World Cup 2018

[philipl]

41 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

Err...not really. 2 weeks of kerfuffle and it will be forgotten about 

21 people in Salisbury hospitalised because they had no idea they were near nerve gas. 

That counts as a Russian State attack on UK citizens.

Edited March 9, 2018 by philipl

[Sparks Rover]

1 hour ago, philipl said:

21 people in Salisbury hospitalised because they had no idea they were near nerve gas. 

That counts as a Russian State attack on UK citizens.

Like I say.....

[Neil Weaver]

1 hour ago, philipl said:

That counts as a Russian State attack on UK citizens.

But as so often, money will talk, and with the tournament being worth so much to TV I think we know what'll happen.

[Vinjay]

MARTIN LIPTON: England boycott the World Cup in Russia? What an utterly stupid and ultimately pointless idea

[speeeeeeedie]

9 hours ago, philipl said:

Has to be a question over England even going with what has happened in Salisbury.

No question at all. England will be there. 

5 hours ago, philipl said:

21 people in Salisbury hospitalised because they had no idea they were near nerve gas. 

That counts as a Russian State attack on UK citizens.

It's not the first time it's happened, nor will it be the last. The British government won't do anything. Nor can it in it's current weak state. Russia's status in the world should be debated, but in the non football section of this forum.

Russia will be on its best behavior this summer. Streets will be clean. Stray dogs will be gone. Beer will be plentiful. But you still can't pay me to go.

 

[AllRoverAsia]

13 hours ago, philipl said:

Has to be a question over England even going with what has happened in Salisbury.

Agreed. I would have no problem if Government pulled England from Russia 2018.

However in retaliation I feel we are still capable of effective covert action and not a Russian feck up like Salisbury.

Meanwhile there is something fitting in our corrupt FA going to a corrupt state for a competition run by a corrupt FIFA.

They deserve each other.

English fans must behave very well. They will be targeted.

Edited March 10, 2018 by AllRoverAsia

[arbitro]

3 hours ago, speeeeeeedie said:

No question at all. England will be there. 

It's not the first time it's happened, nor will it be the last. The British government won't do anything. Nor can it in it's current weak state. Russia's status in the world should be debated, but in the non football section of this forum.

Russia will be on its best behavior this summer. Streets will be clean. Stray dogs will be gone. Beer will be plentiful. But you still can't pay me to go.

 

England will be there simply because the FA are looking towards a big pay day.

They still have the over priced Wembley, several managers and countless Chief Execs NDA's to pay off.

[philipl]

Let's see what May says on Monday.

If the choice is between England not going to the World Cup and stopping the City laundering billions stolen from Russia by Putin and his mates, I wonder who has the bigger clout and the more influence over Tory supporters?

[Vinjay]

10 hours ago, arbitro said:

England will be there simply because the FA are looking towards a big pay day.

They still have the over priced Wembley, several managers and countless Chief Execs NDA's to pay off.

Can't really blame the FA in this instance especially considering the amount of lawsuits that would head their way. Why should they be used as a propaganda tool for the government in this manner? Have to say don't Russia have more effective ways of murder than a nerve agent with wider scale risks? I've not read enough about the specifics but surely they must have known others could be caught up in such an attack? What's the point of that is it just sheer arrogance and they didn't care about the additional fallout? Not to mention their target is still alive at least for now. The guy killed a few years ago was killed by polonium wasn't he? It was certainly detected afterwards (on cups, etc) but it didn't kill or incapacitate anybody else.

Can't imagine any of the other countries pulling out somehow as some MP's intend to try. I'm sure their answer will be NO even if the country had voted to stay in the EU. 

Just looked up a bit more on nerve agents and as this points out they are generally not used in assassinations. They are used in warfare.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-nerveagent/complex-and-dangerous-nerve-agents-are-rarely-used-for-assassinations-idUSKCN1GK2JR

Couldn't they have just pinned this on ISIS or someone else? Russia are denying it so what's their reasoning? Someone trying to drive a wedge in relations using a convenient Russian target to pin the blame on? Maybe that's too much conspiracy talking but others have said the timing does not make sense. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/09/europe/salisbury-conspiracy-russia-intl/index.html

Maybe this was done in the hope of eliminating Russia's main threat to the World Cup.  They can't be that scared of Southgate can they?   I don't think even the most outlandish conspiracy theorist would come up with that one!

 

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Vinjay17

[chaddyrovers]

On ‎08‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 10:57, roversfan99 said:

I see Calvert-Lewin will potentially be in the next England squad. Southgates dishing out caps to anyone, Calvert Lewins not even a starter for Everton. 

