World Cup 2014 Super Thread copyright warning #1645

Welbeck is not an excellant footballer. Decison making in teh finla third is not up to it atm. He is a very useful player tho. But I would start with Sterling

this thread would could do with a poll. id love to see a couple of hundred votes and see the poll then.

nobody on tv/papers/internet is giving spain any hope at all. ive backed them and the inclusion of costa and young players like koke should at least be getting the respect they deserve

Pro. F wrote: »

Since the discussion actually started with me saying that Hodgeson manages the England team poorly and doesn't select his best players, it is not a long way from the original discussion at all.

It started by you saying "Fair enough. I suspect that if they (Lennon and Adam Johnson) were sixth and seventh choice wingers for the Dutch or Italians, or somebody like that, and playing in a league other than the PL, you wouldn't hold them up as a sign of those national sides lacking depth. But I suppose we can never know."

Followed by my first post quoting that and saying "To be fair, there are plenty of players not in other squads that are better than players in the English squad." - Which I still believe is true.

Pro. F wrote: »

Since you wanted to compare players left at home to players going of the various squads, then the recently retired, former captain and one of the best CBs in the country is of course an important part of that discussion. It's not like he retired under straightforward circumstances. There was a lot of controversy around him at the time with the racist abuse court case. But you carry on pretending that there wasn't a good chance that Terry could have been convinced to play on if the manager had tried.

That's fair enough and I accept that Terry is better than the CB's that some of the other top nations brought. But the fact that he is also better than the CB's
that England brought renders your point invalid in the overall discussion of depth.

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't say that I'm not interested in anyone's opinion.

"I'm not interested in what most people's opinions are on any particular football matter. The fans, journalists and pundits who don't have a clue are in the overwhelming majority. I'm happy to form my opinions without regard to what most people think."

Sorry, you're not interested in what the vast majority think :rolleyes:

Pro. F wrote: »

Spain I agree with, for the rest I disagree. For Argentina I find the suggestion laughable.

I'm too busy at the minute to reply to this point but I'll come back to it later.

Pro. F wrote: »

You're using question marks wrong.

De Jong is a weak passer, he has an unreliable first touch and weak close control. I developed this opinion of de Jong by understanding football and watching him play it. I can argue that Britton and Cork are better than de Jong because they have better defensive positioning, infinitely better touch and control and so more reliable and creative passing. De Jong is average at the DM job.

Don't get ratty because you're failing to prove your point

You think it's laughable that I believe Argentina have a wider talent pool available than England, well I think it's hysterical that you think De Jong is a weak passer despite everything pointing to the contrary.

I watched NDJ play 50+ games this season and you can take my word for it, he is far from a poor passer of the ball and his positioning is that of an experienced international. NOw everyone is entitled to their opinion, but your opinion on him is very wrong.

Pro. F wrote: »

It doesn't invalidate the point, since I started the conversation by saying that Hodgeson is not bringing his best talent.
It still remains that your criticism of the English talent pool -
"To be fair, there are plenty of players not in other squads that are better than players in the English squad"
- could be said about the majority of the best teams going to the tournament.

Even if you replaced Jones/Smalling with Terry and Shaw with Cole, there would still be players going to the tournament for big sides who aren't as good as players being left at home by other sides, including England. It is a stupid way to criticise a nation's talent pool.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with.

I never even saw your post saying that so explain to me how the conversation started on that note.

Spain - Valdes, Carvajal, Thiago, Isco, Jesús Navas, Llorente, Negredo

Brazil - Miranda, Marquinhos, Lucas Moura, Pato, Damiao

Italy - Marchetti, Maggio, Ranocchia, Florenzi, G. Rossi, El Shaarawy

France - Mandanda, Adil Rami, Kondogbia, Nasri, Gourcoff

Argentina - Banega, Sosa, Lamela, Tevez


There's a few of the top of my head for some of the bigger nations, not including injured players like Ribery, Falcao and Montolivo, and I'm sure there's many more.


Each of the players in bold would be good enough to make the England team imo but fair enough, it is an unfair way of comparing the talent pools.

That being said, I think it's evident that the other top nations have a higher quality of player both at the tournament and not making the cut.

Even comparing the starting XI of the teams would show this, but if you think that England have a similar amount talent available to these countries then you're mistaken imo.

Might be stating the obvious here but for me England's success depends upon the performances of Oxlade c (if fit) berkely and sterling.

The likes of Gerard Rooney lampard Sturridge etc etc while important I think how the above 3 perform will dictate how well England do.

Pro. F wrote: »

Read it yourself.

