• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

The Footie Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
Orikoru said:
It's a balancing act though. Friendlies aren't just for putting all manner of random players together. You want to get the first team playing together so they actually have some level of fluency when it comes to the tournament. You don't want to arrive at the World Cup and Kane, Bellingham & Saka for example haven't played together in two years and haven't even seen each other because they all play in different countries.
Click to expand...

Then you will never get a chance to try players out

There are plenty of low level qualifiers now where the main team can play

Play the main team in qualifiers and then adjust and look what can be done in friendlies
irip said:
The next England squad he should leave out Kane (and others).
Give them a little rest and have a look at what other options are out there.

I doubt he will but it could be really beneficial if he did.

Kane played all last tournament with an injury but we didn’t know what any of the back up players could do because he hadn’t tried them.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that Kane will try and play every single minute and it will be at the detriment of the team
 
Orikoru said:
I would say this is where the subs come in and the reason they use so many. I'd want to start our strongest team so they get used to playing together. But then in the second half you can change it and give minutes to the back-up players in key positions to see how they do. This probably is what most managers have done to be honest, but it makes sense to me that way.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with this. Our top players have been playing together in pretty much the same squads and line ups for 4 years since the last WC with very few minor changes. If they don’t know how each other play now from playing regularly and training together then you have to question their footballing IQ and lack of adaptability.

By all means keep them in the squad but leave them on the bench, we need to start trying or different players and moving forward, there’s no value in keep playing the same players in the same way whoever already qualified.
 
Orikoru said:
I would say this is where the subs come in and the reason they use so many. I'd want to start our strongest team so they get used to playing together. But then in the second half you can change it and give minutes to the back-up players in key positions to see how they do. This probably is what most managers have done to be honest, but it makes sense to me that way.
Click to expand...
That’s ok but what happens when Kane (or another) picks up an injury last game of the season for their club and isn’t fit enough to play in the World Cup?
We have history of taking injured players to tournaments and hoping they get us through because we don’t have a back up we trust.

We only have a couple of friendly games left in March.
Give Kane a couple of weeks off give a game to a couple of the back ups and let’s see what we have got in reserve.

Hopefully the rest does Kane good and we find a player who can replace him if need be.

Or we find out they are not good enough and we have time to work out another plan.
 
irip said:
That’s ok but what happens when Kane (or another) picks up an injury last game of the season for their club and isn’t fit enough to play in the World Cup?
We have history of taking injured players to tournaments and hoping they get us through because we don’t have a back up we trust.

We only have a couple of friendly games left in March.
Give Kane a couple of weeks off give a game to a couple of the back ups and let’s see what we have got in reserve.

Hopefully the rest does Kane good and we find a player who can replace him if need be.

Or we find out they are not good enough and we have time to work out another plan.
Click to expand...
If Kane gets an injury then we're screwed anyway since, as discussed, we have no other striker anywhere near his quality. Playing someone in a couple of friendlies won't change that either.
 
Orikoru said:
If Kane gets an injury then we're screwed anyway since, as discussed, we have no other striker anywhere near his quality. Playing someone in a couple of friendlies won't change that either.
Click to expand...

But you don’t know because players haven’t been played there - playing someone in the friendlies might well show that the world doesn’t fall about if Kane isn’t there , even when there was options there players still didn’t play

Friendlies should also give the manager chance to adjust the tactics and formation without Kane there
 
irip said:
The next England squad he should leave out Kane (and others).
Give them a little rest and have a look at what other options are out there.

I doubt he will but it could be really beneficial if he did.

Kane played all last tournament with an injury but we didn’t know what any of the back up players could do because he hadn’t tried them.
Click to expand...
He has effectively been doing this with a lot of players up to this point, where he has generally picked a lot of the so called "starters" but also had a few newbies / fringe players playing.

