Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
CharlieFarlie

Ruddy in NO Holt

Recommended Posts

Guest
[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

[quote user="lincoln canary"]Same old shite. .[/quote]

As for whoever said that the squad should not be picked on past efforts, well, agreed but, as well as current form, potential for the future is also a vital aspect. That''s why Holty was never  going to be in the squad . He''s done great things for us, but just is not going to be one for the furure, is he ?

[/quote]Potential for the future? That''s why our centre-mid consists of Gerrard, Lampard, Barry and Parker, all of whom are over the age of 30, most of whom have been injured this season, and none of whom (perhaps excluding Parker) have cut it at this level before?Have we not had enough of this "players for the future" mantra? I would rather take in-form players and have a stab at actually progressing in the Euros, than take young players who have potential. There are plenty of friendlies over the next couple of years for that.I still want us to do well, but you have to wonder why (ignoring Holt) some players like Johnson, Richards, and Crouch have been left out considering the options that have been picked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''ll just repeat what everyone is Tweeting, Texting, Posting, Saying.....

Downing??? Carroll??? Defoe??? and then of course Holt???? Johnson????

Chuffed for Ruddy. But the rest is a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Aggy"]Carrick in for Barry, Richards in for Glen Johnson and either Adam Johnson or Lennon (my preferred option) in for Downing. Other than that though, I think it''s a fairly reasonable squad. Defoe I don''t mind being in - we were only ever going to take on big man, and I do think that if you''re going to want to bring someone on in the last 15 minutes to finish a chance, Defoe is that man, superb finisher. Really it was a toss up between Holt, Crouch and Carroll for that big man spot. Carroll, on form, is better than both of those two. He''s been woefully out of form this season, but has looked like coming back into something like a bit of form recently. Plus the fact that Holt and Crouch are both the wrong side of 30, and Carroll is only what, 22, I don''t think it''s a completely ridiculous decision. Harsh on Grant, but we can''t have it both ways. You can''t call for the likes of Lampard and Terry to be dropped in favour of youth, and then want a 31 year old who is untested at international level to come in over someone with huge potential who is 22.[/quote]

 

On what do you base your opinion that Carroll is better than Holt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to reiterate what others are saying Downing over Johnson is a huge joke!

 

If Roy hadn''t managed Liverpool, I wonder how many of their players would be in the squad?[:^)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

[quote user="lincoln canary"]Same old shite. .[/quote]

 

And same old shite from supposed England fans like you, LC . You''ve written them off before they''ve even started .

 

As for whoever said that the squad should not be picked on past efforts, well, agreed but, as well as current form, potential for the future is also a vital aspect. That''s why Holty was never  going to be in the squad . He''s done great things for us, but just is not going to be one for the furure, is he ?

 

Which is wy Ruddy is a different thing altogether. If he can avoid any gaffes, he''ll be around for a while in International terms. But, the reality is that unless Hart gets injured or red-carded, Ruddy''s not actually going to play any significant part.

[/quote]

 

Players for the future?  Well on that basis several of those who made the squad, shouldn''t have!

[/quote]

 

Agree absolutely there NBS. I just cannot see why people like Terry, and Gerrard are in.  But you cannot have it both ways . It''s not fair to grumble about their age and then get all resentful because a 31 yo striker with no international experience at all is omitted.

 

Surely, it''s down to a matter of balance ? I''d agree that it''s important to have people in form included, but by the same token, and I repeat, they have got to be people who will have something to offer in the future as well. Of course we do not to write off this tournament, but it has a second function...ie to give younger players the benefit of experience of high pressure, tournament football. For better or worse, he''s only gone with 4 strikers, so it IS absolutely vital that those four are people with potential for the future.