I can see the reason for taking him as 4th choice striker and Kane and Rashford will be 1st choice imo in Southgate preferred formation of 3-4-1-2. Vardy as back up. 

who else is there? Welbeck? Murray? Abraham? any other suggestions. 

[roversfan99]

18 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I can see the reason for taking him as 4th choice striker and Kane and Rashford will be 1st choice imo in Southgate preferred formation of 3-4-1-2. Vardy as back up. 

who else is there? Welbeck? Murray? Abraham? any other suggestions. 

Would play 3-4-3, not 3-4-1-2, Sterling is one of the first names on the team sheet, as one of 2 either side of Kane.

Welbeck is horrendous, Calvert Lewin and Abraham are unproven players who arent even playing for their clubs, id probably take just Kane, Rashford and Vardy to cover that 1 central position.

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

Would play 3-4-3, not 3-4-1-2, Sterling is one of the first names on the team sheet, as one of 2 either side of Kane.

Welbeck is horrendous, Calvert Lewin and Abraham are unproven players who arent even playing for their clubs, id probably take just Kane, Rashford and Vardy to cover that 1 central position.

Sterling wouldn't be in my side but I told my front 3. Ali started in the 10 role, Rashford and Kane are quality strikers who are must starts for me. Rose and Walker in the wing backs roles, Wilshere and Dier in Centre midfield, Stones would be in my back 3 and I'm unsure who I would pick to be back 3 at the minute, Butland would be my keeper

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Sterling wouldn't be in my side but I told my front 3. Ali started in the 10 role, Rashford and Kane are quality strikers who are must starts for me. Rose and Walker in the wing backs roles, Wilshere and Dier in Centre midfield, Stones would be in my back 3 and I'm unsure who I would pick to be back 3 at the minute, Butland would be my keeper

You wouldnt start Sterling? Bar Kane, hes been by far and away the best English attacker this season, hes been phenomenal, stats prove it.

15 goals and 9 assists in 25 league games, 5 goals and an assist in 11 in other competitions, involved in a goal every 92 minutes.

Rashfords been a sub for most of the season, hes involved in a goal every 107 minutes, did well today to be fair.

Alli has been poor this season, miles off what he did last year, that said hes got 9 goals and 15 assists in 40, a goal involvement every 129 minutes.

Sterlings been a key player for City this season and brilliant to watch. Im amazed that you wouldnt play him.

(worked out through transfermarkt)

[K-Hod]

Why on earth would anyone not start Sterling with the season he’s had??

Well, if they won’t, Southgate probably will I’d suggest. 

The front 3 for England is probably the easiest section of the team to pick.

Rashford        Kane         Sterling

[chaddyrovers]

51 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

You wouldnt start Sterling? Bar Kane, hes been by far and away the best English attacker this season, hes been phenomenal, stats prove it.

15 goals and 9 assists in 25 league games, 5 goals and an assist in 11 in other competitions, involved in a goal every 92 minutes.

Rashfords been a sub for most of the season, hes involved in a goal every 107 minutes, did well today to be fair.

Alli has been poor this season, miles off what he did last year, that said hes got 9 goals and 15 assists in 40, a goal involvement every 129 minutes.

Sterlings been a key player for City this season and brilliant to watch. Im amazed that you wouldnt play him.

(worked out through transfermarkt)

No I woildnt start him. Ive already told you my front 3 and 9 out of starting 11. I want 2 up front and Ali plays in the 10 role. Dier is my def mid and Wilshere is my deep mid playmaker

[chaddyrovers]

44 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Why on earth would anyone not start Sterling with the season he’s had??

Well, if they won’t, Southgate probably will I’d suggest. 

The front 3 for England is probably the easiest section of the team to pick.

Rashford        Kane         Sterling

I want Kane and Rashford up front with Ali in 10 role.

 

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

No I woildnt start him. Ive already told you my front 3 and 9 out of starting 11. I want 2 up front and Ali plays in the 10 role. Dier is my def mid and Wilshere is my deep mid playmaker

But why, baring in mind how good hes been, whereas Rashford has rarely started and Alli has dipped so much from last season, especially with the stats I gave you?

Feel like you are picking players to fit a formation, rather than a formation to best suit our key players.

[chaddyrovers]

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

But why, baring in mind how good hes been, whereas Rashford has rarely started and Alli has dipped so much from last season, especially with the stats I gave you?

