Andorra Vs England

[STFC_Gazzza]

OK we won but should have won by a lot more, Yes Andorra played 9 men in defence however for the life of me why were we crossing to a 4'5 striker who had no chance of getting the ball. Rooney is shit and should be dropped. Others nothing to the squad at all.Absolute bloody waste of space. He has failed to live up to his billing of the next big thing IMO.

It was infuriating to see Defoe playing up front and we were crossing the ball to the box but their keeper must be about 6 foot and their defenders (all 9 of them) were taller than Defoe so he never had a chance.

On the postive side, Walcott played good IMO.

[Nomoreheroes]

Might have helped if there has been a bit more urgency, movement and willingness to get inside the box from the midfield. Cole did it twice but was berated by Cappelo for dropping too deep thereafter. Lampard and Barry looked incredibly slow. Downing was outclassed. Walcott was quick but had little control or quality.

Of the defence, I think that Cole and Johnson (in the 2nd half) had the right idea by trying to run at people. Terry's braincell wasn't working and distribution was woeful. Why would you want to lump in forward from the back to a pair of dwarves up front if they are tipple marked by giants who were lying deep so that they couldn't be beaten for pace? Furthermore, why did we need a 4th defender? No need for the Klingon methinks.

Up front we looked absolutely toothless. Don't think we've got anyone better to bring in though. Thats the problem when you make your top league an international conglomerate !

If we only had the ability to pass accurately and had an understanding of where players were likely to move to and we might have scored a few more. If we had done then we might have convinced other teams that we are quite good. However, 2-0 away against the mighty Andorra ain't that good!

NMH

[Scot Munroe]

Meh, it was still painfully dull and lacklustre... I don't expect fireworks but jeebus.

Meanwhile watching the Argies against the Paras - Ossie Ardiles is the pundit, and had a suspicious white mark on his forehead for a few minutes. Odd.

my mate spotted that as well. Strange.

[Peter Venkman]

Must admit it was a pretty crap performance by almost all the team, Downing should never play for England again, Barry was worth a go but the bollocks concerning his transfer to Liverpoo has fucked his form up...he shouldnt have played under the circumstances.

Walcott, Cashley Cole and Terry were the only players I would pick for the next game from the starters yesterday.

Why Joe Cole was not started is beyond me.

The starting team just was not good enough, Defoe, Johnson and Downing shouldnt ever play for England again.

[michael]

Well the u21s have qualified for whatever they are trying to qualify for, so perhaps some of that lot can step up now.

[Rich Pullen]

Agbonlahor should certainly be in the squad at least.

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

Agree there Rich.

[Simon Pieman]

Terry was fucking awful. Johnson didn't do any worse than Cole, Cole can't cross a ball for shit. He'll never have that ability.

Walcott is worth keeping in there. He needs to develop and get some confidence going. Joe Cole should start the next game and I expect he will. I think Crotia will be a better game.

It's early days for Capello yet, hasn't been in charge for many games. I think he is trying to slowly implement changes rather than do them all at once and come off even worse. Trouble is, world cup is not far away.

[Reg Smeeton]

It's early days for Capello yet, hasn't been in charge for many games. I think he is trying to slowly implement changes rather than do them all at once and come off even worse. Trouble is, world cup is not far away.

 At this point in time, all Capello needs to do is qualify....which would be some sort of achievement in itself.  We now know that the Croats, are by some way better than England, so we have underdog status...reaching a po maybe as good as we can hope for.
 
 A draw in Zagreb would be very satisfactory...can't see it myself.  Jamie Carragher, who played in the 0-2, last time, pretty much sums the attitude of most England players, when he admitted losing with England didn't really bother him.

[Lumps]

Why is it that all the pundits on the radio, and by the seem of it most of you on here, seem to think that crosses are by definition high balls played in to the box for a tall striker to head?

I think it's a consequence of the media being conditioned to believe that what Beckham was delivering from the right flank for all those years, usually from about 15 yards in from the half way line, were "crosses".

Crosses are not high hanging balls played into the area from anywhere on the flanks, they are square or better yet cut back balls played from the wide areas into the penalty area.

The most effective crosses aren't high balls at all they're low and hard, drilled into the 6 yard box from the by-line, that a quick little striker can nip onto and poke in at the near post.

It's a shame that at the top level of the game the drive towards turning all midfielders into pale imitations of Steven Gerrard have robbed us of any wingers capable of getting into that position and delivering those balls.

[Simon Pieman]

Most of us lot being Gazza, who's point was more that the high looping crosses were not going to work with Defoe up front, rather than Defoe being to tiny to get on the end of them.

[Batch]

Crosses are not high hanging balls played into the area from anywhere on the flanks, they are square or better yet cut back balls played from the wide areas into the penalty area.

Of course crosses can be high balls into the area, and of course they can be effective if played with precision and a bit of pace. They have been the staple supply of the classic English centre forward for years.

We no longer seem to have that type of centre forward though so your point are valid.

[Lumps]

Of course crosses can be high balls into the area, and of course they can be effective if played with precision and a bit of pace. They have been the staple supply of the classic English centre forward for years.

We no longer seem to have that type of centre forward though so your point are valid.

I'm not saying crosses can't be high balls, I'm just sayijng that isn't what DEFINES a cross. A cross is defined by the area of the pitch from which it is delivered, which is why I'm always pissed off by the the assertion that Beckham is such a great crosser of the ball. CROSSES ARE NOT DELIVERED DIAGONALLY FROM 40 YARDS OUT ON THE TOUCHLINE. That's a long ball. It might be an accurate and effective long pass but it ain't a fucking cross.

[BANGKOK RED]

I'm not saying crosses can't be high balls, I'm just sayijng that isn't what DEFINES a cross. A cross is defined by the area of the pitch from which it is delivered, which is why I'm always pissed off by the the assertion that Beckham is such a great crosser of the ball. CROSSES ARE NOT DELIVERED DIAGONALLY FROM 40 YARDS OUT ON THE TOUCHLINE. That's a long ball. It might be an accurate and effective long pass but it ain't a fucking cross.

I know where you are coming from Lumps. IMO a cross is only a cross is when it is delivered from close to the touchline.

However, when you have a player like Beckham on the ball then he can whip the ball in from wherever he wants to.

I well remember Bodin and Summerbee delivering some lovely 'crosses" from deep, and nobody stood next to me was complaining about "Hoof ball" then. I think it depends on the player.

This discussion not dis-similar the the "Winger" or "Wide midfielder" argument. Again it depends on the player in that position.

[Simon Pieman]

Surely a cross is just a shortened term for a 'cross-field pass', therefore a cross into the box is a ball which come from the side of the pitch.

I'm not saying that England's punts into the box were good though, I thought quite the opposite.