Frank Lampard

[Jusoda Kid 1]

.. but Laz, that's not his only flaw.

 

as I noted above.

153212[/snapback]

 

no its not - but he would be more effective on the wing, rather than i the middle.

 

i'm not a beckham fanboy or anything but ask your self who are englands best crossers of the ball - and how often do we exploit that?

153216[/snapback]

 

Beckham cuts inside because he no longer has the ability to go past a man, therefore he tries to hide his flaws, as any player would, add this to the fact that he fancies himself as a CM and this explains his inept performances.

153221[/snapback]

 

His inept performance won us the game today.

153222[/snapback]

 

His freekick won us the game today, what else did he do worthy of a mention.

[Jimbo 175]

.. but Laz, that's not his only flaw.

 

as I noted above.

153212[/snapback]

 

no its not - but he would be more effective on the wing, rather than i the middle.

 

i'm not a beckham fanboy or anything but ask your self who are englands best crossers of the ball - and how often do we exploit that?

153216[/snapback]

 

Beckham cuts inside because he no longer has the ability to go past a man, therefore he tries to hide his flaws, as any player would, add this to the fact that he fancies himself as a CM and this explains his inept performances.

153221[/snapback]

 

His inept performance won us the game today.

153222[/snapback]

 

His freekick won us the game today, what else did he do worthy of a mention.

153226[/snapback]

 

Who looked likely to score today ? none of them !

 

I'm not saying Beckham had a great game, but the fact of the matter is whilst the team is playing as shit as it is you can't afford to drop Beckham.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

.. but Laz, that's not his only flaw.

 

as I noted above.

153212[/snapback]

 

no its not - but he would be more effective on the wing, rather than i the middle.

 

i'm not a beckham fanboy or anything but ask your self who are englands best crossers of the ball - and how often do we exploit that?

153216[/snapback]

 

Beckham cuts inside because he no longer has the ability to go past a man, therefore he tries to hide his flaws, as any player would, add this to the fact that he fancies himself as a CM and this explains his inept performances.

153221[/snapback]

 

His inept performance won us the game today.

153222[/snapback]

 

His freekick won us the game today, what else did he do worthy of a mention.

153226[/snapback]

 

Who looked likely to score today ? none of them !

 

I'm not saying Beckham had a great game, but the fact of the matter is whilst the team is playing as shit as it is you can't afford to drop Beckham.

153227[/snapback]

 

 

Beckham without Neville behind him is a different player as Phil Neville pointed out today in one of the papers and i can't help thinking that Lennon would give us more in attack, like having the pace to support Rooneys runs, something Beckham sadly lacks.

[Gemmill 46182]

he doesn't beat people, his workrate now sucks, his effectiveness from setpieces is suddenly nonexistant.

 

The only way to use him properly would be to make football game outcomes based on net worth and not ability.

 

Lennon beats players, he commits defenders into the tackle, he forces the opposition back allieviating pressure from the centre of the park.

153210[/snapback]

 

Quoted for truth, he's a luxury we can't afford, much like Laurent Robert in his latter days at the toon

153223[/snapback]

 

Comparing him to that sackless lazy arsehole is out of order tbh. Robert's not fit to lace Beckham's boots.

[Jimbo 175]

.. but Laz, that's not his only flaw.

 

as I noted above.

153212[/snapback]

 

no its not - but he would be more effective on the wing, rather than i the middle.

 

i'm not a beckham fanboy or anything but ask your self who are englands best crossers of the ball - and how often do we exploit that?

153216[/snapback]

 

Beckham cuts inside because he no longer has the ability to go past a man, therefore he tries to hide his flaws, as any player would, add this to the fact that he fancies himself as a CM and this explains his inept performances.

153221[/snapback]

 

His inept performance won us the game today.

153222[/snapback]

 

His freekick won us the game today, what else did he do worthy of a mention.

153226[/snapback]

 

Who looked likely to score today ? none of them !

 

I'm not saying Beckham had a great game, but the fact of the matter is whilst the team is playing as shit as it is you can't afford to drop Beckham.

153227[/snapback]

 

 

Beckham without Neville behind him is a different player as Phil Neville pointed out today in one of the papers and i can't help thinking that Lennon would give us more in attack, like having the pace to support Rooneys runs, something Beckham sadly lacks.