Bellingham and Foden have missed a lot of the recent games, albeit some many think they'll have a good chance to start in big games. He has a good look at players like Rogers and Anderson. We've also seen the likes of Gordon, Maduake, Livramento, Guehi, Eze, Burn, Palmer, Bowen, Jones and Walker start games in Tuchel's tenure. I think he has done a pretty decent job at giving a range of players a chance, whilst ensuring they get to play with a lot of players who will definitely start the big games, and also ensuring the most likely players to get picked are able to play lots of games together to try and get used to his style of play.

I suppose the only players to almost remain constant throughout are Kane, Rice and Pickford. I'm not sure there is much benefit in trying out another striker, when you know Kane is miles ahead of everyone else. Whether a player like Watkins, Welbeck or Toney were to play and score, or not score, I'm not sure it will tell him an awful lot anyway. What was interesting was how he used subs last night, and some of his pre match comments. Where he could be looking at the likes of Foden / Bellingham as a false 9 if Kane doesn't play, rather than a traditiional striker.
 
Orikoru said:
If Kane gets an injury then we're screwed anyway since, as discussed, we have no other striker anywhere near his quality. Playing someone in a couple of friendlies won't change that either.
Click to expand...
Yeah it would definitely be a major blow.
But let’s say Watkins is his replacement for example.
He plays a totally different way to Kane.
If he had a couple of games in the upcoming friendly matches the players have more of an idea what style they need to play to get the best out of him.

Also if he played well maybe gets a couple of goals it gives him a bit more belief.

If it is terrible and doesn’t work then we know before the tournament and can try something else if the worst does happen with Kane
 
Swango1980 said:
He has effectively been doing this with a lot of players up to this point, where he has generally picked a lot of the so called "starters" but also had a few newbies / fringe players playing.

Bellingham and Foden have missed a lot of the recent games, albeit some many think they'll have a good chance to start in big games. He has a good look at players like Rogers and Anderson. We've also seen the likes of Gordon, Maduake, Livramento, Guehi, Eze, Burn, Palmer, Bowen, Jones and Walker start games in Tuchel's tenure. I think he has done a pretty decent job at giving a range of players a chance, whilst ensuring they get to play with a lot of players who will definitely start the big games, and also ensuring the most likely players to get picked are able to play lots of games together to try and get used to his style of play.

I suppose the only players to almost remain constant throughout are Kane, Rice and Pickford. I'm not sure there is much benefit in trying out another striker, when you know Kane is miles ahead of everyone else. Whether a player like Watkins, Welbeck or Toney were to play and score, or not score, I'm not sure it will tell him an awful lot anyway. What was interesting was how he sued subs last night, and some of his pre match comments. Where he could be looking at the likes of Foden / Bellingham as a false 9 if Kane doesn't play, rather than a traditiional striker.
Click to expand...
This is the problem.
We don’t know what to do if Kane doesn’t play?
Should we play a different formation or should we look for the closest thing we have to Kane or do we play a quicker style of forward.

We don’t know what to do if he is injured as we have not tried anything.

It’s the same with Pickford, if he is out who replaces him?

Whoever it is will not of played any international football for a long time.

Hopefully Tuchel tries a few things in the next international break
 
irip said:
Yeah it would definitely be a major blow.
But let’s say Watkins is his replacement for example.
He plays a totally different way to Kane.
If he had a couple of games in the upcoming friendly matches the players have more of an idea what style they need to play to get the best out of him.

Also if he played well maybe gets a couple of goals it gives him a bit more belief.

If it is terrible and doesn’t work then we know before the tournament and can try something else if the worst does happen with Kane
Click to expand...
Maybe Tuchel doesn't want to use matches like last night, or friendlies, to play a completely different style of play? He might want to be a master of one style of play (with slight modificiations depending on what the match needs), rather than a jack of all trades. Hence why he may be looking at Foden and Bellingham to shift into the No. 9 position if the nightmare happens, and Kane gets injured? It is one thing thinking "what if Kane gets injured", and I get the argument. But conversely "what if Kane does not get injured"? If Tuchel spends some of the limited time he has to work with the players on watching a player like Watkins, it may be a waste of time if it turns out Kane ended up being fit for the entire tournament

Note: I think this response fits to your respoinse to me, which came in after I started this reply
 
