Group D: Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy

[grecian]

I also read that Rooney ran more than anyone, if that is the case then it rather proves even moreso that he's not playing in the right position, as he clearly wasn't running in the right places defensively.

I think Italy had one of the highest pass-percentage completion thingies ever in a World Cup though, might explain why we were so knackered at the end. Even though I'm not a fan of stats per se, when they back-up what you saw they can be useful, and Italy didn't seem to give the ball away a lot.

 

[sledger]

Sturrridge and Sterling played well and certainly started very well. An out of position and form Rooney still supplied the first goal. None of the subs did much so dropping him doesn't make sense. The other 2 teams will be weaker than Italy so rather than play him on the wing play a 2nd striker. Rooney does seem to have declined in his play and touch in recent years. While not a big fan of him in midfield I'm not sure the other options are better.

Well that's you and you alone then.

Moving Scholes for Lampard didn't need hindsight. Sven gave in to the media or was worse than I give him credit for.

Lampard had just had an excellent season. Suggesting the media bullied Sven into picking him is nothing but Hogwash.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Nah sorry the Scholes on the left thing sees a lot of revisionism these days. Yes he shouldn't have been played there but based on the prior season he didn't deserve to be one of two central midfielders. And nobody, not even Grecian, was onto Gerrard and Lampard being incompatible, and Gerrard had played deep all season.

It is in a sense similar to the current situation IMO. Scholes was played there because the other option was someone else (Joe Cole?) playing wide left and Scholes sitting on the bench. Much like it would have been best doing with Rooney on Saturday.

Also, I could be wrong but I thought Scholes had already announced his retirement before the tournament. Even if he hadn't, retiring because you had to play 4 games out of position is a tad petulant. Someone like Steven Gerrard would have retired a long time ago if he had that attitude.

Edit / posted before I saw the previous post

Some of this is true but he definitely played a lot more than four games on the left. Scholes has also stated publicly that his retirement had nothing to do with playing on the left; if it was, he would have retired earlier, because he had played on the left for England (and occasionally for United when Giggs was injured) for a while. IIRC it was more to do with feeling homesick when away from home for a long period of time at the major tournaments, and disenchantment at the general off-the-field hullabaloo surrounding the England team. The fact that Scholes played on the left for United too on occasion is usually forgotten when it comes to discussing this, and the fact he didn't seek to leave United over it would tend to indicate his international retirement wasn't petulance, at least as far as playing on the left was concerned.

I sort of half agree with both Sledger and Tangles. I don't think Scholes played on the left because Sven was scared of the fans per se, but equally I don't think it needed a tremendous amount of hindsight to see he should have been in the middle. Scholes' form at this stage of his career was certainly no issue, seeing as he came as close to winning a league on his own as a midfielder can in 2003.

 

[GIMH]

No way should he have played ahead of either Gerrard or Lampard at that point

Even ignoring the domestic season, he'd done very little for England for a while.

I know it's blasphemous in modern footballing circles but it wasn't that bad a call by Sven, at the time.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Even ignoring the domestic season, he'd done very little for England for a while.

Because he was playing on the left.

Scholes had been playing on the left with Gerrard and Lampard in the middle for a year or so before those Euros and England were very unconvincing throughout this period. I don't think it's hindsight to say that given it had a year of not really working, this could have been spotted at the time.

Scholes' club form could hardly have been much better.

 

[sledger]

Because he was playing on the left.

Scholes had been playing on the left with Gerrard and Lampard in the middle for a year or so before those Euros and England were very unconvincing throughout this period. I don't think it's hindsight to say that given it had a year of not really working, this could have been spotted at the time.

Scholes' club form could hardly have been much better.

Yeah, I don't think Scholes played in the centre for England after World Cup 2002, from what I remember. I don't think England were especially unconvincing throughout that period though - they just steamrollered mediocre opposition in friendlies all the time from what I remember. In fact I remember Phil Neville playing in the centre for England during that period, bizarrely.

Scholes' form in the season leading up to Euro 2004 wasn't as great as you are making out though imo. It wasn't a bad season for him at all, but I don't think you could argue that his performances that year trumped Gerrard's and Lampard's.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yeah, I don't think Scholes played in the centre for England after World Cup 2002, from what I remember. I don't think England were especially unconvincing throughout that period though - they just steamrollered mediocre opposition in friendlies all the time from what I remember. In fact I remember Phil Neville playing in the centre for England during that period, bizarrely.

Yeah Scholes played pretty often on the left from 2002 onwards, though my point was it was specifically Gerrard-Lampard in the middle (by and large) from 2003, ie they had a year of not working before the Euros. Scholes on the left of course had two years, on and off, of not really working.

I was going mainly off a vague memory of England being unconvincing admittedly. However on doing a spot of research, in that time they lost to Denmark and Sweden and drew with Japan. They also qualified for the Euros by a point, scoring only 14 goals in 8 games in a pretty easy group. People moan these days about England scoring 31 goals in 10 games qualifying for this World Cup.

Before I made the second post replying to GIMH I did a quick google search to check my memory wasn't off, and read a couple of articles about the general feeling regarding Scholes/Lampard/Gerrard leading into the tournament. There was a lot of stuff focusing on his goal drought (he hadn't scored for England since June 2001) but they mostly concluded with stuff like "Scholes remains England's most gifted midfielder" so it wasn't as though there was this feeling at the time that Scholes simply musn't start ahead of Gerrard and Lampard, even disregarding the incompatibility of the latter two.