153228[/snapback]

 

I don't disagree !

 

but without Beckham, England would be on the plane home.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

he doesn't beat people, his workrate now sucks, his effectiveness from setpieces is suddenly nonexistant.

 

The only way to use him properly would be to make football game outcomes based on net worth and not ability.

 

Lennon beats players, he commits defenders into the tackle, he forces the opposition back allieviating pressure from the centre of the park.

153210[/snapback]

 

Quoted for truth, he's a luxury we can't afford, much like Laurent Robert in his latter days at the toon

153223[/snapback]

 

Comparing him to that sackless lazy arsehole is out of order tbh. Robert's not fit to lace Beckham's boots.

153229[/snapback]

 

I meant in terms of free icks and corners, not being a lazy fuck faced, frog eating shithouse

[Jusoda Kid 1]

.. but Laz, that's not his only flaw.

 

as I noted above.

153212[/snapback]

 

no its not - but he would be more effective on the wing, rather than i the middle.

 

i'm not a beckham fanboy or anything but ask your self who are englands best crossers of the ball - and how often do we exploit that?

153216[/snapback]

 

Beckham cuts inside because he no longer has the ability to go past a man, therefore he tries to hide his flaws, as any player would, add this to the fact that he fancies himself as a CM and this explains his inept performances.

153221[/snapback]

 

His inept performance won us the game today.

153222[/snapback]

 

His freekick won us the game today, what else did he do worthy of a mention.

153226[/snapback]

 

Who looked likely to score today ? none of them !

 

I'm not saying Beckham had a great game, but the fact of the matter is whilst the team is playing as shit as it is you can't afford to drop Beckham.

153227[/snapback]

 

 

Beckham without Neville behind him is a different player as Phil Neville pointed out today in one of the papers and i can't help thinking that Lennon would give us more in attack, like having the pace to support Rooneys runs, something Beckham sadly lacks.

153228[/snapback]

 

I don't disagree !

 

but without Beckham, England would be on the plane home.

153231[/snapback]

 

I can't disagree with that

[Gemmill 46182]

he doesn't beat people, his workrate now sucks, his effectiveness from setpieces is suddenly nonexistant.

 

The only way to use him properly would be to make football game outcomes based on net worth and not ability.

 

Lennon beats players, he commits defenders into the tackle, he forces the opposition back allieviating pressure from the centre of the park.

153210[/snapback]

 

Quoted for truth, he's a luxury we can't afford, much like Laurent Robert in his latter days at the toon

153223[/snapback]

 

Comparing him to that sackless lazy arsehole is out of order tbh. Robert's not fit to lace Beckham's boots.

153229[/snapback]

 

I meant in terms of free icks and corners, not being a lazy fuck faced, frog eating shithouse

153232[/snapback]

 

I'll let you off then.

 

Seriously, Beckham has frustrated me so far in this tournament, but without him in the team I'm not sure we'd still be there. I think he's far from a luxury player.

[Lazarus 0]

.. but Laz, that's not his only flaw.

 

as I noted above.

153212[/snapback]

 

no its not - but he would be more effective on the wing, rather than i the middle.

 

i'm not a beckham fanboy or anything but ask your self who are englands best crossers of the ball - and how often do we exploit that?

153216[/snapback]

 

Beckham cuts inside because he no longer has the ability to go past a man, therefore he tries to hide his flaws, as any player would, add this to the fact that he fancies himself as a CM and this explains his inept performances.

153221[/snapback]

 

but he doesnt have to go past his man.

 

he just needs that yard of space to whip a cross in.

 

if beckham whipped in more crosses, he'd be more effective.

[Isegrim 9910]

On the way back I was talking to an English fan about Beckham's role. To me he looks undroppable just because of his reputation. But I think it would be for the better of the team to either give him a central role or just drop him. On the right wing he is a liability in my opinion. He is just trying to hit long ball fancy passes from the half field who often enough don't beat the first defender. I can't remember the last time Beckham was chasing down the wing and getting in a cross from the touchline into the back of the defence. That's something Lennon seems always trying to do.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

he doesn't beat people, his workrate now sucks, his effectiveness from setpieces is suddenly nonexistant.

