Sven wrong to take Theo but not Jenas?

[GoonerMan]

im geting sick and tired of all this Theo hating that keeps on being spouted out all the time by tossers like George Burley (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27-2296971,00.html). why is it all you hear from everyone is 'o, sven was wrong to take theo', 'hes too young' etc etc. what about taking an injured rooney? or what about the fact he brought jermaine jenas who never got near the starting line up and never would have? why do i keep hearing pricks burley and moaninho coming out and telling Theo he made the wrong move? have they not noticed that half of our team has come thru from our youth team and become brilliant players. to hear moaninho telling theo he would have played twice if he had signed for chavski is ridiculous, youve only got to look at SWP to see what happens to promising young players. Theo is englands next big star, they should just leave him alone and forget about him. theres no need to bring him into the papers every fortnight by talking about him. these people are meant to be professionals i wish they'd act like it.

[Shen-O]

England weren't going to win anyways, who cares.

[Bluto11]

wgaf

[invinciblehenry]

forget jenas, how about darren bent?? i think theo has the potential to be the future of england, but dbent proved time and again that he can find the back of the net-- a consistent problem with england strikers.

[rossgreen]

Let's just say all of SVen's decisions at striker were questionable.

[gunnerdude11]

Forget Jenas and Bent, it should have been Defoe. Sven obviously had no intent on playing Theo and should have brought an experienced striker. But, with Sven's tactics and England's (citizens not players) immense pessimism, they had no chance anyways.

[DougG_ATL]

Why take him if you're not gonna play him? It's old news now. I think England's ready for a new era under McClaren and either Terry or Gerrard with the captain's armband.

I hate that Beckham had to go out this way, though.

[ArsenalArsene]

it's over

[invinciblehenry]

[QUOTE=gunnerdude11]Forget Jenas and Bent, it should have been Defoe.

so you're telling me you'd rather have a guy who sat the bench behind robbie keane and mido start in front of dbent (who was fourth in the actim forward point totals and third in league goals scored)?

and he's sp*rs scum, to boot....

[Arsenal_pwns_all]

The thing is England never had a problem with the midfield, so whomever Sven bought in the midfield is irrelevant. It's not like SWP or Nolan would have gotten any games if they went to the WC. But England had huge problems up front, and that was the main reason why I felt England crash out. England's chances of winning the WC pretty much ended the moment Owen got injured, cause without him England has no natural goalscorer in the team. Rooney was played up front alone for the rest of the WC, having just came back from injury he clearly was not playing at his best and he was never a proflic goalscorer anyway. Then there's Crouch, who has been long praised as being the one to 'bring a new dimension' to England's game, but at that moment what they needed was not a different dimension but someone to score the goals. So that leaves Walcott, and many people feel that if Sven had bought Defoe instead of Walcott things might have been different cause to them while Defoe is not a world class player he is good enough to at least possibly score a few goals.

Sven had made it clear that he doesn't feel Defoe is good enough to play for England, and he feels even an inexperience Walcott is a better option than Defoe. Personally I think he's partially correct cause while Defoe had never really played well for England in the past and probably would not have made the difference he at least would still be a better option than Walcott.

[Realwood]

The story wouldn't have been any different if he brought Bent or Defoe. It was the midfield that was the problem. How many times did Rooney, Owen or Crouch really get sprung by a pass from the MF? Think about it, I'm having a hard time thinking of one.

All of these critics will be eating their words in a few years after Wenger successfully nurtures Theo into a World Class striker. It is in England's best interest that this happens, and I can't think of a better manager to develop him.

[GoonerMan]

to clarify my post a bit. i dont want to sound like im ranting about the world cup, i wasnt, its over. its directed to these idiots who keep coming out and saying negative things about theo walcott, not just the world cup, but alsohes move to arsenal as well. idiots who keep coming out trying to telll him he made the wrong move.

i just read my topic title and it looks like im saying that the boss was wrong to take theo to the world cup but not jermaine jenas. im not saying that. he DID bring jenas and thats my point. why? you dont hear people coming out moaning about bringing too many midfielders and not enough strikers. again, they would rather bad mouth the theo walcott decision. it just seems like there trying to disrupt theo, by idiots constantly coming out saying this rubbish and then it being printed. gets on my nerves. these people should concentrate on there own team/players

[Rima067]

I look at this in a postive way, minus all of the press attention, we, as Arsenal fans won out, because our boy Theo got to be in a training camp w/ the England National Team for an entire month and in the end we and Theo win because this will only make him a better player.

