Brazil v England, Called off?

[The Year Of The Fox]

The one that just scored 7 in 7 at the highest level?

The highest level being? (name the teams he's scored against) And he didn't score v Ireland so it'snot 7 in 7 is it?

[The Year Of The Fox]

I think he would certainly push any one of muller, gomez, lewandowski, reus, sanchez, pedro, tello and benzema for their places.  For my money he is a better and more complete player than any of them.  I think in a way it is his versatility that holds him back. He takes on too much and never seems to have a clearly defined role for either Manu or England

This I guess is what I agree with the most. He should have just stayed as an out and out striker playing on the shoulder of the last man. There aren't/weren't many better at doing this than him, til he or other magaers tried to evolve him into something he isn't

[Fox92]

He's scored 7 in 7 at the World Cup?

 

 

The highest level being? (name the teams he's scored against) And he didn't score v Ireland so it'snot 7 in 7 is it?

 

At international level, which is the highest level for a footballer.

 

I don't have to name the teams. It doesn't matter. You can only score against what's in front of you.

[leicesterisme]

The one that just scored 7 in 7 at the highest level?

 

3 of them goals are against San Marino, are you seriously trying to say that's the highest level?

[Bert]

The highest level being? (name the teams he's scored against) And he didn't score v Ireland so it'snot 7 in 7 is it?

7 in 7 doesn't mean 7 consecutive games though.

I could score 3 in 1, and then not in the other two and have 3 goals in three games.

[Fox92]

3 of them goals are against San Marino, are you seriously trying to say that's the highest level?

 

You can only score against what's in front of you.

 

Gary Lineker scored against the US, Switzerland, Malaysia and New Zealand in Friendlies. Doesn't mean we take them off of him.

[The Year Of The Fox]

At international level, which is the highest level for a footballer.

 

I don't have to name the teams. It doesn't matter. You can only score against what's in front of you.

Moldova and San Marino are not the highest level though. Not when you come up against the quality sides in tournaments whereupon he's as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

 

I am being pedantic but its so easy to start banding this, '7 in 7' malarkey around (when I'm still questioning where this 7 in 7 has come from when he didn't score against ROI last week)

and the facts are some of those teams he's scored against are the equivalent of a League 2 side.

[Corky]

He didn't score in 7 straight games, he's scored 7 goals in his last 7 games overall. So it might be 2 in one match, none in the next, but seven in total.

[The Year Of The Fox]

7 in 7 doesn't mean 7 consecutive games though.

I could score 3 in 1, and then not in the other two and have 3 goals in three games.

Yeh fair one on that point though its still usingfigures to suit an argument. If he goes goaless the next two games, I'll start saying he's only scored 1 in 4!

[MooseBreath]

People actually basing strong opinions on a glorified training match? These friendlies are just kickarounds; they are completely meaningless. I didn't bother watching. Sounds like the 2nd half contained a bit of entertainment at least.

[The Year Of The Fox]

People actually basing strong opinions on a glorified training match? These friendlies are just kickarounds; they are completely meaningless. I didn't bother watching. Sounds like the 2nd half contained a bit of entertainment at least.

I'm 50/50 on them for reasons mentioned way back RE the FA.

 

However under the cosh we were in the first half we scored two decent goals in the second and came away with quite a credible 2-2 draw (considering how under the cosh we were in the first half)

 

However, this Brazil side, from what I saw, were miles away from anything you'd associate a Brazilian side to be.

[Guest shearfox]

He didn't score in 7 straight games, he's scored 7 goals in his last 7 games overall. So it might be 2 in one match, none in the next, but seven in total.

He had scored in five consecutive games before the Ireland match...

I'm 50/50 on them for reasons mentioned way back RE the FA.

However under the cosh we were in the first half we scored two decent goals in the second and came away with quite a credible 2-2 draw (considering how under the cosh we were in the first half)

However, this Brazil side, from what I saw, were miles away from anything you'd associate a Brazilian side to be.