 

The only way to use him properly would be to make football game outcomes based on net worth and not ability.

 

Lennon beats players, he commits defenders into the tackle, he forces the opposition back allieviating pressure from the centre of the park.

153210[/snapback]

 

I don't think his work rate is questionable at all tbh. And he won us the game today with a free kick. I'm a big fan of Beckham, and as much as he's misfired this tournament, I'd be loathe to drop him. If anything I'd take Lampard out the team, move Beckham inside and stick Lennon wide right.

153219[/snapback]

 

Can't question his workrate, just before he went off, despite being ill he got in a great tackle from nowhere to stop an attack near the edge of our box.

 

He's done very little in this tournament throughout...except for make the winner against Paraguay, the opener against T&T and scored the winner today. So playing badly he is winning matches and thats how you win tournaments, if he steps up and plays well who knows what he'll do.

 

But the facts are love him or hate him his goal and assists have been crucial in winning games and thats the bottom line.

 

Just like it was with Robert no matter how much Gemmil never misses a chance to have a go at him And thats not me saying he's as good as Beckham but at club level his goal and assist record speaks for itself.

[luckypierre 0]

but he doesnt have to go past his man.

 

he just needs that yard of space to whip a cross in.

 

if beckham whipped in more crosses, he'd be more effective.

153235[/snapback]

 

That HIS choice not to do that anymore though Lazarus. Its his choice to keep dropping deep and infield. The last two games he's obviously been instructed to stay out wide more but he tends to sulk a bit when he isnt involved. He's still not getting forward enough and his workrate the past two games has dropped considerably. Now if we're going to continue to indulge him, considering what he still does bring, he should be brought into the centre instead of Lampard. He's a waste at RM

Edited June 25, 2006 by luckypierre

[Lazarus 0]

well - the way i see it, he's a fantastic crosser of the ball. but we only see it from set pieces and not from open play.

 

seems a waste to me.

[Jimbo 175]

Beckham was poor, but Lampard.......

[catmag 337]

Beckham was poor, but Lampard.......

153258[/snapback]

 

Lampard had a mare today but you can't deny he's a fantastic player. The jury is still out with me on the Beckham thing. I think he's underachieved this world cup but again, where would we be without him after today. To be fair, he said afterwards that he was unwell before the game and puked on the field. Lennon did well when he came on but doesn't have Beckham's experience.

 

And I only remembered we'd actually taken Jenas when I saw him on the touchline today....

[Jimbo 175]

Beckham was poor, but Lampard.......

153258[/snapback]

 

Lampard had a mare today but you can't deny he's a fantastic player. The jury is still out with me on the Beckham thing. I think he's underachieved this world cup but again, where would we be without him after today. To be fair, he said afterwards that he was unwell before the game and puked on the field. Lennon did well when he came on but doesn't have Beckham's experience.

 

And I only remembered we'd actually taken Jenas when I saw him on the touchline today....

153275[/snapback]

 

Lampard has been shocking from the first match, on form he should be dropped with Lennon coming in, he's looked a threat for every second he's been on the pitch.

 

Sadly for Sven the line from Goal! is all too true:

 

The name on the back of the shirt is more important than the name on the front.

[The Fish 10977]

I see two ways to look at Beckhams Performances in an England shirt.

 

How often has a free kick or corner lead to Goal? We depend on him to save us from the side's indecisiveness and lack of imagination.

 

or

 

We lack decisiveness and imagination because our entire right wing is stagnant, if we had a player willing to run past players and either make space or get into space our other players would have more options.

 

 

 

Look Beckham has an awesome array of passing, but what the fuck point is it when the players are ten yards from him? Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham seem to, more often than not, play under eachothers feet. Beckham is at his best when he's hitting runners... we haven't got any runners.

 

More often than not our tactics seem to involve hitting a long ball up front for either Rooney/Owen to chase or Crouch to head down. This completely negates a midfield who's combined passing ability puts most teams (including Brazil) to shame. we should get the ball on the deck and move the play from side to side at pace. The best way to do this is to have Gerrard spraying balls hither and thither for Cole and Lennon to move onto.

 

I think Beckham is played because he gets out of scrapes, but I think his place in the first 11 is the reason we get into so many scrapes in the first place.