[Skizz]

Forget Jenas and Bent, it should have been Defoe. Sven obviously had no intent on playing Theo and should have brought an experienced striker. But, with Sven's tactics and England's (citizens not players) immense pessimism, they had no chance anyways.
Forget Defoe, the England team that should have played was obvious:

Seaman
Dixon - Adams - Keown - Winterburn
Parlour - Platt - Groves - Rocastle
Wright - Campbell

[pookspur]

... it just seems like there trying to disrupt theo, by idiots constantly coming out saying this rubbish and then it being printed. gets on my nerves. these people should concentrate on there own team/players

i don't know that much criticism has been shown toward walcott - just toward sven for picking walcott. and it wasn't for arsenal, it was for england; so any englishman who criticizes the pick is concentrating on their own team/players.

it was a shockingly stupid selection, and i don't know why anyone would waste the effort required to defend it. but i don't see how it reflects poorly on walcott, at all.

[GoonerMan]

i don't know that much criticism has been shown toward walcott - just toward sven for picking walcott. and it wasn't for arsenal, it was for england; so any englishman who criticizes the pick is concentrating on their own team/players.

it was a shockingly stupid selection, and i don't know why anyone would waste the effort required to defend it. but i don't see how it reflects poorly on walcott, at all.

it wasnt the best decision but i dont hear anyone complaining about the even more pointless inclusion of jermaine jenas.

[pookspur]

it wasnt the best decision but i dont hear anyone complaining about the even more pointless inclusion of jermaine jenas.

i think that's a fair point, if, in fact, we can conclude that there was no way he was going to play jenas. i mean, had enough mids gone down injured that jenas was the only remaining mid, and sven still refused to play him, i thing sven would've gotten the same criticism - or at least he would have deserved it. but when the strikers go down, it's a little bit contrived to say "shyt! i knew he'd never play that mid!"

i mean, we could say, "geez, he was never going to play that third keeper, why didn't he bring another striker". but that's really not the issue, is it?

edit: incidently, i do remember reading an article that made the suggeston (in reference to defoe and jenas) that "perhaps sven took tottenham's wrong jermain(e)." i think it may have been in world soccer, but i honestly can't remember.

for what it's worth, it's really the same argument; and i don't see how it reflects on either of them, as opposed to sven. but surely the fact that it was walcott's position that was needed, in addition to the fact that at least (even if you don't agree with it) sven could claim that jenas played his way on to the squad, makes it reasonable that people are more likely to look first to the walcott selection as a vehicle to the basic complaint, no?

[GoonerMan]

i would have been a bit more confident if he brought bent rather than jermaine jenas, but thats just my opinion. i thought if theo came on he could have made a difference. he had different capabilities than the other forwards he brought. but thats not the argument im making here. i just think its unfair that the fact he brought theo walcott is being talked about ever couple of weeks, when he made other errors that arent being brought up

[pookspur]

i would have been a bit more confident if he brought bent rather than jermaine jenas, but thats just my opinion.

absolutely fair. and i agree with it.

but sven can say of anyone else on the squad, "you see, here's the reason that i brought __________," and we have to say 'ok' because that situation didn't come up. but he just can't say it about walcott, can he?

i'm really not trying to be argumentative here, i just think that walcott's selection really is the most natural prism through which to illustrate sven's stupidity, that's all.

[footykid]

Sven is a moron, thats all there is to it. Should Theo have gone probably not, but then again neither should Messi (Argentina aren't ready as a team to play with him, plus he was injured going in), same with Rooney. People are jsut knocking on him because he hasn't played. But honestly how many 17 year olds can say they've been in the first 18 for a CL match? Jenas, never, Defoe...never...Bent (Though fantastic) never. Walcott twice (I think)