I assume Beckham would be a wingback today in a 3-5-2
Is Grealish the new Carrick and Scholes for England?
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
I know exactly why he is in the team, I just don't agree with him being in the team. For me it comes down to Foden or Mount and there is only one correct answer - particularly in games like Friday night or coming up on Tuesday where we will have the vast majority of the ball.
Mount is a good player but honestly I have never come across a player so substantially overrated by your fanbase, I know a few Chelsea regulars and you'd think he was the second coming of Maradona which is ridiculous. As for being 3rd in the league on "chances created", firstly, that completely depends which website you read - some have him in 3rd as you say whereas others have him as low as 11th and given that he is the set piece taker for a team who had over 200 corners last season, there would be something wrong if he wasn't up there.
Do you actually believe that?
In a midfield led by Gerrard, a player like Carrick won't prosper. Carrick was all about ball retention and didn't have the athleticism or ball winning ability of Hargreaves or Barry.
Gerrard was all about ambitious low percentage passes which surrenders possession easily and doesn't fit with players who recycle the ball.
As for Hargreaves, he had one really good tournament for England. It gave him a reputation as a top player he never really earned.
As others have said, I honestly have no idea how good Grealish is. I’m positive he’s being over rated to some degree though.
I don’t think you can have Foden and Grealish in the same team with Kane upfront, especially this version of Kane. Southgate is basically choosing between Sterling/Rashford on the left for pace when Foden is on the pitch, or Grealish on the left with Sterling/Rashford on the right. Sancho is easier to leave out all together right now.
I don’t think you can have Foden and Grealish in the same team with Kane upfront, especially this version of Kane. Southgate is basically choosing between Sterling/Rashford on the left for pace when Foden is on the pitch, or Grealish on the left with Sterling/Rashford on the right. Sancho is easier to leave out all together right now.
I know Grealish gets fouled a lot but I think that may be a case of he holds on to the ball for too long. I think he would give better service to his team if he drives into dangerous positions and gets fouled there instead of flapping around in the outer areas of the pitch.
What I like about Grealish is his ability to hold on to the ball in every situation
What i dont like about Grealish is his desire to hold on the ball in every situation
What i dont like about Grealish is his desire to hold on the ball in every situation
The fella we’re about to spend £80m on.
Other United players regularly played for England.
Carrick and Scholes were under used by England because of Eriksson's obsession with starting Lampard and Gerrard every game, even though they were essentially the same player in many ways.
Scholes always got picked for England and then he retired. Even after he retired subsequent managers tried to pick him but Scholes said no.
The guy got 66 caps despite retiring while in his 20s.
Carrick you can say was underused, it's bonkers to say Scholes was. He literally retired because England was taking up too much of his time.
The guy got 66 caps despite retiring while in his 20s.
Carrick you can say was underused, it's bonkers to say Scholes was. He literally retired because England was taking up too much of his time.
He started to release the ball much earlier after Villa had added Watkins last year. Good movement around him is key to make full use of his abilities.
I didn't realise anyone thought that. Are these people with short memories or are they all under 20 years old?
Also Scholes had spent the last couple years for England playing as a ten in a diamond and was on a ridiculous barren run, whilst Gerrard and Lampard were coming into their primes. The decision really wasn't that controversial at the time. It was only a couple seasons later when Scholes had a rejuvenation as a DLP for United that people were clamouring for him to return to the England setup.
It's a common misconception and is often quoted about his England career. Most people believe he was either under used or played out of position on the left wing. It's one of the things that comes most when his international career is mentioned.
There was plenty of moaning about him during that barren spell where he didn't score for 3 years, there were thoughts that he didn't deserve to be in the team. Then he popped up with a crucial goal against Croatia in Euro 2004. All the moaning about him stopped, then he retired. It went away until he wouldn't go back when he was playing deeper and still the best midfielder available even in his mid 30s.
The problem at that time was that it didn't matter who the England manager was they just tried to shoe horn all those good players into midefield.
I actually think Beckham would be playing in the KDB position. He had the work rate to keep up. Remember his passing ability was up there with Scholes'. He was also an incredibly intelligent player, people forget that United in 2000 and 2001 were a very good passing side. They had a lot of good movement off the ball, particularly in midfield. When attacking, I've always believed that team was more of a wide 4132 than simply a 442, Beckham and Giggs were constantly roaming into central positions.
Watch Villa games and you will understand. If he was at one of the big 6, you won't even be saying this. Statistically, he's up there with Bruno and KDB for creativity over the last two seasons.
Can't see Villa signing Greenwood AND Sancho.Eh? I thought we just had to wait a couple more months.
I have. If he had performed at a big club then there would be less question marks, that’s quite obvious isn’t it.
Don’t worry I’m not downplaying his ability, but the notion that if England put him in the team they will be miles better off is hopeful, but he definitely deserves a chance to start.
I agree in that he's not going to change England's style of play. However, If you're looking for someone who can carry a team he's your guy. This doesn't men he's better than a lot of players, but its kind of like Hazard for me. His balance, dribbling, agility and bravery means he attracts attention, his strength and balance mean he can keep the ball and his vision and passing means he can pass out of that attention. There are very few players in world football that i've seen play hat way. It doesn't mean he's better than others who don't, but for teams that have very little chemistry or patterns, having a player like this in attack or midfield can create the space for others to play well despite the manager.
Agree, no way we sell them Greenwood if they gazump us with Sancho.
I'm wondering if he's showcasing to Pep? It doesn't make sense for him to drop that deep and so often in games.
Naah, he does it for Spurs where it makes sense because he's by far their best creator and has Son who is very good in making those runs. Makes 0 sense for England who need a proper 9 more than another creator but neither has Kane adapted nor has Southgate asked him to.
