ENGLAND and BRAZIL - spot the difference...

[REDLAND]

I believe Sven should be able to do what he wants and should be judged on COMPETATIVE games, if some Burberry gobshite came in my work and told me how to do my job, well lets say it wouldn't be pretty !!!

 

[Marc]

aahh but redders we all have a go at out manager when they do shit work and we know better or even BHA's manager when we start loosing

True that we should judge in competitive games only, but still I believe a team needs to gel long before we get there.

 

[fatboy]

Oh I get it. The main issue is keeping a millionaire Scotsman happy.

Would we be happy if Mayo, Watson, Butters, Hart and Oatway all got sent to some small Russian island to play some meaningless friendly and then all came back injured and knackered?

Probably!

 

[Safeway]

We play in white and they play in yellow?

Dunno, give up.

 

[Easy 10]

True that we should judge in competitive games only, but still I believe a team needs to gel long before we get there.

Agreed.
We HAVE got a decent record in competative games under Eriksson, but I sometimes think that its despite him, not because of him. I've lost count of the number of games where we've just about scraped a result, and played like a herd of diseased goats along the way.
With the players we have in this England team, we have a right to see something resembling a cohesive shape and pattern of play to impose on the opposition. In too many games under Sven, we have looked an absolute shambles. You can get away with it against your Slovakias, Macedonias, Greeks etc, and come away without losing. But against better quality, we'll always end up getting found out.

I want to see a definate spine to the England team playing consistantly together, and absolutely no more than 4 subs in any friendly. Eriksson has got to toughen up against the likes of Fergie and Houllier, and tell them to f*** RIGHT OFF if they whinge about releasing players. He's got the power to invoke this rule to suspend a player from playing for their club for 5 days after an International if that player fails to show for a squad. USE IT.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Agreed.
We HAVE got a decent record in competative games under Eriksson, but I sometimes think that its despite him, not because of him. I've lost count of the number of games where we've just about scraped a result, and played like a herd of diseased goats along the way.
With the players we have in this England team, we have a right to see something resembling a cohesive shape and pattern of play to impose on the opposition. In too many games under Sven, we have looked an absolute shambles. You can get away with it against your Slovakias, Macedonias, Greeks etc, and come away without losing. But against better quality, we'll always end up getting found out.

I want to see a definate spine to the England team playing consistantly together, and absolutely no more than 4 subs in any friendly. Eriksson has got to toughen up against the likes of Fergie and Houllier, and tell them to f*** RIGHT OFF if they whinge about releasing players. He's got the power to invoke this rule to suspend a player from playing for their club for 5 days after an International if that player fails to show for a squad. USE IT.

Should that be Erikssons responsibility though?

The FA should take a stronger role in this, what are they there for? Eriksson should be alllowed to get on with the job of managing the playing side, not getting caught up in arguments with gobshites like Ferguson and Houillier.

 

[Marc]

agreed managers need to shut up and just accept that players will be picked and played whether or not an important club match is coming up.

Gary Neville said this (another reason for hating him): "Man Utd pay my wages so they come first" when talking about playing for England, for f*** sake its your COUNTRY you should be proud to play and honour your duty not use wages as an excuse.
It should be the pinicle of any players career to wear the lions on the chest. oh and he's also a diving headbutting little runt!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Would we be happy if Mayo, Watson, Butters, Hart and Oatway all got sent to some small Russian island to play some meaningless friendly and then all came back injured and knackered?

Probably!

I don't agree that there is such a thing as a "meaningless friendly" - It's an international match. And it should be treated as such. OK, so all it proves is that we are better than Portugal. But that should mean something.

It can be almost as bad in the first round stages of a major tournament. A draw in the first match will get some commentators saying "We were never going to win Euro 2004 anyway. Not with Heskey injured. At least Sven now has an opportunity to start building the squad for the 2006 World Cup qualifiers."

Tosh.

 

[Easy 10]

Should that be Erikssons responsibility though?

The FA should take a stronger role in this, what are they there for? Eriksson should be alllowed to get on with the job of managing the playing side, not getting caught up in arguments with gobshites like Ferguson and Houillier.

Eriksson and the FA should show a united (no pun) front on the issue. This "mild mannered swede" act is all well and good, but he gets walked all over by the likes of Fergie and his crew. At the moment, he's terrified of upsetting the managers, and just goes along trying to please everyone. Yes, the FA should grasp the nettle and start getting tough, but they can only do that if Eriksson himself decides to develope a backbone.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Eriksson and the FA should show a united (no pun) front on the issue. This "mild mannered swede" act is all well and good, but he gets walked all over by the likes of Fergie and his crew. At the moment, he's terrified of upsetting the managers, and just goes along trying to please everyone. Yes, the FA should grasp the nettle and start getting tough, but they can only do that if Eriksson himself decides to develope a backbone.

The FA are the ones who hand out suspensions, not Eriksoon. If they make the rules then they should be the ones to dish out the punishments.

It's all on the FA as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Storer68]

Better ask that nice man from Nike - after all they pick the teams for friendlies............

In Brazil much of the anger is directed at US sportswear giant Nike. In 1996 the Brazilian football federation (CBF) struck a $200 million sponsorship deal with Nike. A controversial clause in the deal required the national team to play five friendlies a year featuring at least eight first team regulars.

 

[Brovion]

I think playing 22 players (11 in each half) in friendlies is an excellent idea. The one exception as Simster says was Australia.

Nowadays friendlies are just glorified training sessions. Neither the players (or their clubs) want them to get injured in meaningless fixtures. Sven is right to experiment, to try different players/systems and not worry about the result.

I don't think they should give Caps for them either.