 

sure if we HAVE to play him, drop Lampard and stick him in the center, neither can tackle so we'll not miss out there.

 

Even better in my opinion is to play 3 at the back,Ashley Cole and Beckham as wing backs, Carrick a holding player, Cole and Lennon bombing down the channels with Gerrard playing off Rooney in the center

 

Effectively a 3-3-2-1-1

--------------------Robinson

 

--------Carragher Terry Ferdinand

Beckham ---------------------------A.Cole

--------------------Carrick

----------Lennon---------------J.Cole

 

--------------------Gerrard

------------------------Rooney

 

When we've got the ball, we're playing an attacking 3 1 4 1 1, without the ball Gerrard can drop back into midfield, Ashley Cole back into defence, Beckham push into the center along side Carrick, Lennon and Cole dropping into a natural 4-5-1 formation

 

like

----------------Robinson

 

-----Carragher Terry Ferdinand Cole

 

Lennon Beckham Carrick Gerrard Cole

 

--------------------Rooney

 

hard on the energy levels, but with Lampard, Hargreaves, and Walcott able to come on for the players who will feel it most (Gerrard, Beckham Cole/Lennon respectively) I think it's a system that could reap rewards from the players we have fit and firing on all cylinders..

 

could just be bollocks mind

[Guest Sima]

Do you really want such an inexperienced players in a world cup QF?

 

i wouldnt.

153199[/snapback]

 

I seem to remember Michael Owen once coming under that label.

153200[/snapback]

 

Michael Owen had 4 years England experience before he played in a WC QF tbh

[sweetleftpeg 0]

England are too negative, it's frustrating as fuck. Like I've said before, they all seem to be playing within themsleves, which is happening far too often for England lately.

[Gemmill 46182]

From today's Times. A bit OTT, but there's definitely some sense in what he's saying - we would drop him at our peril:

 

Sven's changes throw up a familiar outcome

By Simon Barnes

 

As England continue to tinker, Our Chief Sports Writer salutes the constancy of David Beckham

 

 

IT’S NICE TO KNOW that, in times of ever-changing formations, ever more eccentric selections, slipping standards, poor excuses and faltering resolve, there is something that remains unsullied by the passage of time and the whims of the head coach. In a World Cup campaign that has been marked by uncertainty at every level and in every phase, we still have the David Beckham Special.

 

And so England move, rather improbably and without putting up a single performance of merit, still less style, into the quarter-finals of the World Cup. They have done at least as well as they did last time around. And you suppose, this being a bunch of decent players, that they might yet have a decent performance in them.

 

The English nation has been obsessed with Wayne Rooney’s damaged metatarsal, Peter Crouch’s robot dance, the new attacking role for Steven Gerrard, Theo Walcott — Sven is clearly saving him for the final — a new role for Owen Hargreaves, another new role for Owen Hargreaves and on and on and on.

 

Every 45 minutes, a new formation, a new secret weapon, a new performance that fails to add up to anything except confusion. The only people who have been trembling in their boots have been England supporters, from their customary position behind the sofa. But hey, England are there and three matches away from winning the World Cup.

 

Beckham, the fame junkie, seems to have gone into detox for this competition. Even his haircut is unremarkable. He has got as near as someone like him ever will to acting the Good Ol’ Pro. Seen it all, done it all, yet the passion, as ever, undimmed and the eye as deadly as ever.

 

England won by the only goal from a free kick that Ecuador seemed to have conceded in a deliberate attempt to showcase the Beckham Special. The foul was committed 30 yards out on the Ecuadorean right, the right side for the inside-of-the foot curler and the optimum distance for getting the ball up and down.

 

So there it was, a rainbow arc in the vertical plane added to a sharp left-hand curve in the horizontal plane. The result was a perfect piece of spherical trigonometry, scraping the near post at exactly — but exactly — the point where Beckham wanted it. Again a Beckham Special was the difference between winning and losing, between being a part of the continuing World Cup story and coming to a full stop.

