I think Alex Ferguson will have to be crazy not to be looking at Hargreaves as a long term replacement for Roy Keane. They desperately miss everything Hargreaves has at present, and I'm sure he'd jump at the chance to go there. He is far too good for us though...plus his dad is a Bolton fan and apparently is always advising him to go there...I doubt very much he'd tell him to play for us.

I wasn't referring to you or Portuguese people Oklahoma, merely the eleven players out on the pitch. No team is perfect but the Portugal side are by far the worst offenders for cheating at the moment, the tournament is better off without them.

After seeing Scolari's tactics in the World Cup he's only confirmed what I wrote before it started...he's a lucky manager and I'm far happier with McClaren in charge than fat Phil. Winning the tournament with Brazil was hardly an achievement to write home about, neither was taking Portugal (the home nation) to a final in which the eventual winners were Greece. He had no idea how to break them down, just like he had no idea how to break down our ten men in the quarter-final...remember how much stick Eriksson got for not being able to do the same to Brazil? It's funny how little is said when it happens the other way round. I think McClaren will pleasantly suprise a lot of people, especially given that he is not afraid to drop older players with bigger names in favour of young players.

Allez les bleus! I don't think I'll be able to handle it if Totti gets his hand on a World Cup trophy. Edit: Missed the game first time, watching the highlights now...in the space of a couple of minutes I've seen Ronaldo and especially Postiga diving terribly. Thank God those scum are out.

Hilarious...

Why? I can't see how it affects anything...plenty of players that have come through Liverpool's academy started off as Everton fans, we'd look ridiculous if we turned down a player because of who he supports.

I can see where you are coming from (although I am sceptical of the idea that a coach will change the whole shape of the team to keep someone on the bench)...but given the lack of quality English strikers (hence why Walcott was included in the first place), I'm positive Sven would have gone with 4-5-1 anyway in the hope that an unrestricted combination of Lampard and Gerrard would be more threatening than a second mediocre striker. In hindsight it is easy to criticise him for that decision, but many on here suggested the same...even Terry Venables suggested this formation before the Paraguay game in his newspaper column. I seem to recall Mourinho criticising Eriksson for not using a 4-5-1 sooner as well, although he did point out that Beckham and Gerrard should have switched roles. Just to clarify, I do not agree with Sven not taking a fifth striker, I'm just trying to explain how it had no bearing on our exit.

It's not as bad as it seems Rev...I think Hargreaves and Lennon will be better players come the next tournament, I can't see Ferdinand being any less of a pleyer at 31 either. Obviously there will be players that come through in the next four years and claim places in the team...but we could conceivably go into the next tournament with the team lining up like... Robinson ? Ferdinand Terry A. Cole Lennon Hargreaves Gerrard J. Cole Rooney Owen ...and, with the exception of Owen, none of them should be worse players than they are now, certainly not because of age anyway. Hopefully a world class right-back and another world class forward in a Shearer-esque mould (Ashon perhaps?) can come through before that tournament. Players like Carrick (possibly with four years as a ManUre player under his belt), King, Downing and Walcott should also have improved in that period. I'd also wager a substantial amount on McClaren not being in charge for the next tournament either...at which point hopefully one of Pearce/Allardyce/Jewell/Pardew will have gone on to the next level at club management and be ready to step into the hotseat. Or maybe an aforementioned ex-Rover... No decision? He could have easily played Crouch and Rooney from the start if wanted to play two up front. Again...your theory only holds up if you consider Bent or Defoe to be ahead of Crouch in the pecking order. Given your scenario of England playing 4-4-2, choosing from a squad that contained another striker instead of Jenas...we'd have started with two up top, reverted to one when Rooney had gone, then stuck with one until penalties. Crouch had a good game living off scraps and holding the ball up. You can easily blame Sven's tactics for not getting support to him quicker from midfield, but another striker in the squad wouldn't have made any difference.

This is getting incredibly tiresome now. Please explain how this decision affected us going out of the World Cup. The only way it possibly could have is if you consider Defoe/Bent a better player than Crouch, otherwise it had no bearing on the Portugal game whatsoever.

You should listen to him Rover6, this man is second-to-none when it comes to predictions...

Admittedly...the way they go about their business is different, as you rightly pointed out...but ultimately both will tend to play somewhere near the shoulder of the last defender and try to poach goals around the box and from crosses. Both are used to playing with a smaller, faster player (Keane/Defoe, Camara) so this would suggest the two wouldn't appreciate playing with each other. Niether will be keen to run the channels or provide a link between midfield and attack (as Bellamy could), I'm sure Hughes will want someone who can do the both of those. This was one reason I was keen on Nugent...however, given the two signings we've made, it's obvious a higher calibre of player is needed now, and given that we've probably spent around £2 million on the pair we do have, a sizeable amount should be available for a player that the fans can get excited about. Who this player will be, I have no idea...although I suspect they will probably be from abroad given the lack of suitable players in England and the fact that we've signed two players with Premiership experience already.

Sorry, that is not right. José Mourinho (whom many would consider the best manager around at the moment) did his utmost to sign Gerrard with the intention of playing him in a midfield quintet which would include Frank Lampard. It was not a question if chosing one or the other in a 4-5-1, the problem was that Sven only decided on this tactic during the World Cup and niether had time to work together in these roles...had they been given time to do so, I'm positive they would have been successful. As does Mourinho, obviously. That is fair enough. I'd still argue, however, that the managers of the teams still left in the tournament would have stuck with a 4-4-1 formation right to the end of extra time...given that most of them play with one up top even with eleven men. The decision to take Jenas and not another striker was wrong, I'm not contesting that. The only thing I'm trying to point out to people is that this decision in no way affected us going out of the World Cup. In fact...and I really hope a few people reply to this bit...when Portugal were a man down against the Dutch, Scolari took the only striker Portugal had off the pitch (Pauleta) and played with not one natural forward...and this man is considered by a lot of people on here to be the best replacement for Sven. I'm not criticising Scolari's tactics here (how could I?), I'm simply trying to get the point across that the notion that a different manager would have gone for two forwards (implying that Sven is 'spineless' or something along those lines) whilst being a man down is nonsense...they wouldn't have.

