I have been really impressed woth Argentina so far but I thought they actually looked little vulnerable at the back. If Mexico had beter strikers I rekon they could hae comeout of that with a win. However you have to suspect that Argentina were playing at around 70% for most of the game. If anyone can beat them I would imagine Germany, the way they are playing, are the team to do it. I hope they don't though!

I don't know about anybody else but (presuming that we get past Ecuador fingers crossed) I would much rather play Holland or Portugal than Argentina, Germany (godammit, why are they suddenly so good?!) Spain or Brazil. On current form the Portuguese are better than us (the dutch are not, about the same) but I still reckon we can beat those sides. The four I mention above however would have me seriously worrying.

I think this is is going to work and we will put inby far our best performance of the tournament so far. It looks balanced and skillful with threat all over the pitch. The inclusion of Carrick will enourmously improve our ability to retain the ball. --------------------Rooney--------------------- ------J Cole----------------------Gerrard----- ------------Lampard----Beckham----------- -------------------Carrick-------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----A Cole--Ferdinand-Terry-Hargreaves- ----------------------------------------------- --------------------Robinson----------------- I have a really good feeling about this. If Lampard, Gerrard and J Cole as they can support Rooney well then this could is the change that transforms the team. With Carrick sitting in the full backs and the central midfielders are goingto have much more opportunity to get forward. It is the first time Sven has made a real tactical gamble and I applaud it! Come on England!

I thought South Korea-Swiss today was an excellent advert for the world cup. Outstanding technical ability combined with a real, especially from the koreans, give it your all attitude. A joy to watch. I wouldn't mind seeing the Korean right back at Rovers! Excellent player andcould physically mix it with the big Swiss guys.

I have a funny feeling that we may see Walcott yet, but more than likely in the 80th minute when we are two down and it's too late. Im still of the opinion Defoe's presence in the sqaud would not increase our chances any.

Nelsen is world class. If you want more glamour then why not Tugay or Pedersen? I think I am going to plump for Tugay.

The unbelivable was not a not of suprise, i am aware how good Argentina are, just that the stuff they were sticking together out there was incredible. Sublime short passing. As for England clearly we are not is the same league technically as some of the argentine players but I wouldn't say we are too bad- Ashley Cole, Joe Cole, Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, Beckham and even Lennon all have good feet. So do Rio and Terry at the back in the context of defenders. If we can make other teams play to our drum we have a chance- fast paced football and a strong physical dimesion to the game. I do agree thought that unless we imposed ourselves we would be murdered by Argentina or Brazil. Spain are also a great team but I am a little less worried about them. Italy do not really frighten me. Anyhow this Argentina side are the best technical side i have EVER seen. Bugger. ps. The one thing I have garnered from wathcing the game is that if we play them we have to have Hargreaves or a defensive midfielder in the side. We would never get the ball otherwise!

To be fair to Sven I would not be full of any sort of confidence if we were coming into games with Defoe or Bent up front. Decent players but hardly going to worry the likes of Puyol or Ayala. At least Crouch's height gives us something different. Realistically I think we are better of playing Cole or Gerrard as strikers rather than using those guys so I guess that was Sven's idea. Still clearly we could have used Defoe rather than have Walcott just in case, asyou say Rev, Rooney breaks down and we are really screwed. And yes, the inclusion of Jenas does seem utterly pointless!

Well, I'm watching Argentina at the moment and they are a million billion times better than us. Unbelievable. I guess, as that article suggests, we could play a line up like this: We could play some really nice football that way but we would have no height in the box? Suppose I could maybe see Sven being this bold next game, maybe not dropping Beckham and instead putting him in instead of Lampard. I think Sven is being a lot more open to tactical experimentation at the moment.

I don't think in terms of posession and good football we are certainly not weakend by losing Owen. But he scores goals against the run of play ALL the time. We need that. Forexample when Sweden were battering us in our own half it would of been typical Owen to score one at the other end. Still, we have enough good player still to progress in the tournament. Its a case of getting them to play well together for 90 minutes.

Well if we lose bellamy he is certainly better than what we have. But then i would hope we would be lloking to buy more of a goal scorer than Crouch is. He lays off the ball well but whats the point if we have no one to stick it in the net?

A really mixed performance today. We looked great in the first half and Hargreaves looked decent as did Crouch dropping back. Joe Cole was excellent. Rooney was off the pace and Beckham was poor throughout. Second half we began even better and then completely fell apart. At set pieces we were absolutely clueless. And then Hargreaves got a yellow cardand became an absolute spectator. Our heads dropped and the team appeared confused. Joe Colewas excellent and Gerrard was good when he came on. Anyhow, for what it is worth, and it will never happen, I would drop Beckham and put Gerrard on the right. And Campbelll should come in ferdinand which i think will happen. As for up front I guess we will continue with Crouch and Rooney. Not too many other options to be fair... Ecuador should be alright but you really have to wonder after that. Still getting to the QF is a decent performance if it happens.

Personally I reckon Crouch has done decently and offers something entirely different to the side which we need. Of course Rooney and Owen are first choice but Crouch has shown he can change games. His link up play I would actually say is better than Owen's. he lays off some nice balls while Owen just doesn't get involved until the ball is in the box. Shame about the big guy's finishing though... Anyhow my tip is that Ashton will displace him next season. A much better all round player. Crouch's only advantage over him is four inches I think and Ashton has the strength, vision and finishing to make up for that.