Feel like you are picking players to fit a formation, rather than a formation to best suit our key players.

If I was Utd manager Rashford would start every game.

Stats? Means nothing in international football just like it did when we had Owen, Gerrard and Lampard in the side. Did nothing did we? 

I decided my formation cos I want to 2 strikers up top and 3 at the back. Fit the players into the system. Plan B would be your way..

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

If I was Utd manager Rashford would start every game.

Stats? Means nothing in international football just like it did when we had Owen, Gerrard and Lampard in the side. Did nothing did we? 

I decided my formation cos I want to 2 strikers up top and 3 at the back. Fit the players into the system. Plan B would be your way..

But he hasnt, so its irrelevant.

That second line makes absolutely no sense.

You pick a formation to best suit your players, not the other way round.

[chaddyrovers]

20 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

But he hasnt, so its irrelevant.

That second line makes absolutely no sense.

You pick a formation to best suit your players, not the other way round.

Stats are meaningless in international football. Look at the players we had in the past with great season stats like Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney? What did we achieve? Nothing. 

Thats your way not mine to stop trying to talk down and tell me how to think. You have your way and I have my way. 

Ive told you my front 3 so either accept and not but its my opinion and my account

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Stats are meaningless in international football. Look at the players we had in the past with great season stats like Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney? What did we achieve? Nothing. 

Thats your way not mine to stop trying to talk down and tell me how to think. You have your way and I have my way. 

Ive told you my front 3 so either accept and not but its my opinion and my account

How are stats meaningless? If anything your example backs up my point.

You are suggesting that we pick a formation, then players to then fit that formation. Thats exactly what we did when we had those players. Our managers refused to deviate from the 4-4-2 formation we presumed to be the best way of playing, meaning that we didnt get the best out of our numerous top class central midfielders, we played our best one in Scholes wide, and didnt play a system to allow Gerrard and Lampard the license to do what they did for their clubs. We should have picked a more suitable position based on the personnel, not the other way round.

As an aside, I see Joe Hart is back in the West Ham team doing what he does best. Useless.

[chaddyrovers]

17 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

How are stats meaningless? If anything your example backs up my point.

You are suggesting that we pick a formation, then players to then fit that formation. Thats exactly what we did when we had those players. Our managers refused to deviate from the 4-4-2 formation we presumed to be the best way of playing, meaning that we didnt get the best out of our numerous top class central midfielders, we played our best one in Scholes wide, and didnt play a system to allow Gerrard and Lampard the license to do what they did for their clubs. We should have picked a more suitable position based on the personnel, not the other way round.

As an aside, I see Joe Hart is back in the West Ham team doing what he does best. Useless.

Blame Sven and Capello for that? How much did we give them in wages?.over 40 millions?.what a waste of money. 

No my stats proved that club stats means nothing in international terms

Hart isnt useless but not anywhere near his form from 2 years ago. Would be 3rd choice. Butland 1st then Pickford 2nd

[roversfan99]

I agree it was poor management. Do you understand my point though, that in those times, we picked a formation (4-4-2) and then squeezed players into that, rather than picking a formation to suit our best players? Which is similar to you, picking a formation first, then players second in that formation.

Its the way of thinking that im disputing. If you had said, I think our best 3 attacking players are Rashford, Kane and Alli, and id play 3-4-1-2 to best suit them, I would disagree with the first bit but understand your way of thinking at least. But the way youve suggested picking a formation first is totally flawed, and the same way of thinking that caused us to fail in the past with better players.

You didnt provide any stats. Besides, its not just stats, out of them 3, Sterling has had his best ever season, Alli has massively dipped and Rashford has been a bit part player, add the stats in and youve got a strong argument that Sterling is the most important of the 3.

Youd be in a small minority wanting him near that plane, hes been a laughing stock for years.

[chaddyrovers]

I've already told you my views on clubs stats regarding International football why keep arguing about it? we disagree so move on cos its very boring

No cos the formation suits the players Ive picked and plays them in the proper positions like Rashford and Kane are strikers and Ali is 10 for me  so play them there. Rashford isn't a winger for me and that's opinion. Plus allowed me 3 at the back which I think we need defensively and Stones being the middle man of the back 3. we need to be more solid and proper set up unless we be expose as a back 4 IMO.

Sterling doesn't fit that formation.

Eriksson played Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard in their wrong positions for years. Clown he was that. 

 

[philipl]

No way are England fans going to be safe in Russia.

As for the England team, it is Kane and a bunch of nobodies.