Good Bob wrote:bigmick wrote:England go into the tournament with the best central midfield partnership in the competition. They also in my opinion have the best central defensive partnership in the world Cup and the best left-back by a distance. The keeper is solid enough, as is the right back while the right midfielder is the best deleverer of a dead ball in football today.
Up top is where the weaknesses lie, as Owen looks nowhere near fir to me and is not in my opinion the player he once was anyway. Crouch while not being World-class will do a job.
It's easy to say "they're not good enough they won't win it" about any cup competition. After all by the nature of a knockout there can be only one winner so almost every time those that pick any team and say "they can't win it" will be proven correct. Based on current and previous form however, it is my assumption that Brazil will certainly reach the semi-finals. Similarly, if they can get their act together then I would expect as the host nation Germany would reach at least the quarters. Argentina are a very good team although like Brazil they originate from the wrong continent in this case. If Rooney was fit, then I would stick my neck out and say I fancied England very very strongly to win it. As it is, I think they go in with a big chance as one of the top three teams in my opinion. We shall see.
As for Shevcenko being the top goalscorer, I think we are confusing being "top striker" with top goalscorer. Knowing football is not the same as knowing gambling.
Mick please tell me mate you're having a laugh mate?
Lampard's so overated its untrue and Gerrard ain't a central midfielder mate. Neither of them can dictate and control a game against good sides. The other point is everyone knows they simply don't perform together.
Also you say the best central defense in the world cup? Terry? Get real mate. The lads another Jamie Carragher, never an international player. Campbell MAYBE if he can regain his old form.
Brazil will win the world cup. The only other sides that have a chance are Spain, France, Italy and the Argies. England aren't better than any of those sides and you're kidding yourself if you think they are. England have a half decent squad but its NOTHING on the squad they had last time. The one that beat Germany was the best England team i've ever seen including the one from Euro 96 which was also a good side. This current team is nowhere near those sides.
That team had Owen at his best, a developing Gerrard, Scholes and Beckham on top of there game, Ferdinand and Campbell at there best. The only weaknesses were a left winger and a goalkeeper. Now we have a goalkeeper, no Scholes, Beckham past his best, Campbell past his best, Owen nowhere near the same player as he once was and still the left wing causing major problems as Sven refuses to use Downing or Gareth Barry.
If you're going to sit there and say Cole is the answer out wide, Lampards anywhere near Scholes at his best, Campbell's as good as he was or Terry's as good and Ferdinand's still playing at his best level, combined with Owen being as good as he was and Rooney being unfit and we've got a chance i think you're completely deluded.
i dont agree with that at all, that england side wasnt that good.
heskey, barmby, seaman?
scholes was way past his best by then too.
gerrards not a central midfielder?
i`d like to see what you think consitutes a central midfield player because i happen to think he`s the best one i`ve ever seen at anfield, and i include the likes of souness, whelan, mcdermott, mcmahon and molby in that.
. Just to stoke up the controversy a little more, I've just re-read the Ashton thread and have an opinion on that too. Though he has settled well at West Ham and has more to his game than I gave him credit for, I am not as convinced as many that he is a fish that we missed out on. I have said before and make no apologies for saying again, we paid the same amount for Crouch as West Ham paid for Ashton and I think we bought much the better player.