Swango1980 said:
Maybe Tuchel doesn't want to use matches like last night, or friendlies, to play a completely different style of play? He might want to be a master of one style of play (with slight modificiations depending on what the match needs), rather than a jack of all trades. Hence why he may be looking at Foden and Bellingham to shift into the No. 9 position if the nightmare happens, and Kane gets injured? It is one thing thinking "what if Kane gets injured", and I get the argument. But conversely "what if Kane does not get injured"? If Tuchel spends some of the limited time he has to work with the players on watching a player like Watkins, it may be a waste of time if it turns out Kane ended up being fit for the entire tournament

Note: I think this response fits to your respoinse to me, which came in after I started this reply
Click to expand...
He may well go all in on Kane and if it works then great.
I have seen enough tournaments though where England have done this and the player was injured and we took and played him and it didn’t work and they either got injured again or played poorly. I think Kane was struggling last tournament.

I hope he does stay injury free and his form continues but would like to see a back up given a chance just in case/or a different formation used.
 
irip said:
He may well go all in on Kane and if it works then great.
I have seen enough tournaments though where England have done this and the player was injured and we took and played him and it didn’t work and they either got injured again or played poorly. I think Kane was struggling last tournament.

I hope he does stay injury free and his form continues but would like to see a back up given a chance just in case/or a different formation used.
Click to expand...
Although I guess there have also been plenty of tournaments that a key player hasn't been injured, and England have still been poor.

As I said, I suspect Kane's back up will potentially be the likes of Foden, Bellingham or Palmer, rather than Watkins, Welbeck or Toney. If Kane got a big enough injury to keep him out of the squad, I suspect he would end up taking one of those three, but they'd still possibly be bench players, behind a False 9 starter.
 
Orikoru said:
The Man Utd wages are very interesting! Sir Alex ran a tight ship. I saw a quote from Scholes recently where he said he idly pointed out what he could be earning if he went to Inter, who were interested. Sir Alex looked at his contract and said "no - what you're earning is fair". Scholes then said he regretted bringing it up! Amazing that United and Sir Alex had that draw in those days that he/they knew players wanted to play for them. (Of course, Becks is one who did go for the bigger wages before long.)
Click to expand...
I think if Giggs or Scholes and especially Keane had shown any inkling of leaving they would have got a rise. They were pivotal to that Utd team. Beckham superb player that he was, not so much. Whenever he was injured there was never the rush to bring him back. Whereas Keane it was a cortisone jab and get back out there.
 
Red devil said:
I think if Giggs or Scholes and especially Keane had shown any inkling of leaving they would have got a rise. They were pivotal to that Utd team. Beckham superb player that he was, not so much. Whenever he was injured there was never the rush to bring him back. Whereas Keane it was a cortisone jab and get back out there.
Click to expand...

Beckham didn't have too many injuries though, apart from the odd broken bone. Keane had some serious injuries and the fact he still came back and dominated was testment to his quality.

Do you remember Rooney playing with injections against Bayern in 2010? That has to be one of the worst cases of a player playing when clearly injured I've seen. Flew out of the traps but then limped off at 2-0 up and the game turned.

I wonder what an 18 year old Rooney would be worth today?
 
4LEX said:
Beckham didn't have too many injuries though, apart from the odd broken bone. Keane had some serious injuries and the fact he still came back and dominated was testment to his quality.

Do you remember Rooney playing with injections against Bayern in 2010? That has to be one of the worst cases of a player playing when clearly injured I've seen. Flew out of the traps but then limped off at 2-0 up and the game turned.

I wonder what an 18 year old Rooney would be worth today?
Click to expand...
Got to be £150m+
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hobbit
Another footie thread
2
Replies
36
Views
734
WorldHandicapSystem
W
road2ruin
Fantasy Footie 25/26
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
3K
4LEX
4
SwingsitlikeHogan
Rental Rights Act
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
jim8flog
jim8flog
jim8flog
Golf or football
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
SaintHacker
The EFL Thread
33 34 35
Replies
688
Views
45K
4LEX
4
Top