 

[GIMH]

Because he was playing on the left.

Scholes had been playing on the left with Gerrard and Lampard in the middle for a year or so before those Euros and England were very unconvincing throughout this period. I don't think it's hindsight to say that given it had a year of not really working, this could have been spotted at the time.

Scholes' club form could hardly have been much better.

That's not really true. He'd tried it a bit but really had been looking for other ways to fit the three in, including wing backs when Beckham was injured. But Scholes was preferred to Lampard when it came to crunch and it was only in the lead-up to the Euros that he settled on it definitively.

As for Scholes' form, no point going round in circles but he was pretty poor in the 03-04 season by his own standards. Gerrard and Lampard were clearly in better form.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah Scholes played pretty often on the left from 2002 onwards, though my point was it was specifically Gerrard-Lampard in the middle (by and large) from 2003, ie they had a year of not working before the Euros. Scholes on the left of course had two years, on and off, of not really working.

I was going mainly off a vague memory of England being unconvincing admittedly. However on doing a spot of research, in that time they lost to Denmark and Sweden and drew with Japan. They also qualified for the Euros by a point, scoring only 14 goals in 8 games in a pretty easy group. People moan these days about England scoring 31 goals in 10 games qualifying for this World Cup.

Before I made the second post replying to GIMH I did a quick google search to check my memory wasn't off, and read a couple of articles about the general feeling regarding Scholes/Lampard/Gerrard leading into the tournament. There was a lot of stuff focusing on his goal drought (he hadn't scored for England since June 2001) but they mostly concluded with stuff like "Scholes remains England's most gifted midfielder" so it wasn't as though there was this feeling at the time that Scholes simply musn't start ahead of Gerrard and Lampard, even disregarding the incompatibility of the latter two.

Am sure you could google plenty saying similar about the other two tbf.

Anyway I think we've been here before and had this same conversation. Don't think we will ever agree

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yeah we are going to go around in circles here, we will never agree haha.

Just to clarify I'm sure you could google similar stuff about the other two and I always hate that sort of argument anyway, "person X said Y so Y". I was just trying to say that your assertion that "No way should he have played ahead of either Gerrard or Lampard at that point" is a little strongly worded given that there were people around at the time who said he should have done. I wasn't trying to say that alone meant they were right. I think they were right for other reasons which we have done to death, both for and against, here and before as you say.

 

[GIMH]

Oh yeah fair enough, should have added an IMO to that

 

[sledger]

Yeah, I largely agree with the last few posts. The only thing I would add was that I don't necessarily think that Scholes being played wide was necessarily down to him having a poor season (whether or not you accept that was the case). I distinctly remember it being a case of Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes all being in contention, and Sven seemed determined to find a way to fit them all in. Given the fact that England played a fairly standard 4-4-2 at the time, someone had to draw the short straw of playing wide on the left, and out of the three Scholes was the one Sven thought would be best suited to that role. Or so it seemed to me at the time anyway.

 

[Nate]

Call me conservative, but I'd like to see the same XI again, with Rooney and Sterling switched.

 

[Nate]

...and don't let the former take corners.

 

[Uppercut]

That's not really true. He'd tried it a bit but really had been looking for other ways to fit the three in, including wing backs when Beckham was injured. But Scholes was preferred to Lampard when it came to crunch and it was only in the lead-up to the Euros that he settled on it definitively.

As for Scholes' form, no point going round in circles but he was pretty poor in the 03-04 season by his own standards. Gerrard and Lampard were clearly in better form.

I think the way we see the game has completely changed because of Barca/Spain, especially in this country, and that makes it seem like a bizarre choice with hindsight. We basically look for midfielders to be as close to peak-Xavi as possible now, but I don't remember anyone advocating Scholes for his subtler passing game at the time.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Call me conservative, but I'd like to see the same XI again, with Rooney and Sterling switched.

I think I agree with this except I would have Lallana in for Welbeck. I don't hate Welbeck playing though.

It's not like Sterling didn't spend the majority of the season on the wing after all.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I think the way we see the game has completely changed because of Barca/Spain, especially in this country, and that makes it seem like a bizarre choice with hindsight. We basically look for midfielders to be as close to peak-Xavi as possible now, but I don't remember anyone advocating Scholes for his subtler passing game at the time.

Yeah there is definitely something in this. Remember hearing that Guardiola had said on leaving Barcelona as a player that it was mainly because no-one wanted a deep-lying passer of the ball any more (that is paraphrasing from memory). That'd have been in the early 00s.

 

[sledger]

Yeah there is definitely something in this. Remember hearing that Guardiola had said on leaving Barcelona as a player that it was mainly because no-one wanted a deep-lying passer of the ball any more (that is paraphrasing from memory). That'd have been in the early 00s.

Yeah, I remember this. I remember him making the point that the only player in the world who really did a Guardiola-type job at the time was Pirlo, funnily enough.

 

[Burgey]

Good luck to the Poms in the morning. Hope they go about it like they did in the first match.

 

[Salamuddin]

CARN URUGUAY !!!!!!