Not the best Brazilian side but they still have a great record at home .

[Bert]

Yeh fair one on that point though its still usingfigures to suit an argument. If he goes goaless the next two games, I'll start saying he's only scored 1 in 4!

Of course. Works both ways.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Don't get me wrong people I love England and supporting the team, just as much as I do leicester. It's fair to say I have a blinded loyalty to Pearson as you can physically see the improvements he brings about our side (on and off the pitch)

The same can't be said for Rooney with England IMO.

[Pride_Of_The_Midlands]

Could possibly be something to do with him Erm.. Playing in the number 10 position?...

 

He wasn't playing in the number 10 position though was he.

What number should he have?

 

Number 9.

[Dan]

Utterly diabolical performance for the most part which will be papered over by some glimpses towards the end. Basically England all over.

[Dan]

People actually basing strong opinions on a glorified training match? These friendlies are just kickarounds; they are completely meaningless. I didn't bother watching. Sounds like the 2nd half contained a bit of entertainment at least.

 

If it's "just a kickaround", why do the same tried and tested mediocre players continue to set up in negative formations?

 

What was the initial set up, Phil Jones, a centre half, on the right of midfield? This is absolutely laughable stuff. It's absolutely no wonder we play like complete shit in pretty much every game when we set up to stop the opposition rather than doing anything ourselves. What the hell is the point in sitting back and inviting trouble?

 

I was genuinely hoping Brazil scored as I hoped it'd wake England up - it did a bit, and we did improve so fair play on that, and that is what positive football does for you.

 

On the Rooney debate. World class nonsense. Very good player for Man Utd, not bad for England. That isn't 'world class' at all. We overhype him to the extent he's undroppable, absolutely suicidal stuff.

 

That game was so predictable in every way. We'd set up negatively (as usual), we'd scab an undeserved draw and we'd play players out of position.

 

There was no experimental stuff. The same players who've delivered negative displays were given another run-out, what exactly have England gained from that friendly?

 

Couldn't give a toss we drew. Weakest Brazil side I've ever seen and we set up like a League Two side were going away to a Premier side.

[Tom17LCFC]

If it's "just a kickaround", why do the same tried and tested mediocre players continue to set up in negative formations?

 

What was the initial set up, Phil Jones, a centre half, on the right of midfield? This is absolutely laughable stuff. It's absolutely no wonder we play like complete shit in pretty much every game when we set up to stop the opposition rather than doing anything ourselves. What the hell is the point in sitting back and inviting trouble?

 

I was genuinely hoping Brazil scored as I hoped it'd wake England up - it did a bit, and we did improve so fair play on that, and that is what positive football does for you.

 

On the Rooney debate. World class nonsense. Very good player for Man Utd, not bad for England. That isn't 'world class' at all. We overhype him to the extent he's undroppable, absolutely suicidal stuff.

 

That game was so predictable in every way. We'd set up negatively (as usual), we'd scab an undeserved draw and we'd play players out of position.

 

There was no experimental stuff. The same players who've delivered negative displays were given another run-out, what exactly have England gained from that friendly?

 

Couldn't give a toss we drew. Weakest Brazil side I've ever seen and we set up like a League Two side were going away to a Premier side.

 

So 3-5-2 wasn't experimenting? I thought playing Jones in midfield was a cracking idea. Did a fairly decent job, got stuck in and passed the ball well. Means nothing anyway, we'll see where we are in September.

[Guest ttfn]

If it's "just a kickaround", why do the same tried and tested mediocre players continue to set up in negative formations?

What was the initial set up, Phil Jones, a centre half, on the right of midfield? This is absolutely laughable stuff. It's absolutely no wonder we play like complete shit in pretty much every game when we set up to stop the opposition rather than doing anything ourselves. What the hell is the point in sitting back and inviting trouble?

I was genuinely hoping Brazil scored as I hoped it'd wake England up - it did a bit, and we did improve so fair play on that, and that is what positive football does for you.

