Hahahahahahahahahaha!
What about Rooney last World Cup? What the hell are you talking about? Bent is quality, much better than Welbeck (right now)!
In my lifetime I remember Lineker doing the business in two World Cups and Shearer in Euro 96.I'm struggling to think of any other who have done it in recent memory.
"Andy Cole and Ian Wright were chokers"
They most certainly were not; they were simply never given a proper chance - unlike Shearer, who kept his place after a dozen games without scoring.
After his best game for England and the entire media convinced he would start the next match, Keegan dropped him for Heskey.
Ian Wright was constantly overlooked; he was the top English scorer in the League yet he never even made it into Graham Taylor's squad, despite his teammate Alan Smith doing so. Only Hoddle had faith in him, rather too late in his career.
As far as Welbeck and Bent goes - a Player who has scored in the last three away Internationals must have more going for him than someone with as little experience of top flight football as Welbeck - and Bent's goal has rather proved the point, as well as making the OP's comment look somewhat foolish.
The rather erratic sentence "After his best game for England and the entire media convinced he would start the next match, Keegan dropped him for Heskey" in my last post actually refers to Andy Cole.
hahahaha, that Rooney comment has come back to bite you on the butt
"that Rooney comment has come back to bite you"
I think the decision to play Rooney as a lone striker instead of replacing Bent with FF is what came back to bite England.
He is clearly unsuited to that role with England - look at the difference in his play in the first half. Playing him at point simply means he will get frustrated, thus raising the chances of him doing something daft.
I don't see how Bent chocked took his chance when it came along. Wlebeck is a good player mind, I think currently his only drawback is his confidence, and thats just age. At the start of the season, he looked shy, then he scored that great header and was a different player.
His hold up play needs a bit of work as his first tocug with back to goal can let him down. But his movement, pace and power are quality.
Much rater have him in the squad than Carrol put it that way.
Sturridge again is a great player, fast with a great shot. But he is so dependent on his left foot it is a worry. But I'd have him in the role Walcot was playing with Bent or Welbeck as the striker.
I thought walcot was probably the most disappointing player on the pitch, apart from his cross for Youngs goal, his delivery was dreadful and his tracking back, considering he knew he had a debutant right back was dreadful. Jones I thought was good, but I'd like to see what he could do in Gareth Barry's position.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Welbeck should start instead of choker Bent
Page 1 of 1
posted on 7/10/11
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
What about Rooney last World Cup? What the hell are you talking about? Bent is quality, much better than Welbeck (right now)!
posted on 7/10/11
In my lifetime I remember Lineker doing the business in two World Cups and Shearer in Euro 96.I'm struggling to think of any other who have done it in recent memory.
posted on 7/10/11
"Andy Cole and Ian Wright were chokers"
They most certainly were not; they were simply never given a proper chance - unlike Shearer, who kept his place after a dozen games without scoring.
After his best game for England and the entire media convinced he would start the next match, Keegan dropped him for Heskey.
Ian Wright was constantly overlooked; he was the top English scorer in the League yet he never even made it into Graham Taylor's squad, despite his teammate Alan Smith doing so. Only Hoddle had faith in him, rather too late in his career.
As far as Welbeck and Bent goes - a Player who has scored in the last three away Internationals must have more going for him than someone with as little experience of top flight football as Welbeck - and Bent's goal has rather proved the point, as well as making the OP's comment look somewhat foolish.
posted on 7/10/11
The rather erratic sentence "After his best game for England and the entire media convinced he would start the next match, Keegan dropped him for Heskey" in my last post actually refers to Andy Cole.
posted on 7/10/11
hahahaha, that Rooney comment has come back to bite you on the butt
posted on 7/10/11
"that Rooney comment has come back to bite you"
I think the decision to play Rooney as a lone striker instead of replacing Bent with FF is what came back to bite England.
He is clearly unsuited to that role with England - look at the difference in his play in the first half. Playing him at point simply means he will get frustrated, thus raising the chances of him doing something daft.
posted on 7/10/11
And Sturridge.
posted on 8/10/11
I don't see how Bent chocked took his chance when it came along. Wlebeck is a good player mind, I think currently his only drawback is his confidence, and thats just age. At the start of the season, he looked shy, then he scored that great header and was a different player.
His hold up play needs a bit of work as his first tocug with back to goal can let him down. But his movement, pace and power are quality.
Much rater have him in the squad than Carrol put it that way.
Sturridge again is a great player, fast with a great shot. But he is so dependent on his left foot it is a worry. But I'd have him in the role Walcot was playing with Bent or Welbeck as the striker.
I thought walcot was probably the most disappointing player on the pitch, apart from his cross for Youngs goal, his delivery was dreadful and his tracking back, considering he knew he had a debutant right back was dreadful. Jones I thought was good, but I'd like to see what he could do in Gareth Barry's position.
Page 1 of 1