DROP BECKHAM?

[strooood]

surely not... surely he can't... surely he wont.

no he wont.

will he?

i hope not. but it seems alot would rather start lennon ahead of beckham?  

[Simon Pieman]

I would drop Beckham, with a view to putting him on later on, around 60 mins if one of the midfielders is not performing. Becks was shit against Sweden, and only provided the goal for Crouch against T&T when Lennon was on.

This WC has shown that teams do not like players running at them. Beckham can't run without his zimmer-frame and his mach 3 power blades.

[strooood]

beckham is still the don, its just we expect so much from him whereas lennon skins a left back once and everyone thinks he's pele.

lennon looks fucking dangerous but starting him, especially ahead of becks would be foolish in my humble opinion. he's more of a 60 minute sub i recon when the left back's knackered.

if lennon was a left winger it would be so much easier  
beckham in the middle perhaps?

[Simon Pieman]

beckham is still the don, its just we expect so much from him whereas lennon skins a left back once and everyone thinks he's pele.

lennon looks fucking dangerous but starting him, especially ahead of becks would be foolish in my humble opinion. he's more of a 60 minute sub i recon when the left back's knackered.

if lennon was a left winger it would be so much easier  
beckham in the middle perhaps?

I see your point about the 60minute sub thing, that makes sense. Becks in the middle - could do, it's him or Lampard that should be dropped if Lennon starts.

If Lennon was a left winger, I'd still play Joe Cole.

[RobertT]

Beckham seems to get a lot of flack but I feel it's sometimes unwarranted.

Lennon is still inexperienced and should be used mainly as an impact sub.  He may well be exciting to watch but it was still Beckham's cross that set-up Crouch's goal for example.

Plus, if yesterday showed anything, it's the importance of set pieces, even as this level.  no other part of a 90 minute game allows for a box to be flooded with people ready to attack the ball where it counts.  Beckham, especially over the past few weeks, has shown he can still deliver some perfect free kicks and corners (would be nice for some of our players to get on the end of more of them).

I'd say Lampard is more at risk of missing out, having had more shots than the whole Costa Rican team put together so far I think.  He just doesn't seem to be operating as he normally can, and Gerrard is a must.

[STFC Village]

Agree with Dex, Beckham must start

[Simon Pieman]

See I'd rather have Becks on at the end putting set plays into the box when we need them most. Not that I'm anti-Beckham, if he starts I'll still be happy. He has been one of the better players in the last few games.

[Ben Wah Balls]

I agree that Lennon is more of an impact sub for England at the moment but I hope he gets a good half an hour for most games.

Lampard should definitely not be dropped, yeah he's missed a few chances but he got in the positions to have the chances and he's came very close to scoring a number of times. With Owen out he's even more important.

[McLovin]

Beckham's main contribution to our set pieces yesterday was to lose Allback for their first. I don't think we can keep him in just because one of his crosses from deep (beat a player? don't be silly) might catch Crouch on the noggin.

[oxford_fan]

yep, gotta have becks in there.

he's been utter pap for england since greece but he's actually got some fitness now and looks more like his old self. you also lose his set-piece deliveries (possibly our most dangerous position at the moment) which are essential.

and whilst lennon looks a decent prospect i don't think he'd be too much trouble for a left back at this stage. all he's really got is pace, little skill (hence why he always just knocks it wide and runs on) - so is ideal to bring on in the last 20 minutes.

[Piemonte]

beckham is still the don, its just we expect so much from him whereas lennon skins a left back once and everyone thinks he's pele.

lennon looks fucking dangerous but starting him, especially ahead of becks would be foolish in my humble opinion. he's more of a 60 minute sub i recon when the left back's knackered.

if lennon was a left winger it would be so much easier  
beckham in the middle perhaps?

yep, Becks in the middle of a 5 man midfield, drop the underperforming Lampard.

[larwood]

Beckham can't run without his zimmer-frame and his mach 3 power blades.

 

[oxford_fan]

beckham is still the don, its just we expect so much from him whereas lennon skins a left back once and everyone thinks he's pele.

lennon looks fucking dangerous but starting him, especially ahead of becks would be foolish in my humble opinion. he's more of a 60 minute sub i recon when the left back's knackered.

if lennon was a left winger it would be so much easier  
beckham in the middle perhaps?

yep, Becks in the middle of a 5 man midfield, drop the underperforming Lampard.

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

i wouldnt drop Becks. he will probably cry

[Kinky Tom]

yep, gotta have becks in there.

he's been utter pap for england since greece but he's actually got some fitness now and looks more like his old self. you also lose his set-piece deliveries (possibly our most dangerous position at the moment) which are essential.

and whilst lennon looks a decent prospect i don't think he'd be too much trouble for a left back at this stage. all he's really got is pace, little skill (hence why he always just knocks it wide and runs on) - so is ideal to bring on in the last 20 minutes.

The thing with having Lennon on the pitch though is that he forces chances by taking the game to the oppostition, having Becks on just to rely on his set-pieces is daft.  Yes he's the best at it, but who's to say we're always going to get the dangerous positions from free-kicks in order for it to pay dividens?

With the players available to us in midfield we should be dominating games but it's not, so giving something alse a go might work, if it doesn't then it might at least give Becks the kick up the arse he deserves.