Theo Walcott is an unknown entity. Why take him when he has no intention of playing him. Last night would have been the perfect opportunity to blood the youngster. Ahead of the final selection for the squad, media reports were saying how sharp Defoe was looking in training. Surely a player with an international class as Defoe has is less risky than Walcott and would have been a perfect foil for Owen especially as he is now on his way home injured. Alternatively Sven could have taken one less midfielder for an extra striker as the Italians have done. Sorry Sven but you are clueless !!!
2006-06-21 01:15:01 · 9 answers · asked by Domenic C 2 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
i just cant work out why when he has no intention of playing him and his inclusion in the squad over defoe or bent could cost us dearly ,when we had the best chance for years to win a tournam,ent sven blew it
2006-06-21 02:23:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes Defoe is better than Walcott he has been doing well at Portsmouth. Anyways Capello will probably play Walcott as a winger not striker. Wayne Rooney should have been left out of the squad. Defoe is obviously better than Rooney but because Defoe doesn't play for a Top 4 team he won't be favored. Don't be so upset it's just a friendly. Capello is just experimenting. He's a good Manager and knows what he is doing.
2016-03-15 13:50:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
when do you start your new job as England manager?
Sven's squad selection was never going to please everyone. i think we need to reserve judgement on walcott until we have actually seen him play.
i agree that Defoe should have been in the squad but i guess that as its his job and i am not nor ever have been a professional footballer / coach or manager Sven may have more of an idea than me. (just a thought !)
2006-06-21 01:52:54 · answer #3 · answered by Gyp77 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
walcott is more likely to be a shock and awe tactic for eriksson than an ordinary starting line-up player - at least in these early stages of the championship.
walcott has blistering speed, and deadly (though as yet unproven) finishing power. brought on early in the second half he could be the last nail in ecuador's coffin (as long as england already have general control of that game - as they should have).
walcott would have been wasted against sweden. you can't rattle the swedes. the swedes play great football -but boring football. they don't have stars - just a perfectly oiled team machinery (who expected them to come back in the last minute?)
you can't do shock and awe against the swedes - walcott would have been irrelevant in that game. against teams which rely more on 'star players' (including spain and italy) walcott makes a lot more sense.
2006-06-21 01:35:12 · answer #4 · answered by synopsis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that David Dein used his position to influence Ericsson.
We know he prevented Wenger being interviewed to protect his Arsenal manager.
We know Wenger recommended Walcott to Ericsson.
We know Dein had influence at the FA and that he worked close to Ericsson.
Pushing Walcott forward will give him experience BUT will also increase his value on the Arsenal balance sheet.
Arsenal has more to gain than England and Dein has proved during his time at the FA he will always put Arsenal first.
2006-06-21 15:04:44 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably because Defoes nailed Beckhams sister lol
2006-06-21 01:18:58 · answer #6 · answered by Puzzled 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they should leave theo and take defoe now that was england erro
2006-06-21 13:16:48 · answer #7 · answered by mel.wufootballfreak 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cuz none of the teams in the World Cup know anything about him....including England!
2006-06-21 01:21:48 · answer #8 · answered by chickenparm19122 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Swedish logic!! Go figure.
2006-06-21 01:38:21 · answer #9 · answered by CRAIG 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cuckoo!!
2006-06-21 01:46:18 · answer #10 · answered by Ken J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