Great draw for the US! I am baffled as to why the commentators on ABC are not more excited than they are? To get a draqw when down to nine men is fantastic! Especially against Italy who even 11v11 realistically the US was expecting to lose.

I am with you on this. They should play 3 out of Cole, Beckham, Lampard and Gerrard based upon who is doing the business, bringing the fourth player for an under performer around the 60th minute. It would keep our midfield fresher going into the knockout rounds too. Carrick would help us retain the ball in a way we just couldn't do on saturday. Not going to happen though is it? Especially since when we did bring on a holding player Sven wheeled out Hargreaves. Still a win is a win! And Svens results are the best of any manager in England history.

send them an email? But then how would you publicise the letter without sounding, well, smarmy? Just sending out a press release effectivelysaying "we have sent Cisse a letter of condolence" might well come accross as being a tacit admission of guilt and an opportunistic way of scoring good publicity points on the back of a serious injury that had no relation to our club. Maybe I am being over sensitive though.

It is not the action of criticising others that I am criticising you for, it is the fact that, unlike any political figure, you are unwilling to make any sacrifices in order to back up you opinions (which are legion). In essence these individuals whom you regularly attack at least have the balls to back up their views by acting upon them in a capacity beyond discussing them on the internet or in the pub. However, despite the enormity of your dissatisfaction and the (apparent) confidence in the methods you have divined to solve the problems of the day, you do nothing about it. It is sheer impotence.

I am not sure that is neccesarily true. Those who go into politics tend to be, in my experience, idealists who honestly believe, rightly or wrongly, that they can change things for the better. For the talented young person there is no financial reward from going into politics rather than business, and in the strong whip system of this country no real prospect of accumilating any notional amount of power in the short term. While there are people who are in there for the kicks, just look at Archer, to sustain yourselves through those years of paying your dues you have to really actually believe in what you are doing. Politicians are just people. Some good, some bad, but merely through making a sacrifice (and don't for one second think there are not huge sacrifices) to serve the people (one few if any of us on here have), like teachers and doctors, worthy of some respect. I feel personally that the routine abuse handed out to politicians is part of the problem that we have. All to easy to blame, very hard to actually get up and change things.

How is it hypocritical? I am not the one who desires to to radically alter the political and social environment in which I exist. You and AESF obviously have deep lying concerns about the way society is structured and the course it is taking, and, presumably from the nature of your posts, feel much more qualified and able than the politicians in charge to sort things out. It is clear, at least in the way I read your posts, that the pair of you consider yourselves morally and intuitively superior to the members of the administration of the country and vast swathes of the population of the country in general. Yet you limit action, as far as I am aware, on the subject to sniping on an internet message board.

I do agree that lying to the press outright in a way that will sway the voters is unacceptable. But doesn't anybody feel all this prying into the private lives of MPs is going a bit too far? The point is surely their policies and carrying out of the duty to the constituency. But it is not dereliciton of duty that makes the headlines but sex scadals, mainly because everybody is so goddamn sordid. You can bet your bottom dollar if he had done something outside of the real of sexuality the impact would have been less. I said this before, but perhaps it is worth saying again, if the public is more interested in the sex lives of celebrities than in the policies and parties that create the society in which we live it is hardly suprising we have the set of politicians we do, and that our parliament runs in a less that perfect manner. The tools are entirely at the disposal of the public to create a nation of their own choosing. We are a completely democratic state with a functioning court system and an, at least compared to the United States, government free of the binding hand of private interests. We are not a nation of victims hoodwinked and pushed around by maleovlent interest which conspire against us. Each individual is not powerless. We are a nation of free people with a collective voice. The only thing that chains us down is our collective apathy, and the wilful ignorance of so many people. I personally feel that most MPs are decent men who are by no means perfect but willing to eschew larger salaries in the private sector in order to serve the public. Sure they become cynical over time, much like TND and AESF, but they put themselves in the firing line which both of those two individuals are too busy (or scared?) to do. Of course there are exceptions, but I grow extrodinarily tired of gleeful people pointing out the faults of others without doing anything about it.

Interesting to see that half the votes have gone for england to go out at the quarter finals or earlier. I guess that shows Englands fans are not so arrogant as they are portrayed to be... Or maybe it is just all the Aussies, Americans and Scandinavians on here!

beat me to it

Steb, doesn't the list need an update? I am still up for Engerrrrland-Sweden, if thas okay!

Well Reid is a good player but I think with Savage in the side we would be able to replicate the form of last season provided we spent the money wisely. Indeed Savage and Reid have a similar game. We could even improve ourselves if Hughes found a bargain. The reason Nelsen is indispensible is because he holds the whole back line together and is genuinely good enough, in my opinion, to play for any side on the planet nearly. I don't think we would be able to replcae him because he is that good. Reid is not (yet?) in that category. While Neill looks like a decent option to come in at the back I have no shadow of a doubt that we would be a lot poorer than we are with Nelsen. He is a leader and an absolutely first rate defender. All that said I fully agree that we have to do our best to hold on to Reid along with the rest of our key players- Neill, Pedersen, Bellamy, Nelsen, Savage (to an extent) and Freidal.