Originally posted by divegeester What! Have you seen Lampards goal scoring record for the last few seasons?
Remember Capello knows that the wining team always improve throughout the competition and peak around the semis. Wholesale changes of our top potential scorers are not required; Gerrard and Lampard can play together they just need a short run of competitive games.
I'm considering his games for the english team. He's a terrific player, but playing for the english team, has he ever shown enough to be unquestionable starter? I dont think so.
WC is a short tournament, you guys are waiting for him to improve throughout the competition since 2006
Originally posted by monteirof put Lampard on the bench.
Lampard and Gerrard are like Xavi and Fabregas. Spain works pretty well with Fabregas on the bench, although Fabregas is a great player. The team simply works better with only one creative midfielder and two advanced wingers.
Capello should try it, Lampard is not even deserving to be a starter... and did he ever?
I agree. Drop Lampard and make gerarrd the central man with cole on the left. England can't win the WC without gerrard playing centrally.
The only other option would be keep lampard but in a 4-5-1 that allows both of them to roam forward.
Originally posted by Red Night shoot rooney and then yourself
Your obvious lack of comment when you "win" the group, only goes to exemplify the USA's complete misunderstanding of the the beautiful game of football.
Originally posted by divegeester Your obvious lack of comment when you "win" the group, only goes to exemplify the USA's complete misunderstanding of the the beautiful game of football.
SOCCER! You know that is the original name because you played it with a sock stuffed with yarn and rocks to give it weight. Of course you "nuanced" englishmen know everythnig better! Why don't you call it mouth ball since ya'll seem to talk more than play? Better yet, since hoof and mouth disease was england's gift to the world perhaps foot(ball)in mouth instead of net disease is more apt!
Originally posted by divegeester Your obvious lack of comment when you "win" the group, only goes to exemplify the USA's complete misunderstanding of the the beautiful game of football.
Originally posted by scacchipazzo SOCCER! You know that is the original name because you played it with a sock stuffed with yarn and rocks to give it weight. Of course you "nuanced" englishmen know everythnig better! Why don't you call it mouth ball since ya'll seem to talk more than play? Better yet, since hoof and mouth disease was england's gift to the world perhaps foot(ball)in mouth instead of net disease is more apt!
LOL...I don't know if you meant it too be funny, but cracked me up!!!
Originally posted by scacchipazzo SOCCER! You know that is the original name because you played it with a sock stuffed with yarn and rocks to give it weight. Of course you "nuanced" englishmen know everythnig better! Why don't you call it mouth ball since ya'll seem to talk more than play? Better yet, since hoof and mouth disease was england's gift to the world perhaps foot(ball)in mouth instead of net disease is more apt!
The rules of football were codified in England by the Football Association in 1863, and the name association football was coined to distinguish the game from the other forms of football played at the time, specifically rugby football. The term soccer originated in England, first appearing in the 1880s as an Oxford "-er" abbreviation of the word "association", often credited to former England captain Charles Wreford-Brown. - wikipedia
I think I would keep the winning side from Slovenia, except maybe use Dawson instead of Upson. King has quality, but is easily broken and this game will be very physical I expect.