If that is indeed how Hughes sees them in the squad then I'll be equally disappointed...however, my hope is that the replacements were as follows: 1) Bellamy = ... 2) Pongolle = Roberts 3) Dickov = Jeffers 4) Kuqi/Gallagher/Derbyshire I think the Roberts signing guarantees one thing; we won't be signing Mido. There's no way Mido and Roberts could be a combination, they'd be treading on each other's toes and have similar attributes. I'm positive we'll be bringing in a quicker player to run the channels and play off Roberts...whom I doubt would have signed had he been told he'd be on the bench more often than not.

Oh dear God. A second striker wouldn't have been brought on with us having ten men, whether it's Walcott or Defoe sat on the bench today is irrelevant. How can you not understand this?

That's not the point. My point is the striker selection had absolutely no bearing on us going out today. The only way I can answer is following: Would I have started Rooney today? Yes. Would I have replaced him with Crouch? Yes. Would I have introduced another striker at any stage? No. Would you (or anyone else stupidly complaining) have done anything different?

Rubbish. Peter Crouch is the third best striker in this country. Any other top national side would have played 4-4-1 with 10 men. How exactly has striker selection contributed to our exit?

I'm not saying a striker could do a defender's job...ask a heart surgeon to give you a hair cut and I'm pretty sure they'd fail. However, given a football at their feet, most strikers have far more ability than defenders and are justifiably more celebrated as players.

Because the majority of forwards have far more ability than defenders... It's like comparing a brain surgeon with a nurse. They both may work in the same place and be on the same side, but it's plain to see which is the most skilled of the two.

Italy should never have gone down to ten men, Australia should have taken more advantage than they did...why wait until the last ten minutes to bring another front man on? The penalty was a tough one to call, but if you dive in like that in the box then you're asking for trouble.

You never stop, do you? If we do go on to win this competition it seems you've already lined up a string of excuses for us doing so. I'd love to know what these undeserved moments of fortune are...and why they are undeserved if they exist. Losing Owen in the way we did was hardly fortunate, we're also dealing with an 80% fit Wayne Rooney. And no Gary Neville. What lucky sods we are indeed. As someone else pointed out, we've been the better side in every game we've played, whether it is the best we can do or not is irrelevent...we have deserved to get this far on merit, not fortune. Even if good fortune did come in to it, after the way we've been eliminated in previous tournaments, only bitter @#/?s could begrudge us a slice of luck. Two Sol Campbell goals and a Ronalidinho fluke anyone? Everyone hails Scolari as a master tactician, yet Brazil had an easy route to victory in the 2002 World Cup, with almost every 'big' nation out of sorts. They also had their fair slice of good fortune along the way (Aforementioned Ronalidinho free kick for example...). It is guaranteed that if we win the final with a Beckham free-kick Sven won't get any praise. It's looking like we'll have to go through Portugal, Brazil then Argentina if we do want to win it. Hardly an easy route, is it? No more so than Brazil's passage...Ecuador and Ghana have shown themselves to be at similar levels in the group stage. Is this an example of the good fortune we're having? Figo has been cleared to play despite clearly headbutting a Dutch player...swings and roundabouts. Deco has no-one to blame but himself anyway, he hacked down a player for the first yellow then held on to the ball when time was sparse for the Dutch to find an equaliser. Both obvious bookings. Ronaldo being injured is a blessing for the Portuguese as well, Simao is superior to Ronaldo, at least he has some end product to his dribbling skills.

I can't ever recall him playing there for Man Utd this season (I could be wrong, just saying I don't remember it). He's always played with either Saha or Van Nistelrooy and they always play further forward than he does.

You'd change the whole shape of the team to something we haven't played for six years or so because of the threat Ecuador will pose? Interesting...I know you have a low opinion of the England national side, but we're undoubtedly not that bad. If the Germans can stick to their 4-4-2, so can we.

Jesus...I know you have a talent for talking complete bullcrap about football (unless it's finances), but I think you've excelled yourself this time. Well done. As for the Ecuador game...if David Beckham wasn't the name he is, the next line-up would be simple: Robinson Carragher Ferdinand Terry Cole Gerrard Hargreaves Lampard Cole Rooney Crouch However, he is David Beckham so he will start...therefore I hope we go with the same, except a midfield of: Beckham Hargreaves Gerrard Cole Rooney can NOT play as a lone striker, we'll be taking so much away from his game that he might as well be back in the bench nursing his foot. Dropping deep and running at teams is what he's best at, he has to be part of front two if he plays up top. The best way of putting him in a 4-5-1 is as one of the wide strikers, as Alex Ferguson clearly worked out.

Not at all. Hopefully Hargreaves will shut up the morons that have no idea how good he is. He put in so many tackles in that half, then kept it simple when he had the ball. That's all we want, we've got three other midfielders who are there to do attacking work. Carrick is too flimsy to do that job (assuming that's who you were on about). Our chances are knackered because it's Owen that is injured or because Sven never took another striker? If it's the latter then that is ######. Crouch is the third best striker in the country by a comfortable difference, the only way Sven's decision will badly affect us is if either Rooney or Crouch now pick up an injury. Fingers crossed they don't.

Would that be the Lampard that was man of the match in the first game? The Lampard that was the player looking most likely to score for 75 minutes? The Lampard that was top scorer in the qualifiying rounds? I sometimes wonder what game people are watching.