 

It’s a bit like the theory for stopping Diego Maradona: look, he’s only got one good foot, so stand in the way of his left and he won’t be able to do anything. But with Maradona, forewarning has never worked as method of forearming. And if Beckham is obviously a lesser player, something of the same is true of his ability with the free kick. Cristian Mora, the Ecuador goalkeeper, knew what to expect but when the execution is perfect, you just can’t get there in time.

 

It is cheering to see the old boy still strutting the same old stuff in a team that changes every few days. He no longer gets the attention he once did. He is well aware that Rooney’s metatarsal was at least as big a story as his was four years on. The torch has been passed on, but Beckham remains. And there he was, leaning out and away from the ball in that moment of release, a wall-of-death rider’s angle that worked because speed and balance were perfect. It would be nice to carry on listing his wonderful things in this match, but there weren’t any. It was that kind of match. Praise willpower, commitment, drive, energy, hope, but apart from the free kick it was a performance short of glamorous virtues. Perhaps the second best thing Beckham did was to throw up on the pitch — a sign of both his willingness to give of himself and of the indigestible nature of energy drinks.

 

Beckham has reached the stage at which he can hear the ticking of the clock. This must be his last World Cup. With Sven-Göran Eriksson moving on, he loses a more than a coach; an ally. His days as captain are numbered. How long, if at all, will Steve McClaren, Eriksson’s successor, want him in that role? This is something of Beckham’s last throw as an international and that does rather tend to concentrate the mind. No fool, he can see that England’s performances have been less than inspiring, but they are still there, which is better than playing brilliantly and then going out.

 

Without Beckham’s strike, England could have gone out, and the World Cup would have been written off as a disaster. With it, England go lurching on, like the clowns’ car at the circus, with elliptical wheels, lopsided frame and a tendency to shed bits of itself with loud explosions and still keep going. As it goes, Beckham — like the white-faced clown in the silver suit, the beautiful clown — is proceeding with the expression of a man driving a new Rolls-Royce.

[luckyluke 2]

Do you really want such an inexperienced players in a world cup QF?

 

i wouldnt.

153199[/snapback]

 

I seem to remember Michael Owen once coming under that label.

153200[/snapback]

 

Michael Owen had 4 years England experience before he played in a WC QF tbh

153352[/snapback]

 

He only had a couple of months' experience when he played against the Argies in 98. I know it wasn't a quarter final, but it was the last 16 and the standard of opposition was the same.

[luckypierre 0]

From today's Times.  A bit OTT, but there's definitely some sense in what he's saying - we would drop him at our peril:

 

.. a bit?

 

I dont think he should be dropped but you cant just simply excuse him by saying where would we be without him. Its not that simple, you have to take account of how his form affects the teams performance from open play. His performance at RM is one of the main factors in why we arent creating any chances. Maybe if Lennon started we wouldnt have to rely on his set pieces??

[Gemmill 46182]

From today's Times.  A bit OTT, but there's definitely some sense in what he's saying - we would drop him at our peril:

 

.. a bit?

 

I dont think he should be dropped but you cant just simply excuse him by saying where would we be without him. Its not that simple, you have to take account of how his form affects the teams performance from open play. His performance at RM is one of the main factors in why we arent creating any chances. Maybe if Lennon started we wouldnt have to rely on his set pieces??

153422[/snapback]

 

I've said I would start Lennon, but I would drop Lampard and move Beckham inside, retaining the threat from his set pieces and getting that trigger-happy eejit out of the team.

 

I think it's crazy to suggest that we only rely on Beckham's set pieces because Beckham's in the side causing us to rely on them btw. There are 10 other players on the pitch and Beckham doesn't negatively influence our play to that extent.

[luckypierre 0]

just like Ive advocated myself. It wasnt aimed particualrly at you Gemmill , more the piece you quoted

 

I did say one of the factors..which it certainly is. The question about Lennon starting was to show how pointless it is to make such statements. Saying we would be out if it wasnt for Beckhams freekicks is as meaningful as saying we wouldnt need to rely on them if someone else played. What ifs

Edited June 26, 2006 by luckypierre

[Optimistic Nut 205]

Lampard should not be in the same side as Gerrard. In Euro 2000, even though Del Piero & Totti were probably their best two players in the squad, only one would play as it wouldn't have worked to play both. IMO, it should be Carrick/Hargreaves alongside Gerrard with Rooney off Crouch.