On the Rooney debate. World class nonsense. Very good player for Man Utd, not bad for England. That isn't 'world class' at all. We overhype him to the extent he's undroppable, absolutely suicidal stuff.

That game was so predictable in every way. We'd set up negatively (as usual), we'd scab an undeserved draw and we'd play players out of position.

There was no experimental stuff. The same players who've delivered negative displays were given another run-out, what exactly have England gained from that friendly?

Couldn't give a toss we drew. Weakest Brazil side I've ever seen and we set up like a League Two side were going away to a Premier side.

Phil Jones has played central midfield in United's biggest games this season. He's used to man-mark the main men (in this case Neymar).

I don't know where this idea that he is a centre back comes from. He's played there about 5 times in the last 2 years. May as well call Carrick a centres back on that basis or Rooney a central midfielder.

In fact I've just re-read that post and it is virtually all bollocks.

By the end we were playing what was quite close to a 3-5-2, we tried Rooney in the lone striker role for the first time in ages, Baines started at left back and Oxlade-Chamberlain played in central midfield, something he rarely even does for Arsenal.

I might suggest that the reason that you saw exactly what you were expecting was due to having your eyes closed to the reality of it.

We were shit, but to claim we didn't experiment is rubbish.

[ScouseFox]

I enjoyed it. We score two boss goals. Neymar missed loads. What wasnt enjoyable about that?

[Bert]

Phil Jones has played central midfield in United's biggest games this season. He's used to man-mark the main men (in this case Neymar).

I don't know where this idea that he is a centre back comes from. He's played there about 5 times in the last 2 years. May as well call Carrick a centres back on that basis or Rooney a central midfielder.

In fact I've just re-read that post and it is virtually all bollocks.

By the end we were playing what was quite close to a 3-5-2, we tried Rooney in the lone striker role for the first time in ages, Baines started at left back and Oxlade-Chamberlain played in central midfield, something he rarely even does for Arsenal.

I might suggest that the reason that you saw exactly what you were expecting was due to having your eyes closed to the reality of it.

We were shit, but to claim we didn't experiment is rubbish.

That's where he made his name at Blackburn, and that's his natural position. Ask him, Sir Alex. They'll tell you the same.

[Guest ttfn]

That's where he made his name at Blackburn, and that's his natural position. Ask him, Sir Alex. They'll tell you the same.

Aha! So Sir Alex is your source!

A player's position is where they play. Phil Jones hasn't played centre back regularly for 2 years. He's currently no more a centre back than Stearman ever was for us.

[Dan]

Phil Jones has played central midfield in United's biggest games this season. He's used to man-mark the main men (in this case Neymar).

I don't know where this idea that he is a centre back comes from. He's played there about 5 times in the last 2 years. May as well call Carrick a centres back on that basis or Rooney a central midfielder.

In fact I've just re-read that post and it is virtually all bollocks.

By the end we were playing what was quite close to a 3-5-2, we tried Rooney in the lone striker role for the first time in ages, Baines started at left back and Oxlade-Chamberlain played in central midfield, something he rarely even does for Arsenal.

I might suggest that the reason that you saw exactly what you were expecting was due to having your eyes closed to the reality of it.

We were shit, but to claim we didn't experiment is rubbish.

 

 

Phil Jones is a centre half. I wouldn't justify him not being a natural centre half by saying where he's played for Man Utd - a side that has seen Valencia & carrick in defence.

 

For the vast majority, we were playing in a rigid, deep 4-4-2. We went more attacking towards the end and we looked a far better side.

 

We played for the draw (which is an embarrassment in a friendly), and only dared to attack once we realised we weren't getting it. We're a completely negative side.

 

Our 'experimenting' was absolutely minimal. If changing to a 3-5-2 for a few minutes at the end because we weren't going to get the draw we embarrassingly set up to get is an experiment then fvck me. I'd say fair enough if he'd picked a few new faces and actually set up in a 3-5-2.

 

Total waste of time to be honest although glad for Chamberlain.