 

You guys may not like it...but that''s the reality of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good Afternoon.If a manager selected the players through

form/merit, Holt and Rickie Lambert would be the starting

forwards for the next England game, but neither of the afforementioned

will ever represent their country because in theory only does an England

manager select the squad -- in practice it''s the English Football

Association that picks the team and it is now obvious that Roy has the same sized knackers as previous England managers.''Arry would''ve done no differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

[quote user="lincoln canary"]Same old shite. .[/quote]

 

And same old shite from supposed England fans like you, LC . You''ve written them off before they''ve even started .

 

As for whoever said that the squad should not be picked on past efforts, well, agreed but, as well as current form, potential for the future is also a vital aspect. That''s why Holty was never  going to be in the squad . He''s done great things for us, but just is not going to be one for the furure, is he ?

 

Which is wy Ruddy is a different thing altogether. If he can avoid any gaffes, he''ll be around for a while in International terms. But, the reality is that unless Hart gets injured or red-carded, Ruddy''s not actually going to play any significant part.

[/quote]

I am sorry but I think what you have said is alot of old claptrap. There''s always someone like you who comes out of the woodwork with nonsense at times like this. We''re talking about a flipping tournament, a one-off contest that teams are taking part in to try and win, not some practice matches as investment for the future. What alot of tripe you have spewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

Just to reiterate what others are saying Downing over Johnson is a huge joke!

[/quote]

 

Sorry but Adam Johnson is massively overrated. One good game (often against average opposition) followed by five poor ones. If he were a young foreign winger at Citeh nobody would pay him any attention. Downing has had an awful season but Johnson is not that much better than him if he is any better at all. Neither of them would be in my squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m obviously pleased for Ruddy and I anticipated Holty wouldn''t be given a chance but......

Andy Carroll? Surely Crouch offers more and is technically superior.

Rooney is unavailable for two games; Welbeck isn''t a great finisher and Defoe is an impact sub. Sturridge is better than all of them.

What hold does Terry have over people in the game. From the outside he just seems to be a liability. It was Wayne Bridge before the last competition and Antonio Ferdinand before this. As an experienced player his sending off vs Barca was ludicrous. Why is he still popular in the FA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

[quote user="lincoln canary"]Same old shite. .[/quote]

 

And same old shite from supposed England fans like you, LC . You''ve written them off before they''ve even started .

 

As for whoever said that the squad should not be picked on past efforts, well, agreed but, as well as current form, potential for the future is also a vital aspect. That''s why Holty was never  going to be in the squad . He''s done great things for us, but just is not going to be one for the furure, is he ?

 

Which is wy Ruddy is a different thing altogether. If he can avoid any gaffes, he''ll be around for a while in International terms. But, the reality is that unless Hart gets injured or red-carded, Ruddy''s not actually going to play any significant part.

[/quote]

 

Players for the future?  Well on that basis several of those who made the squad, shouldn''t have!

[/quote]

 

Agree absolutely there NBS. I just cannot see why people like Terry, and Gerrard are in.  But you cannot have it both ways . It''s not fair to grumble about their age and then get all resentful because a 31 yo striker with no international experience at all is omitted.

 

Surely, it''s down to a matter of balance ? I''d agree that it''s important to have people in form included, but by the same token, and I repeat, they have got to be people who will have something to offer in the future as well. Of course we do not to write off this tournament, but it has a second function...ie to give younger players the benefit of experience of high pressure, tournament football. For better or worse, he''s only gone with 4 strikers, so it IS absolutely vital that those four are people with potential for the future.

 

You guys may not like it...but that''s the reality of the situation.

[/quote]

 

Not in my opinion it''s not the reality.  Jermain Defoe potential for the future?

 

So if they have to have something to offer for the future that only applies to uncapped players and not the old timers?[:^)]

 

Surely the main objective first and foremost is to try and win the tournament, anything else is secondary?

 

Using Carroll as an example, we take him as one of the four in case he may perhaps be good in the future?  I just can''t buy into that.  We have taken 4 strikers, one of whom, Rooney is suspended, so the other 3 MUST score goals and therefore you take players in form.  Will Carroll do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

Just to reiterate what others are saying Downing over Johnson is a huge joke!

