I'd take Morata in a New York minute. He's only 22 and has already shown he can score. A lot of strikers don't hit their stride until age 22 or 23.
Schurrle is not, having watched him for a year and a half. He's very fast and shoots a ton, but he doesn't really have flair or an especially good footballing brain; otherwise he'd still be at Chelsea. Reus I'll grant you obviously, but he's also been beset by injury problems so it's hard to know whose place he'd have taken at the World Cup - possibly that of Ozil, which doesn't detract from my point. As for Goetze, sure, he's got plenty of "flair" () - but note that he wasn't a starter in the knock-out rounds of the World Cup
Oh no. I'm not a huge Giroud fan. I gave Morata as a player that I think we should look at as a CF and was told he was only good enough to be "Giroud's understudy".
I think he's better than Giroud. Giroud has been playing wonderfully, but I still don't think he's the answer. Anyway, England look very good today. A true 433 and it's looked very good.
Brasil and Holland both emphasize creativity at the youth stage, so by the time the kids grow up they can play creative and compact and defensive. Every Dutch "negative" player is superior to their English counterpart. I needn't list the great talents Holland has produced. The problem with our previous manager, may he die in a fire, was that he refused to play expansive and just bunkered. I would also add that van Bommel and de Jong while "destroyers" in the Dutch world would be superior creatively to any of their English counterparts due to their youth training. What I'm saying is that if you train creatively while young, you can do the defensive stufff when they're older. While the reverse is neigh impossible. See England
No. I remember someone else saying this. I pointed out that Morata's stats were excellent in response.
hold up. your suggesting that the litmus test for good management of a club's youth program is that it's players should, one year after graduating to the first team, be able to form the basis of a european national team able to qualify for major tournaments?! hell, man, Bridge, Walcott, Bale, Oxlade-Chamberlain, and Lallana together wouldn't have qualified for tournaments a year out of the academy. Not impressed, vaunted Southampton youth set up! that's a fairly wild extrapolation, there. it's not a zero-sum situation. that is, just because he lambasted players (after another shambolic performance) for lack of 'character' does not equate to asserting that character is all that matters. I've heard Sherwood talk tactics.* and I've seen him utilize a variety of formations beyond a standard 4-4-2. but whatever. frankly, I tend to think there's a far bigger gap between the way continental and English managers communicate about tactics than between how they implement them. Harry Redknapp was a prime example. he was constantly portrayed as the 'just run around a lot' gaffer, but when given genuine talent, his teams played utterly brilliant stuff. and he did so while accommodating rosters designed more for market considerations than for complimenting itself on the pitch. your oh-so-special manager couldn't be arsed to work with the likes of rafa van der vaart. Harry got him, acknowledged that 'how to use him' in his squad was a problem, and then set about doing so brilliantly. but he talks like a working class stiff. so if he wears a nice suit, he's a whealing, dealing cockney wide boy. if mourinho does it, he's the model of continental sophistication. but, yeah, "use the 4-4-2 and get stuck in". that's our tim. he's probably never even seen a hundred dollar bottle of wine.** *for the record, though, my favorite (non-)example was when, after being asked about a specific formation, he responded that (i'm paraphrasing, here) 'it isn't the formation, it's what you do within the formation' (which is, of course, correct), in what I took to be a thinly veiled implication that the typically British football writer wouldn't be able to assess what that was, in any event (which is also, I suspect, correct). **just for the record, that comment was supposed to be a good natured jab (maybe smileys were in order), I hope it didn't come of shitty/snarky. same of the entire post. I realize I've digressed, here, and gone beyond what is rational in defending Tim Sherwood. so let me succinctly surmise: I think pulling Tim Sherwood's name from thin air to discredit Stewart Pearce's efforts with England's youth - which discredit themselves just fine, thankyouverymuch - is a bit harsh. here, have a couple smilies.
van Bommel was certainly a well rounded player, but you seriously undermine your argument by claiming that de Jong is better than any holder England could produce. He was (and is) a hack, pure and simple.