Ukraine vs. England, World Cup Qual.: Tuesday 10/09/13, 19:45 Olympic Stadium, Kiev, Ukraine [R]

They were in the CL when Roman brought them, they were defiantly one of the 6 biggest sides in England at that point.

 

Amusing to see some of the arguments here.

Let's face it. If England qualify for Brazil, then the majority of the squad is already set. Hodgson is not going to change the squad just because someone had a couple of good games in August. Hodgson knows the core of his squad, he is just figuring out his forwards and right backs and wingers. Sterling, Zaha and now Townsend are on the fringes, as is Barkley. Whichever ones have the best season will make the squad (if England qualify). Walcott is on the plane, not sure about Lennon. Is he injured? Scott Sinclair, Adam Johnson all in the mix too for winger selection.

Jones will make the squad. It doesn't matter how many games Terry played when he was 21. Hodgson is not picking his squad based on that. Jones will make it because he is versatile. Walker needs to up his game, cos he did not have the best of games in Ukraine, and there is increased competition at RB.

Carrick will make the squad but he is clearly behind Gerrard and Lampard in the pecking order. Cleverley seems to have been dropped despite being involved in early Hodgson qualifiers. He is currently in the squad but will have to fight for his place. Milner is in the squad, doesn't matter that some people on BigSoccer don't rate him. Hodgson does and so he will take him.

If we get to Brazil, Hodgson will take Rooney, Sturridge, Welbeck and then Carroll, Lambert or Defoe will have to fight it out for the remaining Forward position.

There is sometimes a player who comes into the reckoning for the squad after a breakthrough season ahead of a big tournament. Maybe Shelvey, Caulker, Redmond? Or if they get a Prem move in Jan someone like Hughes or Ince.

The problem is England has an ever decreasing pool of players in the Top Flight from which to select.

 

Chelsea are obviously smaller than they are now if Roman doesn't put money into Chelsea, sure. Who's arguing that? But Chelsea were also a consistently top side in the years before he arrived, repeatedly playing in the CL. If Chelsea hire Wenger instead of Arsenal, where's Arsenal now?

I don't post on other forums, so can't comment on taking other people's views, but there was definitely a decent amount of football on American television 13 years ago. Ironically, 2000 was the year I started watching even more football since I started law school that year and had an easier schedule and more money (plus was traveling to Europe a lot more often). If you wanted to find football, you could. Obviously not every game was broadcast, but then, I never claimed to have seen every single one.

It's a club pissing contest at this point, which I don't want to get into. Whether or not people think Chelsea was a small club in 2010, in doesn't change that Terry played plenty of games that season and his performance was for a club fighting for Europe rather than one just trying to stave off relegation.
I've never understood the Jones hype and still don't.

 

Scott Sinclair?

 

I think rev is probably right but it's a shite situation. I wonder how we can grind our way to the second round elimination instead of playing decent football. I would rather try something new to set a precedent for the future and go out in the groups than grind it into the second round and lose on pens or to a superior side 1 nil.

Rev, do u agree that carrick should be behind lampard and gerrard?

Nice, arsenal were successful under graham and a decent coach would've been employed at some point. Chelsea were just a decent side, a top 6 side but small in comparrison to utd, arsenal especially and liverpool historically....maybe even leeds after their cl run a couple of years before

 

When Wenger was hired you'd won 3 titles in 45 years, and the best period in Arsenal's history was, not coincidentally, the period where Arsenal broke transfer records and were known as "The Bank of England". You could just as easily have done a Spurs, and complaining about Chelsea's money is not only completlyl moot, but also quite a bit rich coming from a fan of the club that arranged a Selfridges gig for Alex James to evade the maximum salary rules.

 

Are u comparing nearly 100 years ago to abramovic spending hundreds of millions? Really?

 

How do you think Arsenal became a "big club" in the first place? Pixie dust? Why is spending more than your competition irrelevant when it's your club and further away in the past? Before 1930, how many titles had Arsenal won? How long does one have to wait until spending more than your competition isn't relevant anymore?

 

How did arsenal do it in 98? Investment is fine but chelsea destabilised the league and helped ruin football with one of the first sugar daddy chairmen.

I seriously cannot believe u are comparing the 30s to abramovic hahaha unreal

 

Ruin football? lol Glad you're so unbiased, mate!

 

u don't think abramovic destabilised the prem and helped make transfer fees astronimical for normal clubs? even arsenal and utd struggled when mourinho first came and he took chelsea from a side that would barely challenge at the league to dominating it. all with the use of money where as utd had nurtured talent and spent well, as had arsenal

it is hardly biased, most non chelsea and city fans would agree....

 

No. Nor did he "ruin football", just like football wasn't ruined when Berlusconi outspent everyone in the late 80s or when Arsenal outspent everyone in the 30s.

 

I think chelsea tipped the balance of the kodern sky sports lead era of huge contracts and player power. Abramovic's money destabilised the prem imo. Chelsea did not earn their sucess, they simply bought it. As have city.

This forum and thread is not the place for this though really

 

Amen to that.

 

...I think the money belonged to the Soviet Union and Abramovic stole it....?..the guy just looks like a crook.