On Scholes for England I think a major part of the problem was actually Beckham and his influence on the likes of Gerrard. Beckham was pinging every 2nd ball long, being praised for it and had reduced Scholes to just trying to arrive late and work on knockdowns, a total waste of his ability.
Needed a stronger manager who would refocus the team on ball retention around Scholes and Carrick, give Beckham a shorter leash and be brave when it came to fitting Lampard/Gerrard in.
Needed a stronger manager who would refocus the team on ball retention around Scholes and Carrick, give Beckham a shorter leash and be brave when it came to fitting Lampard/Gerrard in.
Grealish is Flash. Looks like a proper player now and again but isn't half the player Carrick was and is not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Scholes.
What Grealish really needs is a move to Big 4 clubs so that he can establish himself worthy to be trusted with the ball and running the show among all other players from big clubs. Honestly he is not overhyped: he is really that good and offer the uniqueness of holding the ball and controlling the rhythm in the final third area, which England lacks for so many years. But unfortunately, team selection is not only about capability but cohesion as a team, which bases on trust on each other.
If he has the ambition, he has to push a move now or otherwise wasting his prime fighting for Europa league ticket at best.
If he has the ambition, he has to push a move now or otherwise wasting his prime fighting for Europa league ticket at best.
From ca 1999 to ca 2003, Gerrard and Scholes partnered in central midfield. Gerrard was a talismanic influence in the deeper role, whilst Scholes was impersonating the invisible man. But England were overall doing quite well with it.
Gerrard becoming more of an attacking midfielder, lampard coming into his own and Scholes still not doing much created problems throughout the midfield chain as none of them worked well with each other.
Really should have just switched to a more modern 4-3-3. But then, where to fit in Beckham as captain. He would not have been all that as a right sided forward.
I think if Grealish is to play they would have to drop Foden. I don't see how you can have Grealish, Foden and Kane all looking to ball hog. Even if Kane is told to adjust it does not look right.
I think it would have to be Grealish on the left, and maybe Sancho on the right, or Sterling. You can't have Grealish, Mount and Foden in one team in my opinion, too many players with the same strengths - that is very easy for the opposition to prepare for. There's not enough forward runs or stretching the opposition in this England team in general.
The only way it may work is if one of these players played a genuine CM role, but that's very unlikely. Maybe against Czech Republic you could do it (although Southgate will not) but it's not viable later in the tournament.
I think it would have to be Grealish on the left, and maybe Sancho on the right, or Sterling. You can't have Grealish, Mount and Foden in one team in my opinion, too many players with the same strengths - that is very easy for the opposition to prepare for. There's not enough forward runs or stretching the opposition in this England team in general.
The only way it may work is if one of these players played a genuine CM role, but that's very unlikely. Maybe against Czech Republic you could do it (although Southgate will not) but it's not viable later in the tournament.
maybe but the signs were there when he came on against Scotland. He got the ball - could pass it, but kept it glued to his feet - and then got fouled by frustrated opponents
rightly put. People always looking for a new saviour
Because England were playing a long ball game despite having a fantastic group of players. Beckham and Gerrard taking turns hitting glory balls or pinging it at Heskey and working off second balls, suited Gerrard as he had the running power to play that style. Scholes didn't, and England's possession play was always exposed when it mattered, it was a terrible waste. Fergie binned off Beckham when he was overdoing that style at Utd.
Scholes played a lot for england late 90's early 00's
There's still plenty of time for Grealish.
It's just on the left side he has a tough battle competing with Sterling and Rashford.
There's still plenty of time for Grealish.
It's just on the left side he has a tough battle competing with Sterling and Rashford.
Fergie binned off Beckham because their fall-out was beyond repair..
He is being set up for failure at the moment if you ask me.
Way too overhyped and too much pressure. With what people are saying, you'd think he is the answer to England's problems. Obviously a fantastic player but he is not going to run through a wall of players and do it Maradona style. England need a cohesive attack, first and foremost.
Way too overhyped and too much pressure. With what people are saying, you'd think he is the answer to England's problems. Obviously a fantastic player but he is not going to run through a wall of players and do it Maradona style. England need a cohesive attack, first and foremost.
Funnily enough, the less he plays, the greater the pressure and hype as the public clamour for him to start. It's becoming an unwinnable situation for him as there's now the expectation that England should transform overnight with his inclusion.
He may be the downfall of Southgate. Almost every English fan would like to see Grealish play.
I am not sure why Southgate is favouring Foden and Mount over Grealish / Sancho / Rashford who have all had better seasons than the ones playing.
I can understand Sterling, though I do not agree with him starting, Southgate is a loyal manager.
I am not sure why Southgate is favouring Foden and Mount over Grealish / Sancho / Rashford who have all had better seasons than the ones playing.
I can understand Sterling, though I do not agree with him starting, Southgate is a loyal manager.
Somewhat agree. He’s a really good player at this stage of his career, but a broad section of English fans, and certainly the tabloid media, has massively overhyped him.
Against Scotland he came on and was quite poor. Aside from the obvious passing to a substitute warming up, he continually held onto the ball for far too long, winning meaningless free kicks in inconsequential positions. That feels as if it has been entirely overlooked.
If Foden has been benched for the first two games, he’d likely be in the same position as Grealish is now. England are pretty stacked in attacking midfield and as always: the best England player in major tournament is one of those on the benched.
Did Carrick and Scholes also get better the more they didn't play?
They did, people forgot whenever they did player they weren't pulling up any trees.
Foden is no Grealish, not at this stage of his career anyways.