[/quote]

 

Sorry but Adam Johnson is massively overrated. One good game (often against average opposition) followed by five poor ones. If he were a young foreign winger at Citeh nobody would pay him any attention. Downing has had an awful season but Johnson is not that much better than him if he is any better at all. Neither of them would be in my squad.

[/quote]

 

And you would have taken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBS - I base it upon the fact that even when he wasn''t scoring, he was about three times more of a threat in the air and more of a physical presence than both of them. Holt''s not bad on the ground, Crouch is better, and Carroll is probably somewhere in between.

If we''re looking for a target man/big man position, then Crouch really should be ruled out straight away - for someone his size, he is a terrible target man. And Carroll is better in the air and far stronger than Holt. The only thing Holt had up on him was the fact he has been putting the ball in the back of the net, whilst Carroll hasn''t. Carroll hasn''t got himself back into full form yet, no, admitted. But he''s the better target man than Holt, has started to look like he is finding his goalscoring boots again, and is 10 years younger than Holt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lincoln canary"]Downing over Lennon too.[/quote]

Sorry LC but I disagree....the stats don''t lie...

Stewart Downing....Played 36.....Scored 0......Asists 0....

.......I forget my point.....[:P]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, in response to your question to Shack above, whilst I think Adam Johnson is a better player than Downing, I think Lennon - when fit - has been much better than both of them this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Aggy"]NBS - I base it upon the fact that even when he wasn''t scoring, he was about three times more of a threat in the air and more of a physical presence than both of them. Holt''s not bad on the ground, Crouch is better, and Carroll is probably somewhere in between. If we''re looking for a target man/big man position, then Crouch really should be ruled out straight away - for someone his size, he is a terrible target man. And Carroll is better in the air and far stronger than Holt. The only thing Holt had up on him was the fact he has been putting the ball in the back of the net, whilst Carroll hasn''t. Carroll hasn''t got himself back into full form yet, no, admitted. But he''s the better target man than Holt, has started to look like he is finding his goalscoring boots again, and is 10 years younger than Holt.[/quote]

 


When Carroll wasn''t scoring?  So basically all the time!  Even when he was woefully off his magical, prolific best, he''s 3 times more of a threat than Holt in the air and more of a physical presence, really?  Far stronger than Holt?

 

A better target man than Holt?  You''re basically saying Holt''s been scoring and that''s about it.  Holt''s allround game is a lot poorer than Carrolls then?  And how much of Carroll have you seen this season and how much of Holt have you seen? 

 

And what goalscoring boots are these?[:^)]  Just remind me how many Premier League goals Carroll has scored in his whole career and in how many games?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Al Catraz"]

 I am sorry but I think what you have said is alot of old claptrap. There''s always someone like you who comes out of the woodwork with nonsense at times like this. .[/quote]

 

Well, I appreciate your "sorrow" , Al, but it''s not my idea. Actually It''s what France did in the late 90''s ( before they won in 98 and 2000) . What Germany have done on a pretty regular basis( before the modicum of success they''ve had from time to time). What England Rugby did in the early noughties ( before they won in 2005). What the Aussies tended to do in Cricket (before they won a few tournaments) and so on.

 

Personally, I''m not sure that the people we''ve got are good enough to provide any sort of success either now, or in the future. But, let''s give them a chance.  One area I do agee with most is that the old guard have had their day and should not be in the squad.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Aggy"]And, in response to your question to Shack above, whilst I think Adam Johnson is a better player than Downing, I think Lennon - when fit - has been much better than both of them this season.[/quote]

 

Are you Shacks spokesperson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]As for whoever said that the squad should not be picked on past efforts, well, agreed but, as well as current form, potential for the future is also a vital aspect. That''s why Holty was never  going to be in the squad . He''s done great things for us, but just is not going to be one for the furure, is he ?[/quote]John TerryAshley ColeScott ParkerSteven GerrardFrank LampardGareth BarryAll older or the same age as Holt - so where''s the ''future'' choices in that lot?Sorry buddy, but this is a joke. If it''s based on age, then these 6 shouldn''t be travelling, it''s certainly not based on form, which only leads us to the inevitable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Butterbean_Canary"]

[quote user="lincoln canary"]Downing over Lennon too.[/quote]

Sorry LC but I disagree....the stats don''t lie...

