• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Group B - England, Russia, Wales, Slovakia

Which teams will qualify from this pool?


  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .

James

Cricket Web Owner
11 June 2016
Wales v Slovakia
Nouveau Stade de Bordeaux, Bordeaux


11 June 2016
England v Russia
Stade Vélodrome, Marseille


15 June 2016
Russia v Slovakia
Stade Pierre-Mauroy, Lille


16 June 2016
England v Wales
Stade Bollaert-Delelis, Lens


20 June 2016
Slovakia v England
Stade Geoffroy-Guichard, Saint-Étienne


20 June 2016
Russia v Wales
Stadium Municipal, Toulouse
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Blimey all the anger over Danny ****ing Drinkwater being left out is making my head ache.

I'm pretty happy with the squad, really glad Rashford is in, in the end you really need a "x-factor" potential player that could be anything when you are looking for inspiration, which I'm pretty sure this English team will be with our defence and Rooney starting.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think it's a really bad decision tbh. Not because Drinkwater's amazing or anything, but you'd expect him to go with the 4-1-2-1-2 by default because it worked much better in the friendlies, and he's picked 5 options for the 1 behind the front two and only 3 for the middle 2. One of which is Wilshere, the crockiest of crocks.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Blimey all the anger over Danny ****ing Drinkwater being left out is making my head ache.

I'm pretty happy with the squad, really glad Rashford is in, in the end you really need a "x-factor" potential player that could be anything when you are looking for inspiration, which I'm pretty sure this English team will be with our defence and Rooney starting.
It doesn't make sense to me as having some more midfield enginey/defensive cover. I totally do not see the point in Barkley. In what situation does he come on as sub? When Roy thinks we need someone to try to take 5 players on and lose the ball? He's a fancy looking player who doesn't do enough. With 25 minutes to go you might go we need someone strong in the air, someone who can hold the ball up, someone with pace who can get at or in behind heir defence. I don't see Ross Barkley being the solution to anything like that.

For those reasons I think it is good to have an attacking-heavy squad because anyone in the squad is available as a sub. Being able to pose different problems is important.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It doesn't make sense to me as having some more midfield enginey/defensive cover. I totally do not see the point in Barkley. In what situation does he come on as sub? When Roy thinks we need someone to try to take 5 players on and lose the ball? He's a fancy looking player who doesn't do enough. With 25 minutes to go you might go we need someone strong in the air, someone who can hold the ball up, someone with pace who can get at or in behind heir defence. I don't see Ross Barkley being the solution to anything like that.

For those reasons I think it is good to have an attacking-heavy squad because anyone in the squad is available as a sub. Being able to pose different problems is important.
These are good points, but in the end the damage was done by just not picking more defensive cover in the original line-up, I get Uppercuts point that considering who we've got DD should have stayed for Wilshere or Barkley, but in the end I guess it comes down to who you like, and I don't like Drinkwater.

Ross and Jack have also done pretty well for England in the qualifications. Henderson's inclusion seems to be totally accepted and yet he's not exactly played that much recently.
 

flibbertyjibber

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think it is a huge gamble having three players with injury doubts and I would concede that Sturridge is a matchwinner so the gamble is probably worth it but I have no idea why both Wheelchair and Henderson are picked over Drinkwater who has played as well as anyone this season and is fit.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm a bit of a Drinkwater sceptic too. It's easy to look good when your CM partner does the work of 3 players and your striker is so fast it's almost impossible to overhit a pass to him. But look at the alternatives. Rooney will play there instead at some point. 100% guaranteed.
 

Pothas

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah Drinkwater should probably have gone but I don't think it is anything to get furious over.

Sturridge going has annoyed me somewhat though, just don't think he will be fit, would have actually preferred Townsend.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Sturridge going as one of five strikers makes sense.

If he stays fit then boy do we have some options up front
 

Pothas

Hall of Fame Member
Would just be surprised if he does, would rather have someone who is fit and offers something different, Although I suppose Rooney is not really going as a striker so make Sturridge the 4th striker.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
I think picking Wilshere is an extremely poor decision.

To pick him ahead of a bloke who's just had a better season than he has ever had would be strange even if he had played an entire season, having played three games all season I don't see how it is anything but mental.

I have heard it said before that Wilshere has played well for England, and this has occasionally been true, but AFAIC years of mediocrity (and occasionally worse) at club level is a better predictor of future performance than a handful of internationals.

I would take Sturridge if he could guarantee being fit but somehow I don't think he can. I also don't see a need for five strikers. In an ideal world you wouldn't take Rooney but then we all know that was never going to happen.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think Sturridge should definitely go, really surprised Halsey and Pothas are unsure because I almost always agree with them.

He's just a really good player. Scores loads and loads of great goals. Surely has to be the best game-changing sub in the squad by miles, and first reserve if Kane or Vardy get injured.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Yeah I'm not arguing on ability. On ability he walks into the squad seeing as he is the third best striker at worst. It's just how you weigh up his fitness. As I said you would ideally not take Rooney. I would pick him anyway ahead of either Rashford or Rooney even with his injury record but people seem happy with Rashford and Rooney was never not being picked, so.

What I mainly disagree with is the need for five strikers.
 

Pothas

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, I just don't like him.

Really it is just the fitness thing though, if it was one injury he was coming back from then fine, but I just don't trust him not to get one of those two week niggles.
 

Top