There's been words exchanged about clubs attitudes towards internationals;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22118586
And the scheduling of international friendlies;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22123554
Who's right? Or do both Hodgson & Fergie have a point?
One thing that strikes me is the attitudes of club managers towards the national team. I know the clubs pay the players wages etc. but why can't we adopt at attitudes of Cricket or Rugby, both of which have experienced success fairly recently, towards the national team? Surely success at international level will filter down to the PL, in attracting better players and more money being brought in?
Thoughts people?
Admins could you multi board please?
Hodgson Vs Fergie
posted on 12/4/13
I think Terry is just working his way back from injury and will soon be back to speed again.
................
That did make me laugh TOOR.
posted on 12/4/13
TKT
I always think that players tend to play on for their clubs a lot longer than they do their countries.
posted on 12/4/13
I always try to get behind England, and I support them to almost the same extent that I support Arsenal during the World Cup and the Euros, but they do make it difficult. There's just too many dislikeable characters playing for England, and they're just so boring to watch.
posted on 12/4/13
comment by Vidicschin (U3584) posted 1 minute ago
I think Terry is just working his way back from injury and will soon be back to speed again.
................
That did make me laugh TOOR.
-------------------------------------------------
I didn't mean his speed as in an attribute.
posted on 12/4/13
England will always be boring to watch with Hodgson in charge, I mean he played two defensive wingers in the last game. If it wasn't for Rooney being on form, something he hasn't always been this season, England would have lost.
posted on 12/4/13
That's true. Honest grafters like James Milner don't exactly make for entertaining football. I'd rather see more unpredictable but more dangerous players such as Theo Walcott or Aaron Lennon playing out wide.
posted on 12/4/13
England's main strengths are its pace on the wings. Rooney showed a couple of seasons ago when he was played as the main striker that he can score many goals when two wingers are providing for him. With nobody even close to Rooney in terms of a striker, England should play with two wingers, two holding and one behind Rooney. For the best case scenario, I'd have Young left, Walcott/Lennon right, Wilshere and Gerrard in midfield, with Cleverley further forward. Go attack teams with pace, feck this crap about passing the ball two feet at a slow pace because Spain do it, they're Spain, England's England, Spain did nothing for decades, now after five years of being good, it's suddenly the way to go, the team to copy.
posted on 12/4/13
Playing for england was once the highest honour for any english footballer, nowadays the rewards are too high at club level for footballers and clubs alike so inevitably the national team loses out.
posted on 12/4/13
England have always been dull to watch.
posted on 12/4/13
I'd have Young left, Walcott/Lennon right, Wilshere and Gerrard in midfield, with Cleverley further forward.
-------------------------
Not a fan of Cleverley, works hard and all that, but just doesn't offer enough quality going forward. If he was to play, I'd rather see him deeper in midfield, he doesn't have the technical ability for the No 10 role. Perhaps an Oxlade-Chamberlain type behind Rooney? He's not had a very good season at all, and would need to get into the Arsenal team first, but at least he does offer a bit of skill and unpredictability.