2007-02-06 04:29:39 · 24 answers · asked by mikey_d2006 2 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ Other - Football
Beckham is obviously still a good player, but England still has the best midfield in the world without him-- Gerrard, Cole, Lampard, Hargreaves, Lennon, and Carrick. Beckham's skills are on the decline, while most of the rest of these guys are still getting better. McClarren apparently wants to play the people who will be the future for England rather than play an older player who won't be able to play at the World Cup level by the time the next Cup comes around. (And even for the Euros there will be better players to pick from.)
2007-02-06 04:44:07 · answer #1 · answered by Otis T 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
McClaren dropped him for many reasons (ie, wanted to establish his own rule), but, from my point of view, this was his reason...
McClaren knew by the time Euro 2008 and World Cup 2010 strolled around, Beckham would have no part to play but on the bench or in the dressing room.
He understood that his team was better when Beckham wasn't playing. Beckham was played down the right, which meant that the English team effectively had little width. Even though Joe Cole was speedy down the left, Beckham was a waste of space.
He realized his team was more effective when Cole and Gerrard were on the wings, with Lampard and Hargreaves in the middle. Or, with Cole and Lennon on the wings with a combination of Gerrard and Hargreaves/Lampard in the middle.
Either way, there was no room for Beckham on the bench. If the first formation was played, effectively, Kirkland/Robinson/Foster, Lennon, Downing, Dafoe, Crouch, Bent, Walcott, Carrick, Carrragher, Richards, King, Brown, Barry, etc, and Beckham needed were fight for places on the bench.
Beckham loves his nation, and I am sure he would be prepared to sit on the bench, but I think I would rather have footballers with potential on my bench for these friendlies; Walcott, Bent, Lennon, Downing; then play a nearly washed up, former superstar.
As we should remember, these friendlies are to prepare for the real spotlight, and in a year or in three, those young guns well already be better options then Beckham.
Beckham would have been a better option off the bench in 2006, but Sven wasn't going to do that. He needed a captain that commanded an established respect and would bring stability to an English team in the middle of a regime change, and that was Beckham.
2007-02-06 05:00:04 · answer #2 · answered by Wittmann 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Very simply- Beckham's old and slow, and the only thing useful he does is take FKs when either Gerrard or Lampard or Joe Cole can take them.
McClaren wanted to show the England team that just because they were "stars" or "legends" he still wanted to tell them they had to get on the team by hard work. Putting the new kids on the bench was a good way to re-ignite the English team, especially when the Lampard -Gerrard midfield pairing didn't work.
2007-02-06 05:40:00 · answer #3 · answered by debest999 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe that Mclaren wanted to be seen as making a new start. I think that, the thought of Beckham, always attracting the Media's attention, often before the team, did not help his cause.
Perhaps, Mclaren wanted to get away from this celebrity circus that always followed the Beckhams?
2007-02-06 06:15:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because Tom Cruise asked the Scientology gods to force David to Hollywood so they could team up against the world. OR because he grew too big for their uniform britches -- they needed to sew an ego patch on them.
2007-02-06 04:38:15 · answer #5 · answered by Mickey 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nobody can play at his peak forever. He will be old at World Cup in 2010. It is best to focus on model/commercial while he is till famous now. He must make lot of money on this field.
2016-05-23 23:49:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the press needed 2 scapegoats for failing in the world cup one on the field and one off so mclaren didnt have the guts to go against them
1. Sven...for squad selection and tactics
2. beckham...because he didn't deliver what his ability promised
in my opinion there were other players who didn't deliver either (lampard) but they are younger so beckham was surplus to requirements
2007-02-06 05:24:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was dropped because he is not up to international standard. He has given England good service but his time is over.
2007-02-06 04:41:40 · answer #8 · answered by lazyboy87 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Cos he's one of the most overated players ever to play for England, the english media put him there cos of his image
2007-02-06 04:55:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because the new manager wanted to play with wingers and he wanted a new look to the squad with a couple of younger players in there .
2007-02-06 06:28:23 · answer #10 · answered by harry 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