Road to Russia 2018

[Uppercut]

CONCACAF get 3 places, 2 of which are virtually guaranteed to go to the USA and Mexico.

Weren't Honduras, CR, USA and Mexico all in Brazil?

 

[grecian]

RE Rashford, even if Kane is out of sorts - which obviously he is - no way does Rashford get ahead of Vardy (who should be ahead of Kane). Would rather him spend time developing in the U21s than sitting on the bench, especially given he's not playing first team football. Far too often we put a stigma on a player going back to the age groups just because they've played for the full side. So despite feeling dirty for agreeing with an Allardyce decision, I think this one was absolutely correct.

Attacking options from the bench always a good idea,won't learn anything with u21 IMHO. He gets enough game time for someone his age, I would love to think we've learnt from over-playing youngsters at a silly age, like Owen, Fowler, and yes Rooney.

 

[Uppercut]

Sorry, it was your more ****e teams = festival point that I was musing over. Like you say, the World Cup qualifiers are terrible. My concerns are primarily that allowing more dross into the tournament itself would effectively render the early stages of the tournament proper an elongated version of the qualifiers. Accordingly, they'd be no more festive than the qualifying rounds themselves (i.e. they'd be pretty dire).

That's just not true though, is it? The qualitative difference between Ireland vs Sweden at the euros and the same game in qualifying is so big I wouldn't even know where to begin.

 

[GIMH]

Attacking options from the bench always a good idea,won't learn anything with u21 IMHO. He gets enough game time for someone his age, I would love to think we've learnt from over-playing youngsters at a silly age, like Owen, Fowler, and yes Rooney.

Well at international level we hardly burned Fowler out.

You think he will get enough game time this season? Maybe I'm misjudging Mourinho. But let's not pretend he's the finished article, and okay on form Kane needs a spell, but Rashford has no tangible case to be ahead of him or Vardy (or a fit Sturridge, oxymoron) - yet

 

[grecian]

Well at international level we hardly burned Fowler out.

You think he will get enough game time this season? Maybe I'm misjudging Mourinho. But let's not pretend he's the finished article, and okay on form Kane needs a spell, but Rashford has no tangible case to be ahead of him or Vardy (or a fit Sturridge, oxymoron) - yet

No it was over-all he was burnt out,

Just think we should learn and let people gradually work there way into football, just how many times do we need to do it, Walcott, Wilshere too, not England but you could say Cesc played too much early. For once I'd agree with Mourinho, let him ease in. This stuff about not playing for your club, you shouldn't play for your country is just blanket nonsense, if you come on as impact sub for your club, then why not do that. Rashford will get games for United when their are injuries, get him around the proper England squad where he belongs. Surely a squad and bench need more than 3 strikers, pretty much every team will have 4 nowadays.

TBH I'd rather he just left him out altogether then play u21 after having little rest this Summer..

 

[Scaly piscine]

Kane doesn't in any shape or form deserve to be in the England side. He's been terrible. As I said before he looks like he's running in treacle.

Vardy probably should start through the middle. Rashford can play either side of Vardy. I just think this stuff about not playing people until they're ready, or playing too much when they're young. It's a load of tosh. They're urban legends created by football pundits - particularly British ones - along with the massive over-rating of experience. This sort of perception doesn't seem to exist nearly as much elsewhere. Yes players get tired, Kane may well be in that category. It isn't to do with them being young. We're not going to ruin Rashford by playing him in senior internationals, it is a ridiculous concept in football. Throwing up names who simply weren't good enough doesn't back up the theory. Young English players are wrapped up in cotton wool with hardly any getting game time in the top division, where has it gotten them? Rooney didn't play too much when he was younger, he's played far, far too much since though because he's been ****e. If Messi had been British he'd have been out on loan until he was 22.

Rashford would play every time for me, either starting or on with 30 to go as sub, because he is actually a threat. He runs at defenders. He creates danger. The rest are just so pedestrian. Walcott occasionally looks a threat, then you remember that if he has any time to think he's going to **** it up. England are crying out for energy and exuberance. Sturridge does it in flashes and is obviously injured a lot on top of that. Lallana is a try-hard but his finishing is atrocious. Rooney would actually be a logical choice for a striker to come on and get a goal when you're stuck at 0-0 against a park-the-bus team. He's a waste of space otherwise.

 

[grecian]

Kane doesn't in any shape or form deserve to be in the England side. He's been terrible. As I said before he looks like he's running in treacle.

Vardy probably should start through the middle. Rashford can play either side of Vardy. I just think this stuff about not playing people until they're ready, or playing too much when they're young. It's a load of tosh. They're urban legends created by football pundits - particularly British ones - along with the massive over-rating of experience. This sort of perception doesn't seem to exist nearly as much elsewhere. Yes players get tired, Kane may well be in that category. It isn't to do with them being young. We're not going to ruin Rashford by playing him in senior internationals, it is a ridiculous concept in football. Throwing up names who simply weren't good enough doesn't back up the theory. Young English players are wrapped up in cotton wool with hardly any getting game time in the top division, where has it gotten them? Rooney didn't play too much when he was younger, he's played far, far too much since though because he's been ****e. If Messi had been British he'd have been out on loan until he was 22.

