places in the squad for strikers. Rooney will definitely go even though he misses the first two matches. I would take Sturridge as he can play both as a striker and wide right in a front three which is likely to be the formation we go with I suspect. That leaves two spots up for grabs. He also has ten league goals this season which is decent. Bent would have taken one of those spots as he has been in decent form at international level but he looks like he won''t make it. The other contenders would appear to be Holt, Welbeck, Crouch, Carroll and Defoe. I think they will take Welbeck for the experience as much as anything and he does have a lot of the attributes you associate with a modern number nine. You can argue that he doesn''t score enough goals but there is a lot more to playing up front at international level (especially if you''re on your own which could well happen) than sticking the ball in the back of the net.

 

That leaves one space and out of the candidates mentioned above I would take Holt without a second thought. A player in form and who is probably little known outside of this country (maybe even outside of Norfolk!) who offers something a little different to the rest. Crouch and Defoe have had their chance and although Crouch has had a decent goalscoring record at international level in the pastthere is no guarantee he will recreate that now. Carroll may have looked the obvious choice as a future England number nine eighteen months ago but he is woefully out of form and short on confidence.

 

The only negatives I can think of surrounding his possible inclusion are that it may take him time to get used to international football which he probably wouldn''t have due to the Rooney suspension and the relative short nature of international tournaments and that his ''robust'' style may not earn him favour with international referees. But there are negatives surrounding all of the other candidates too and they don''t have the positive feature of scoring thirteen league goals this season. Give him a go I say. It''s not as if we stand any chance of winning the thing whether he plays or not!

[lake district canary 0]

Its simple.

 

Grant Holt scores goals - its what he does.

 

International football is just football.

 

Give him his chance and Grant Holt will score - its what he does!!

 

Why shouldn''t he go?  

 

 

[Ruddygore 0]

Whoever ends up managing England hasn''t got the time to build a team, coach a team full of youngsters, develop team spirit, bonding and even practice multiple tactics and strategies. Be honest do you expect him to even have the players for long enough to do much of anything?

I hope whoever it is is pragmatic enough to take some players in form from the premiership, those with some older heads showing the sort of spirit that will inspire some of the youngsters and help them settle.

With Rooney out of the first couple of games will he put that much pressure on Walcott or team him or Defoe up with Holt as a Rooney replacement.

Crouch might be a prospect but how well has he performed in the past? Most international defenders at the top of their game know how to deal with him, they''ve seen him off for the last few years and competitions haven''t they?

We all know that even at 30 Grant will be a breath of fresh air, solid, he''s enjoying the best fitness of his life and he''ll score goals - I''d bet the house on it.