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.

[chaddyrovers]

42 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

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.

I have read what you say but you go on your little soap box. 

Yes I picked Bellingham as the 10 but after watching the games and listening to other people opinions about how well we played and look like a team and had runners off Kane, I can understand why people want Rogers in the 10 cos how can play off Kane. Do you not see that? Do you not see that the team must cone first? 

I reckon Rogers place is already confirm he will go world cup injuries. 

[Hasta]

12 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. 

This crops up every year. Growing up in the, 80s 5s and 6s were always centre halves. 

Now it’s become common in coaching circles to refer to them as defensive midfielders, what I would regard as a four.

However every season if you look at Premier League squads, 6 is predominantly still a centre back. This season there are 11 centre backs., 5 defensive mids and 3 full backs. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Hasta

[arbitro]

11 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. 

I'm with you.

The using of numbers instead of positions is one of these chic innovations to make the new breed of coaches and pundits sound clever.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

I have read what you say but you go on your little soap box. 

Yes I picked Bellingham as the 10 but after watching the games and listening to other people opinions about how well we played and look like a team and had runners off Kane, I can understand why people want Rogers in the 10 cos how can play off Kane. Do you not see that? Do you not see that the team must cone first? 

I reckon Rogers place is already confirm he will go world cup injuries. 

I can’t see what Rogers did the other night apart from one or two little passes. He was just making up the numbers.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

11 hours ago, rigger said:

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

That was when teams only needed one centre half. Number 5.

Edited 7 hours ago by Tyrone Shoelaces

[Upside Down]

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

I'm with you.

The using of numbers instead of positions is one of these chic innovations to make the new breed of coaches and pundits sound clever.

Agreed, with the exception of a number 9 and number 10 because they both played as part of a front 2 (oohhh how uncouth), numbers were never used to describe a players position. At least not that I can remember. 

It's now become en vogue to use numbers for every possible position on the pitch. The people who have brought on this trend just look like a bunch of complete clowns though because 

1. They use the wrong numbers for the wrong position.

2. Show me a team in the last 20 years that lined up 1-11.

3. If you want to say defensive midfielder, just fucking say defensive midfielder! You're not clever because you have coined some bullshit term for something that's existed for 150+ years, you're just a twat.

4. In years gone by teams were far more rigid in their setup so you could expect to see the guy wearing number 4 to be a defensive mid, the guy wearing number 5 to be a centre back, 7 & 11 on the wing etc but football hasn't been like that since the early 2000s at the very latest. Formations change, player's roles change and the tactics have changed, a lot. Remember when Jose gave a central defender the number 9 jersey? If 6 was 9 eh.

[Tugayisgod]

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, Tugayisgod said:

Always with his head up.

[jim mk2]

The problem is, England are overloaded with midfield players with the latest Anderson (an excellent player) breaking through and another who is ahead of Wharton 

You get the feeling Adam is going to need a move to a "big" club for England to pick him