Right. And explain to me how our discussion started on that note if I I'm only seeing that post now? I never argued anything about Hodgson not bringing the best English players available.

Pro. F wrote: »

It's a dumb and ineffective way to compare the talent pools. And yet you are persisting with doing it for I don't know how many posts at this stage.

Well how do you suggest you compare them? You don't want to compare the WC squads, or the starting XI's or the players that haven't been brought so in other words you don't want to compare them at all.

I think it's fairly obvious to most that those 5 teams have better players available than England, you haven't said anything to suggest otherwise.

Pro. F wrote: »

Hodgeson is miles away from selecting his best starting 11 so comparing the starting XIs is not a good indicator either.

What do you think is England's best XI then out of every man, woman and child available to Hodgson?

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I'll be backing Spain myself at 13/2.

Can understand the hype around Brazil who have a strong XI and subs as well as having home advantage but to write Spain off is silly.

They're the best value price out of any team imo.

im glad SOMEONE agrees with me. family, friends, media all giving spain no hope. it just dont understand it!

ive signed up with boylesports to get their double the odds special. thinking of doing argentina at 9/1

Agreed. I think it will be a European team, for the first time ever. I always like the Germans, but I'm backing Spain. I would have liked to see Navas playing out wide but that isn't going to happen.

Even so, I think they'll win it.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Right. And explain to me how our discussion started on that note if I I'm only seeing that post now? I never argued anything about Hodgson not bringing the best English players available.

Well how do you suggest you compare them? You don't want to compare the WC squads, or the starting XI's or the players that haven't been brought so in other words you don't want to compare them at all.

I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through the start of the discussion. If you can't follow it yourself then that's your loss.

If you were interested in an honest discussion about comparing the relative strengths of the talent pools you could work out a sensible way of doing it yourself. But you obviously aren't interested in doing that so I'm not going to waste my time by explaining the obvious to you.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I think it's fairly obvious to most that those 5 teams have better players available than England, you haven't said anything to suggest otherwise.

I disagree. I think most of those five teams (plus the Netherlands and Germany) will perform better than England at this and every world cup, but I think that comes down to the fact that the preferred strategy in English football is, and has always been, extremely poor.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

What do you think is England's best XI then out of every man, woman and child available to Hodgson?

Not a chance am I getting into discussing that with you. We completely disagree on the quality of de Jong and as I said before, that shows to me that we aren't going to agree on many midfielders. Any 11 that I suggest for England you would think is idiotic and vice versa.

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through the start of the discussion. If you can't follow it yourself then that's your loss.

Right well I went and looked through the posts and the discussion was not started with the post you thought it was so you're wrong there and you can go and look for yourself.

Pro. F wrote: »

If you were interested in an honest discussion about comparing the relative strengths of the talent pools you could work out a sensible way of doing it yourself. But you obviously aren't interested in doing that so I'm not going to waste my time by explaining the obvious to you.

How can we possibly have a discussion when you refuse to use any possible means of comparing the squads? I'm guessing that this is because you have realised you can't prove your point because it is wrong and that's fine, but please just accept that.

Pro. F wrote: »

I disagree. I think most of those five teams (plus the Netherlands and Germany) will perform better than England at this and every world cup, but I think that comes down to the fact that the preferred strategy in English football is, and has always been, extremely poor.

Germany is another team i forgot who have much more talent available than England. The Netherlands, not so much.

You're telling me that the reason England don't perform as well as the other teams mentioned is solely because of the strategy employed and not because they don't have as good of a selection of players? Fair enough, I disagree.

Pro. F wrote: »

Not a chance am I getting into discussing that with you. We completely disagree on the quality of de Jong and as I said before, that shows to me that we aren't going to agree on many midfielders. Any 11 that I suggest for England you would think is idiotic and vice versa.

Well this is hilarious. If you had any sort of material to back up your point then you'd be typing it instead of saying you won't get into a discussion about it.

I honestly doubt that I would find the England XI you suggest idiotic. My point was never about who should or shouldn't be starting for England, it's that they don't have the abundance of talent available that the other top nations do. A fairly reasonable statement.

I think my knowledge of De Jong surpasses yours seeing as I have seen every game he has played this year (50+) and I'm guessing you watched him play a handful of times, if even.

But then again, I don't see how anybody could take you seriously when you continually have called him a terrible passer of the ball despite everything pointing to the opposite.

Any player playing in the top leagues with a pass accuracy of 91.4% couldn't be a terrible passer of the ball. And if you had watched him play as much a I have, you'd also know that he doesn't just pass it backwards or complete 2 yards passes - he regularly sets up attacks and picks out solid medium-ranged passes every game.

