Man United Thread

[therockbox]

Crouch is a million miles better than Bent.

[Guest muddatrucker]

At being shit.

[therockbox]

Yeah good one.

We were losing against Argentina, Crouch comes on, turns the game around and we win.

We were losing against Uruguay, Crouch comes on, turns the game around and we win.

Bent plays the first half against Uruguay and does nothing.

[IAceI]

Jermaine Defoe should play because he's Jermaine Defoe.

Him or Jon Stead.

Edited April 30, 2006 by IAceI

[public enemy]

I'm actually glad we got hammered, in a way. The undefeated run we put together probably served to create a false picture of hope for next season. Yesterday's result proved how far we're off Chelsea and emphasised that new players are definetly needed.

It's a shame about Rooney, whilst I'm not an England fan I still would've liked to see what he could do in the World Cup finals.

[Liam]

At being shit.

I agree with Mudda (although I wouldn't go as far to call him totally shit, or anything).

Bent, arguably, has been Charlton at times this season, and has scored loads of goals. I'd pick him ahead of Crouch, or Bent and then choose Crouch as the bloke to supply the knock-downs and hold-ups.

And judging Bent on his performance against Uruguay is as blinkered a view as I've seen you have. Rockabox (), you've impressed me.

[therockbox]

When Crouch first played for England against the USA, he did well. Bent was shyte in his first appearence, he got himself into what, one good position and completely ballsed up his shot. He's been good for Charlton, yes, but it's Charlton.

All you have to do is watch Crouch when he plays for Liverpool to see just how much he brings to the team. I know people moan because he doesn't score enough goals, but at the end of the day we all knew he wasn't bought to score goals.

We're pretty fucked whatever happens, unless there's a miracle and Rooney recovers we have no cover. Owen won't be fit, and there are no players that could play and be relied upon to do well. Defoe, Bent, Ashton, whoever could all try, but they won't win us a World Cup.

[Bigal]

Owen's scan said he isn't injured, but that most likely means the problem is lack of match fitness, something almost impossible to correct by the World Cup.

[IAceI]

Owen's scan said he isn't injured, but that most likely means the problem is lack of match fitness, something almost impossible to correct by the World Cup.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Box, I think you're missing something. Crouch looks good because he's playing in the same team as Gerrard, Garcia, Riise and such and such. Bent looks worse by comparison because he's playing in the same team as Kishishev, Rommedahl, Lisbie and so on. That's what you're missing here - Liverpool are better than Charlton, but for Bent to score twenty goals without any good supply is a feat to be admired. Now think what he could do with supply from Gerrard and Beckham.

[Liam]

Box, I think you're missing something. Crouch looks good because he's playing in the same team as Gerrard, Garcia, Riise and such and such. Bent looks worse by comparison because he's playing in the same team as Kishishev, Rommedahl, Lisbie and so on. That's what you're missing here - Liverpool are better than Charlton, but for Bent to score twenty goals without any good supply is a feat to be admired. Now think what he could do with supply from Gerrard and Beckham.

Be summed it up better than I could. Rock, you even summed it up yourself in saying "but it's Charlton". It's not like he scored 7-9 goals for a relatively poor team, he scored twenty goals which is a wonderful haul whatever team you play for, let alone for a team who doesn't supply him as well as he could at other teams.

And comparing playing against USA and Uruguay in a debut is again, a little bit naff. Considering Uruguay are all about sticking ten men behind the ball, we got fuck all chances as it was, let alone Bent himself. USA are a lot more open, and England created more chances as a whole. Bent looked fine against Uruguay, because he looked ready for the chances that never came at least, rather than wandering around like a nobody the whole half.

[therockbox]

I've used the "so and so looks good because they're playing in a good team" argument before and it's been shot down. Bent's scored 20 goals because he's the only player that's really been in a position to. I think there next highest Premiership scorer is on three (not counting Murphy who isn't there anymore).

Now think what he could do with supply from Gerrard and Beckham.

[Liam]

I'm not saying Crouch didn't do better than Bent against Uruguay, because he did, the problem is that you are hating Bent's performance when England's performance as a whole was shit. He can't exactly make something out of nothing as he isn't that sort of player (but very few are) so I blame his performance as much on the side not getting thier finger out as him not playing well.

And even if Bent is the only player in a position to score for Charlton, or other people don't score for Charlton, doesn't mean Bent was gifted 20 goals. He still had to actually go out and score them. When the man is the 3rd highest goalscorer this season behind only Nistelrooy and Henry, I'd doubt that Crouch is "a million miles better than Bent " (as you stated), if at all. I'd have Crouch in my squad, but I'd definitely be more likely to choose Bent if we lose Owen and Rooney, who are both goalscorers (especially as you've noted that Crouch isn't overly there to score goals).

[therockbox]

But without Rooney, Crouch is the best forward in terms of holding the ball up we've got. There's no proven goalscorer at international level without Rooney or Owen, so we're overly reliant on Gerrard and Lampard to really step up - but we need someone to hold up the ball.

Personally I'd start with Fowler Defoe (bascially because he's the only one that's shown he can at least do something at international level), with Carrick in the holding midfield spot allowing Gerrard and Lampard to come forward.

[NobBe Nobbs]

How is Bent supposed to prove he can go on the international level if he isn't given the chance?

[therockbox]

A World Cup isn't the time to be giving someone a chance (although like I said, that's Eriksson's fault). At least Crouch, Defoe etc. all have some experience and have shown they can do something at international level.

[fineintent]

If we look at it historically, Jimmy Greaves was England's unquestioned number one centre forward, he got injured and Geoff Hurst scored a World Cup Final hat-trick.

That's not me saying England will win, we won't, but there are worse things than playing an inexperienced player. Obviously Rooney is a huge blow though. But how does Peter Crouch playing an hour or so more international football than Darren Bent make him a better player or more of a threat?

Personally, I think Dean Ashton would be a superb choice for the squad - he has the target man ability of Crouch, more presence and awareness, and generally an all round better game than most in the frame at the minute. That includes Crouch, Defoe (as much as I love him, he's so out of form its untrue), Bent and Beattie.

[IAceI]

Personally, I think Dean Ashton would be a superb choice for the squad - he has the target man ability of Crouch, more presence and awareness, and generally an all round better game than most in the frame at the minute.

[Lord Nibbler]

I guess this means Ruud's off in the summer. Why does Fergie always have to drive players out of the club? With Rooney out injured, Ruud seemed like a lock to start, but Fergie drops him.

Ah well, at least Rossi gets a chance to shine.

[therockbox]

Rossi needs to stop shooting every time he gets within 30 yards of the goal.

Good to Scholes back though, I didn't think he'd be playing again this season, at all.