He looked good in training!
I don’t support Sven-Goran Eriksson’s inclusion of Arsenal new-boy Theo Walcott in his World Cup squad. Darrent Bent scored a lot of goals this season. Shaun Wright-Phillips, while he has not has his best season, is a similar player to Walcott and has top flight experience. To take a player that has never played a top flight match is something done in weakest of footballing nations, like when you just don’t have anyone else.
I’m not bagging on Walcott, from what I have seen he’s a great talent, it’s just that, well, what if you were Darren Bent? All the work you’ve done, all the years you’ve put in to be pushed aside on a coaches hunch? It doesn’t make sense.
You include Theo Walcott in buildup games leading up to the Cup, judging his playing style and how it might contribute to the national side. Eriksson has admitted he’d never seen him play. At 17 Pele was already a seasoned professional. What kind of decision making is this??
Arsene Wenger is supportive of the move… sure, when you’re French and it won’t cost you points. Arsene things he’s looked good in training, but not good enough to shell out 100,000 pounds per start to see him in Gunner’s kit. Let him get a free education in Germany; let players who deserve the call up watch on TV. I’ll tell you, MacLaren won’t do anything special as England manager but I’ll be glad to see the end of the Sven era.
by Football Commentator at 5/14/2006 07:47:00 AM
13 Comments:
Post a Comment
this is the most rubbish comment i ever heard, good pick sven keep it up. now lets see you talk about sven and theo after the world cup when they win it and theo having a great world cup and see what are your comments then, so shut the fuc* up and stop preteneding that you know about football which clearly YOU KNOW JACK SHI*
and what do you know about him after all?
i'm sure sven did his homework well, and surely he wasn't satisfied with bent and shaun as otherwise he would have picked them. good job sven.
sven already said that he wouldn't be a first choice striker, but to use him as one who can add that pace when everyone is tired, together with lennon and co. could be his masterpiece.
for those who just ignore all this stuff just because all they know is that bent scored 22 and walcott played 0, without considering the England team as a whole and the situation in which they will be is mad.
Well Done Sven. I think the calculated risk is worth taking.
Nonsense article, if Arsene says something you have to believe him. This man is a professor, and has always being right maybe almost. Walcott has not played because he would have cost too much. If Walcott had started every game since they bought him, the money southampton would have got would £2.4million, this is double the amount we paid for Eboue.
Read this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2006/05/14/sfnwal14.xml
Crappy article. It's abrave choice by Sven - Bent isn't going to frighten anyone at the top level. Walcott might. If Walcott has a good tournament I expect you to eat your hat.
Well, a bit warm in here....
Anyway, ya, I could end up eating poo over this article and I hope I do. This is where I stand though, regardless. My feeling is Walcott wont make any impact at all. I've been wrong before but read deeper in the blog and you'll see more often than not I am spot on.
If you boys think he's so incredible wouldnt it be worth 100k to play him?
With a CL place on the line, Arsene didnt, what does that tell you??? If Wenger thought he'd help win the 4th CL spot you better believe he'd play... and he didnt. So, thats tells you something:
Wenger didnt think he was worth it for Arsenal but Sven thinks he's good enough for 'ol England who has won nothing since the '60's. Sure fellas...
If you had read Arsene Wenger's original interview in French (not the badly edited translated version), you would know that he was supposed to start the Sunderland and the Manchester City games, but got an injury on his shoulder.
The reasons Walcott had not been involved more were as follows:
+In the Champion league game, with a tactic of 4-5-1, we were not going to withdraw TH14 to replace him with Walcott.
+In the EPL, when Adebayor was fit. Adebayor was prefered, because of his heading ability and his ability to hold the ball. By the way Adebayor is going to the World Cup with Togo. The choice between Walcott and Adebayor was therefore not between a genious and a donkey. It was between one world cup certainty and a young pretender.
+in the EPL, when Adebayor was injured, a place was available to him. He got injured in a reserve game. That was no reason to risk an injured player when RvP or DB could do the job.