Stewart Downing....Played 36.....Scored 0......Asists 0....

.......I forget my point.....[:P]

[/quote]Tim Howard has scored more than Downing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair on Defoe he''s scored 17 goals this year, 11 in the PL. He deserved a place ahead of Sturridge or Welbeck. Carroll over Holt is a massive joke. Downing over A.Johnson is a joke. G.Johnson over Richards Or Walker is a joke.

Picking Oxlade-Chamberlain may turn out be a good thing I don''t know. But what exactly has he done to warrant his selection? With Rooney being banned for the first 2 games we should have taken 5 strikers. For say we start with Carroll and Welbeck up front for the first game. At half time we''re 1-0 down, we haven''t had one decent chance and Carroll has done f.a as per usual. Who exactly are we going to bring on up-front to play with Welbeck? Defoe? Holt changes games and no matter what anyone says he deserved to be in that team.

Well done to Ruddy. Proves what Tw*t''s some Norwich fans are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is saying that Carroll is a better target man than Holt the same as saying that Holt has been scoring and that is it?

It''s saying that Holt is a good target man. Carroll is better. Yep, he''s stronger than Holt and better in the air. So yes, his all round game is poorer than Carroll''s. I''ve seen more of Holt than I have seen of Carroll, but how does that make any impact on anything? How much have you seen of any of the players in the England squad compared to Norwich players? On that basis, the England squad would be full of only Norwich players, because you''ve only seen everyone else once or twice this season. Bit of a silly argument don''t you think!

Carroll was prolific in his last couple of seasons at Newcastle. As I said in my post, he isn''t scoring for fun yet, but he has looked more like scoring in the past three or four weeks.

I did also say that the one thing Holt had above Carroll is his scoring record this season. If they had both scored the same amount of goals, then Carroll would be easily the better choice, because his strength and aerial ability is better than Holt''s.

When he wasn''t scoring - yes, for most of the season - then Holt probably does look the better choice, despite his all round game not being as good as Carroll''s. However, Carroll has started to score again recently, and has looked very dangerous in the past couple of Liverpool games. He looks like he might be getting back to his goalscoring best. He might not be, but he might be.

On top of that, Holt is 31, and this would be his one and only tournament if he were to go. Carroll is 22, has shown immense talent whilst at Newcastle, has shown at Liverpool that even when he''s not scoring he is still very strong and very good in the air, and now looks like he might be starting to get some finishing form back.

I''m not saying Carroll was a million miles better than Holt or that Holt should have been completely overlooked from the off. But if it''s a three way toss up between Holt, Crouch and Carroll, then Carroll has got the best all round game of the three. Holt has scored the most goals, but his all round game is the weakest of the three. Carroll is starting to look like he might start scoring regularly again, so if he''s got the best all round game, I don''t think it''s that big a deal to take him over Holt and Crouch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sent a message to James Nursey from The Daily Mirror on twitter questioning him on a tweet basically saying why would Roy face criticism from the public by selecting a 30+ ex tyre fitter

This was his reply

"I''ve written a few stories and tweets saying Holt for England but the FA are not having him and you have to ask why. Think image problem"

What image problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I Shacks'' spokesperson? No, but when discussing the squad selection of the national team on a public messageboard, in which you question one selection and then ask someone to support an argument for another player, I don''t think it''s unreasonable to give my opinion on the matter, on a public messageboard. Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×