-
Posts
-
fact is sven is the coach taking us to the world cup, and he decides who goes, who plays.. we are supporters just get to watch it in the pub and get very nervouse
@Magoo wrote:
I think you will find Walcott is the middle finger to the FA. I actually cannot see this lad playing unless we are desperate.
We were desperate for a striker to replace owen yesterday, and ended not playing walcott, when defoe couldve done the job instead of downing.
@emmalush wrote:
@Magoo wrote:
I think you will find Walcott is the middle finger to the FA. I actually cannot see this lad playing unless we are desperate.
We were desperate for a striker to replace owen yesterday, and ended not playing walcott, when defoe couldve done the job instead of downing.
And the result of the match was……?
England won an opening qualifying match for the first time since 1982
:-s Didn’t we beat Tunisia in ’98?
@slayer wrote:
@emmalush wrote:
@Magoo wrote:
I think you will find Walcott is the middle finger to the FA. I actually cannot see this lad playing unless we are desperate.
We were desperate for a striker to replace owen yesterday, and ended not playing walcott, when defoe couldve done the job instead of downing.
And the result of the match was……?
England won an opening qualifying match for the first time since 1982
Wrong, we beat tunisia 2-0 in 98.
Yes we won 1-0, but my point is, if you take off a striker (our best available aswell) after 60mins, and replace him with an inexperienced winger, then its negative.
Had we had defoe, he would’ve been the natural replacement, and surely would’ve come on, so why the need for walcott?????
@emmalush wrote:
@slayer wrote:
@emmalush wrote:
@Magoo wrote:
I think you will find Walcott is the middle finger to the FA. I actually cannot see this lad playing unless we are desperate.
We were desperate for a striker to replace owen yesterday, and ended not playing walcott, when defoe couldve done the job instead of downing.
And the result of the match was……?
England won an opening qualifying match for the first time since 1982
Wrong, we beat tunisia 2-0 in 98.
Yes we won 1-0, but my point is, if you take off a striker (our best available aswell) after 60mins, and replace him with an inexperienced winger, then its negative.
Had we had defoe, he would’ve been the natural replacement, and surely would’ve come on, so why the need for walcott?????
Yes, we beat Tunisia 2-0 in France- my memory isnt what it was.
So he took off a striker who did absolutely nothing for 60 minutes and puts Joe Cole into a holding role- made sense at the time and still does- it did show Crouch up as a very limited target man with little ability to pass the ball effectively
Still comes back to my main point- we won 1-0, we are one result away from qualifying for the next round after only playing one game and your point is to moan about the fact we won- no better than our hyped up media trying to create something out of nothing
Since the final whistle yesterday, professionals in the game, and ex professionals are commentating as to which two from owen, rooney and crouch should start against sweeden.
No one is mentioning walcott as a possibility, why, because hes not good enough.
Beatie, johnson and defoe are.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!