+In the CL, you can put two more subsitutes on the bench than on the EPL. In the EPL, you start with your best selection and then you put a GK and a subsitute per line. The number of players who can be involved is therefore reduced.
Also what Arsene Wenger wanted was to build his power. Yes he was quick and technical, but the problem is that he was afraid that in the English game, he would have been kick out of a game, as some bully do against Arsenal.
That's a problem that is not going to happen to the WorldCup, because the style of refereing is much more strict.
Regarding his selection, who would you have in his place ?
+Darren Bent proved to be quick on the counter-attack, but showed that he did not have the level of international football when given the chance to play.
+Jermaine Defoe has proved that he is one trick selfish and greedy pony and that defender that knows him keep him out of game. Give him the ball, he'll try to go on his right foot and shoot. No variety or surprise and if that does not work he has nothing else to offer, he will never lay a pass to a better palce team-mate.
+James Beattie does not have the same style of play. He has no pace. He was more in competition with Crouch than Beattie.
+Robbie Fowler's body is started to break down. He does not have the stamina anymore for a full 90 minutes. His style of play is not conducive to be an impact player. He is a box player.
+Dean Ashton is lackin any real pace. But in my view he is a much better footballer than Crouch. Once again I do not see him as an impact player.
+Emile Heskey has been sent back to the wilderness of international footbal. He is an embarrassement as a footballer, no technick, no pace, just pure shear brut force. Thanks's god Sven has seen the light.
Instead of think that that player should not have been taken, try to think of a better choice. You will then realise that England is not blessed with World class striker outside of Wayne Rooney.
if you think that arsene wenger doesn't value him since he didn't play him, i'd like to remind you that wenger paid 12m for him. Wenger hasn't paid 12m for many people......surely you can't say that he doesn't value him
Deciduous Guacamole:
What the heck is he there for if not to play him? Sunderland? So what, a game is a game, and a team is not a hack, a player like that doofis who broke Diaby's ankle is.
Its conjecture, but no, he was not worth playing yet. Adebayor played right away. So did Hleb. And Fabregas, age 17.
Lastly, I just dont see it as a valid argument to say "there is nobody better", its your opinion but Bent would have been my choice above both Crouch and Walcott.
To the 2 anonymous posters above:
Dean Ashton and Bent would have been my choices. Ashton, while a bit of a brute is a smart player, yes, also slow as molasis in winter.
#2:
Maybe I shouldnt say 'Wenger doesnt value him'. He does. 12m is alot of dough. What I mean is Wenger didnt trust him enough to play him in a set of crucial matches fighting for the last CL spot.
so if you were instead of wenger would you be playing walcott instead of henry? especially when he uses 4-5-1?
Lets face it...england doesn't have an henry, and bent neither is an henry...the competition in england is different than the competition for places in the arsenal squad.
Also, walcott did make it to the first 18 of arsenal, and here he has made it to the first 23. what's the big deal? For england he is one of 4 strikers, and for arsenal he has already been chosen as one of three strikers (two playing and walcott in the bench).
Besides to put him as an option against teams such as real and juve is already a great thing.
I think Sven chose Walcott, like Crouch, to give himself options. Bent is an exellent player but very similar to (and not as good as) Owen. Defoe is a poor teams Joe Cole. Beattie can't add anything Crouch can't do. Wayne Rooney is a one off. Theo Walcott is an Henry style player and unlike anything else in an England shirt. I've him play and was surpised at his speed, ability and balance.
I don't buy the story that Arsene didn't play him to save money. He's been itching to play him at the earliest oppurtunity, unfortunately he picked up a shoulder injury in a reserve game keeping him out till the end of the season.
Sure we can fill the England squad with strikers who all play the same way - if we wanted to make it easier for opposition defences. I'd rather have lots of different combinations to unpick different styles of defence.
Barny
I'm going to back up FC's opinion here. Right on, FC. Sven has made a mistake and I'll put my (debatable) reputation on it.
I'll probably get slated for this, but why has nobody mentioned Marlon Harewood? Speed, power, brains, good footwork.. A great impact player, at least.
Post a Comment
<< Home