England

[chaddyrovers]

7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

My point is that he doesnt really play that same role for Forest so there are question marks about his suitability in playing that holding role and how he would fare against proper opposition.

A few games against crap teams in which England werent tested doesnt answer those question marks. Neither does anything he did in under age groups, although I have probably as little idea as you as to whether he even played there.

Hes a good player, I am merely questioning how good he actually is, we have a habit of overhyping players based on a couple of games against crap teams. And also more importantly, how suited he is to that particular role.

That Gerrard and Lampard line is just a recycled one used out of context here. I am noy saying that we should stick all of Bellingham, Palmer and Foden all in and try to squeeze them in as we have in the past, I did say that we are correct to try and be more balanced.

But there has to be room for one of them in what is their natural position. Any of the 3 are a couple of levels above the likes of Rogers and if we cant get any of these in the team then something is wrong. I refuse to accept that say Bellingham playing as a number 10 ie his natural position is not good for the team.

Does it matter about his role at Forest given that he is playing with a different set of players but he was key player in their success last season which you can't deny RF99!

The under 21's tournament was live on channel 4. So I watched every England game thanks Rf99

He has more than shown he is good enough for that role in those games but as ever you are over critical and doubting his undoubtedly quality and talent. Howe was huge fan and didnt want to sell him when they did.

The Gerrard and Lampard situation is more than relevant to this point or last tournament when we played Foden on the left in the last tournament.  We didnt look balance. Also the team looks more balanced cos you have runners around Kane with 4 players looking to get forward and in behind. Its suits us. Rogers poor form shouldn't matters cos he isn't in poor form for England. 

I will repeat if Bellingham or Palmer have to left to get the team working together and Kane then so be it

[rigger]

2 hours ago, M_B said:

Not in old money Chaddy.

Got to admit I always consider 5 and 6 centre halves, as was always the case. 

Depends how old the money is. I remember 4 and 6 being half/wing backs.

[roversfan99]

29 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Does it matter about his role at Forest given that he is playing with a different set of players but he was key player in their success last season which you can't deny RF99!

The under 21's tournament was live on channel 4. So I watched every England game thanks Rf99

He has more than shown he is good enough for that role in those games but as ever you are over critical and doubting his undoubtedly quality and talent. Howe was huge fan and didnt want to sell him when they did.

The Gerrard and Lampard situation is more than relevant to this point or last tournament when we played Foden on the left in the last tournament.  We didnt look balance. Also the team looks more balanced cos you have runners around Kane with 4 players looking to get forward and in behind. Its suits us. Rogers poor form shouldn't matters cos he isn't in poor form for England. 

I will repeat if Bellingham or Palmer have to left to get the team working together and Kane then so be it

You are not actually reading what people are saying as is often the case.

My point about Anderson is that we cant be sure that he is perfectly suited to a role he hasnt really played in senior football, and isnt playing for his club. A few games against poor to awful international sides isnt enough evidence to suggest that against better sides he would be able to be as effective in that particular role.

The Gerrard and Lampard example is not a relevant counter argument to my point. I acknowledged that it feels like the team is more balanced with for example an inferior player in Gordon wide left who may not be as good as Foden or Palmer but is an actual left winger rather than a number 10 being squeezed in.

My point was that I dont believe that playing most likely a Bellingham OR Palmer OR Foden in any way does imbalance us as opposed to Rogers. Any of the 4 are natural number 10s, the first 3 are just better than Rogers.

I also think that Rogers will be dropped before the tournament. Bellingham missed out because he hadnt really been playing, although I am unsure if there is also a personal issue between the 2. Palmer was injured. I think either starts as soon as they are available and ready.

The fact that I believe you put Bellingham in your 11 in that position, but I may be wrong, says that you are either not reading what Ive put considering that I am suggesting the exact same thing, or are just trying to create arguments for the sake of it.