I honestly have never seen somebody argue their points so much with such little weight to back them up :eek:

A fascinating insight into Bosnia's long, bloody journey from the carnage in what was Yugoslavia in the early nineties to the footballing carnival in Brazil this next few weeks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/08/edin-dzeko-united-bosnia-world-cup

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

How can we possibly have a discussion when you refuse to use any possible means of comparing the squads? I'm guessing that this is because you have realised you can't prove your point because it is wrong and that's fine, but please just accept that.

I have not refused to use any possible means of comparing the talent pools available to the top nations. You are straw-manning.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

You're telling me that the reason England don't perform as well as the other teams mentioned is solely because of the strategy employed and not because they don't have as good of a selection of players? Fair enough, I disagree.

Well not solely. They have underperformed in international football for the majority of it's 140 year existence, so obviously, not every year would they have had a strong pool of talent available. But yes, for all the other years when they have had a strong pool of talent and still underperformed. I put that down to their poor footballing strategy.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Well this is hilarious. If you had any sort of material to back up your point then you'd be typing it instead of saying you won't get into a discussion about it.

The material that I have to back up my point is the same as the material you have - my opinion on various players' abilities. We disagree about a lot of players. I'm not interested in carrying on that discussion into a new tangent because I think you are a time waster.

Apart from the fact that we completely disagree on the basic abilities and requirements of central midfielders I think that you are carrying on your argument, about how to judge the talent pool available to England, in an intellectually dishonest way - with straw men, ad hominem, appeals to authority, time wasting, etc.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I think my knowledge of De Jong surpasses yours seeing as I have seen every game he has played this year (50+) and I'm guessing you watched him play a handful of times, if even.

But then again, I don't see how anybody could take you seriously when you continually have called him a terrible passer of the ball despite everything pointing to the opposite.

Any player playing in the top league with a pass accuracy of 91.4% couldn't be a terrible passer of the ball. And if you had watched him play as much a I have, you'd also know that he doesn't just pass it backwards or complete 2 yards passes - he regularly sets up attacks and picks out solid medium-ranged passes every game.

The fact that you have watched de Jong so much and still think that he is an excellent dcm only convinces me that you are a poor judge.

I didn't say that de Jong only passes the ball backwards or 2 yards. I gave a far more nuanced explanation than that for how a weak CM can rack up good passing stats. But you ignore that of course.

If the situation were reversed and I had seen him more than you, I wouldn't expect you to change your opinion because of that. Neither of us is going to change our opinions on de Jong so there is no point arguing about it. Here's another option: Shut the fúck up about it.

Looper007 wrote: »

I have Wilshire ahead of Henderson and I probably pick Ox (if he was fit ahead of Sterling) he has a little more experience. I don't get the love for Henderson, he's just a grafter for me.

Henderson works extremely hard but there is much more to his overall game that just hard work. Had 4 goals and 7 assists in the league last season. His finishing probably needs some work but his passing can be very good. Especially at slipping little through balls down the channels. Got a fair few of his assists from those kind of balls

K4t wrote: »

Yeah, that's why he's one of Utd's best players and consistently performs well in the biggest games including the CL. You're crazy calling him a 2nd tier player.

One of United's best players? Not that that has been much to crow about in the season just gone, but has he been better than Van Persie, Rooney, Mata, De Gea, Evra etc. He will not be a consistent started for United or any top 4 team in the next 6 or 7 years, I will gladly take my medicine if I am wrong but I'm pretty confident he won't.

K4t wrote: »

Yep he was a standout player last season and offered more than Van Persie in all round play scoring only three fewer goals than him. The only other outfield players who were as good are Rooney and Mata. Welbeck was also our best player in the ties against Bayern and against Real last season. He will be key to any success Utd have over the next decade.

The reason for all the criticism he receives is in your post, because he's a Utd player. Utd fans criticise him for a few missed chances (1v1 with Neuer a big one) plus genuine disappointment with the team and club (hell even Van Persie has come in for criticism a fair bit) and opposition fans simply because it's their favourite hobby to belittle Utd and their players, especially when the club struggles. The same is true with Rooney at the moment, even if he is not at his best.

Absolute and utter rubbish. Nothing to do with being an United player at all, if anything I'm slightly more biased towards United because of family connections. Your not going to be one of those United fans that can't accept criticism are you? There's lots of valid criticism against him.

You do realise Van Persie missed a decent sized part of the season and still scored more. Welbeck scored 1 Champions League goal and before he scored in October for United, he hadn't scored at Old Trafford in over 14 months.

He won't be 'key' to any success United have. Better players will come in and easily displace him.