Rashford would play every time for me, either starting or on with 30 to go as sub, because he is actually a threat. He runs at defenders. He creates danger. The rest are just so pedestrian. Walcott occasionally looks a threat, then you remember that if he has any time to think he's going to **** it up. England are crying out for energy and exuberance. Sturridge does it in flashes and is obviously injured a lot on top of that. Lallana is a try-hard but his finishing is atrocious. Rooney would actually be a logical choice for a striker to come on and get a goal when you're stuck at 0-0 against a park-the-bus team. He's a waste of space otherwise.

Oh goody a condescending post from scaly about how my perception of watching football for many decades is just a view l have picked up from a press I despise and ex pundits who I do not care about. If our players were to play in the less physical la liga then maybe they wouldn't burn out into overrated injury prone hulks.

It's just a suggestion based on the old saying about the definition of madness is just to repeat your mistakes constantly hoping for a different result.

Yet here I am arguing with your about football, so there ya go.

 

[Pothas]

Weren't Honduras, CR, USA and Mexico all in Brazil?

Yeah, 3 get in automatically and then there is a play-off for the last spot.

I think the World Cup is fine how it is, I don't feel it would really benefit from having a few extra average European sides over African and Asian ones. The best team that will not be at the next World Cup is likely to come from South America.

 

[sledger]

That's just not true though, is it? The qualitative difference between Ireland vs Sweden at the euros and the same game in qualifying is so big I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Dunno. Probably impossible to quantitatively evaluate it in any meaningful way. My memories of crap teams playing each other in World Cup finals are, however, predominantly ones I'd rather forget.

 

[Pothas]

Nah, come on. Crap teams playing each other at the World Cup are some of the best bits. We get to watch quality football all the time with the Champions League, is not what the World Cup is there for.

 

[the big bambino]

Not really. I was peeved with the implied eurocentricity, diminishing the places for sides from zones outside of the traditionally strong continents. I think Asia only gets 4 automatic spots. The competition for them is pretty tight and an acceptable standard. Any 4 that get through earn their place.

 

[Uppercut]

Dunno. Probably impossible to quantitatively evaluate it in any meaningful way. My memories of crap teams playing each other in World Cup finals are, however, predominantly ones I'd rather forget.

I'm with Pothas on this. But if you don't like watching crap teams then just don't watch those games.

 

[GIMH]

I'm with Pothas on this. But if you don't like watching crap teams then just don't support Arsenal.

Agree

 

[Furball]

I'd be cool with some sort of inter-conference playoffs. So your automatic qualifiers would be:

10 Europe
4 South America
3 North America
3 Asia
3 Africa
1 Oceania

Gives you 24 automatic qualifiers (for 2018 Russia takes a European place so only 9 qualify from UEFA's tournament, for 2022 Asia only get 2 qualifiers plus Qatar) then the remaining 8 spots get decided by some sort of playoff/tournament. No idea who I'd invite to qualify and what format it would take.

I know only 4 from South America seems stingy but 4/10 is a lot and I'd expect 5 or 6 to eventually qualify.

 

[sledger]

I'm with Pothas on this. But if you don't like watching crap teams then just don't watch those games.

Well, I probably wouldn't, which would just be another similarity between them and the qualifiers.

 

[Uppercut]

Well, I probably wouldn't, which would just be another similarity between them and the qualifiers.

Haha so why do you care whether they take place in the qualifiers or group stages? It means a lot more to the fans of those countries and obsessives like me and Pothas if they're in the group stages, and you won't be watching either way.

 

[sledger]

Haha so why do you care whether they take place in the qualifiers or group stages? It means a lot more to the fans of those countries and obsessives like me and Pothas if they're in the group stages, and you won't be watching either way.

Haha, I guess it's a less is more kind of thing for me. Bigger doesn't necessarily equal better etc... I suppose what's at the route of it is the fact that I really want the World Cup to be great and for me to enjoy it, but I tend to find it difficult to think of things as being great when large constituent parts of them are made up of stuff that isn't.

I do, however, appreciate your point about the fans from those countries.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, I guess it's a less is more kind of thing for me. Bigger doesn't necessarily equal better etc... I suppose what's at the route of it is the fact that I really want the World Cup to be great and for me to enjoy it, but I tend to find it difficult to think of things as being great when large constituent parts of them are made up of stuff that isn't.

I do, however, appreciate your point about the fans from those countries.

I think this was only really a relevant point 20+ years ago. International football doesn't really have any quality to be diluted anymore. In 2014 the group stages were incredible craic and the "higher quality" knockout rounds were ****ing terrible.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, but let's not forget that the group stages had a fair share of stinkers too. Greece etc...

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I'd be cool with some sort of inter-conference playoffs. So your automatic qualifiers would be:

10 Europe
4 South America
3 North America
3 Asia
3 Africa
1 Oceania

Gives you 24 automatic qualifiers (for 2018 Russia takes a European place so only 9 qualify from UEFA's tournament, for 2022 Asia only get 2 qualifiers plus Qatar) then the remaining 8 spots get decided by some sort of playoff/tournament. No idea who I'd invite to qualify and what format it would take.

I know only 4 from South America seems stingy but 4/10 is a lot and I'd expect 5 or 6 to eventually qualify.

I think those first ones would ideally be based on performance from the previous World Cups in some way. Trouble is, any formula would have the whiff of a pre-determined outcome.

(Also Oceania is completely pointless now that Australia has left it)