*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[Scaly piscine]

Has scored a grand total of 19, tbh, five of them for Southampton. 6 Premiership goals in his four years at Arsenal. In Beckham's 8-year career in the United first team, he never once failed to score six league goals in a season.

He scored a hat-trick for England once, and English people don't watch much Italian or American soccer, so Theo's the natural choice I guess.

Beckham has been **** for 6-8 years, why do I need to watch him playing with even less pace to make a judgement?

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a clue that if you play Walcott he'll score goals, I don't care what he was like even 3 seasons ago and he's not exactly one who plays a full 90 minutes when he does play. He has 5 goals in 19 appearances in Europe for the last couple of seasons, when he starts playing most of the game and regularly he's the sort of player who'll score 20 a season and something like 1 in 3/4 games for England.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't really get where the idea of Beckham's decline comes from. He's 33, and tremendously fit.

Has he lost a bit of pace? I don't believe he had any to lose- in any case, it was never a part of what made him a good player.

Have his crossing, passing or set pieces regressed? Certainly not when I've seen him, and I don't see why it would.

Does playing at LA Galaxy mean he's not quite fit for international-standard football? Maybe- but by the time South Africa rolls around he'll have been playing at AC Milan for a solid six months or so.

Was he just never that good to begin with?

It's funny that so many wingers have pace, because players like Beckham are much harder to defend against. When you play against Walcott, he gets the ball wide then runs at you, and if he beats you, there's a chance he could put in a killer ball and get his side a goal. Beckham just stands on the right touchline and puts in the killer ball from there. What do you do? Do you stand right next to him all the time and leave a massive gap between LB and CB? Do you just let him cross it and hope against hope that he gets it wrong? It's a nightmare to play against. Don't believe it when commentators say "defenders hate players running at them". If you hated players running at you, you wouldn't play full-back. David Beckham is a nightmare scenario for any full-back.

Now you might be looking at Walcott developing into a Freddie Ljungberg type player, which depending on how the team is going to play, could be even more dangerous. But he's not shown any signs of that yet- as I say, 14 career goals for Arsenal in four seasons at the club. And even if he does significantly improve this season, England aren't the technically-excellent passing side that Arsenal were when their style of play allowed Ljungberg to excel, so it would be debateable whether he'd fit better. For now, it surely has to be Beckham.

 

[aussie]

I don't really get where the idea of Beckham's decline comes from. He's 33, and tremendously fit.

Has he lost a bit of pace? I don't believe he had any to lose- in any case, it was never a part of what made him a good player.

Have his crossing, passing or set pieces regressed? Certainly not when I've seen him, and I don't see why it would.

Indeed. But as Scaly said (although he exaggerated a bit) Becks was playing poorly between EURO 2004 to WC 06 when he resigned as captain. Since he returned in 07 for that Brazil friendly alogn with his club from @ Madrid & Milan, he has been solid.

It's funny that so many wingers have pace, because players like Beckham are much harder to defend against. When you play against Walcott, he gets the ball wide then runs at you, and if he beats you, there's a chance he could put in a killer ball and get his side a goal. Beckham just stands on the right touchline and puts in the killer ball from there. What do you do? Do you stand right next to him all the time and leave a massive gap between LB and CB? Do you just let him cross it and hope against hope that he gets it wrong? It's a nightmare to play against.

Interesting point. Its clear you won't be able to mark him like how Ashley Cole would mark Ronaldo etc. Thats why his partnership with Neville was so effective since while Becks would just stand on the right (although technically he would make some runs down the right during a game), Neville would overall - thus making this very difficult for the opposition full-back.

But Walcott & J Cole certainly as wingers offer that same crossing ability that Becks as, plus pace & trickery. So as an overall package they are better than Becks ATM without a doubt. Becks for me would make a perfect sub, when a full-back have been tired out for 60-70 minutes dealing with Walcott. His corssing game could be even mroe effective ATS.

Don't believe it when commentators say "defenders hate players running at them". If you hated players running at you, you wouldn't play full-back. David Beckham is a nightmare scenario for any full-back.

Hmm, not sure i see why a team wouldn't.

Now you might be looking at Walcott developing into a Freddie Ljungberg type player, which depending on how the team is going to play, could be even more dangerous. But he's not shown any signs of that yet- as I say, 14 career goals for Arsenal in four seasons at the club. And even if he does significantly improve this season, England aren't the technically-excellent passing side that Arsenal were when their style of play allowed Ljungberg to excel, so it would be debateable whether he'd fit better. For now, it surely has to be Beckham.

Although England aren't a fantastic passing side like a spain or Arsenal, when the side plays at its best as they have been doing recently, they are capable of doing that in glimpses - while overall adapting an aggressive premiership style of football.

Looking at England recently its pretty clear Walcott or J Cole definately should start on the right ahead of Beckham.

 

[Uppercut]

But Walcott & J Cole certainly as wingers offer that same crossing ability that Becks as

...

 

[sledger]

But Walcott & J Cole certainly as wingers offer that same crossing ability that Becks as

Er, no.

 

[Agent TBY]

But Walcott & J Cole certainly as wingers offer that same crossing ability that Becks as

Hmm, not sure i see why a team wouldn't.

 

[aussie]

Er, no.

...

It isn't as perfect as Becks, but they can cross - they dont just try to beat defenders & roam infield from the flanks.

 

[aussie]

. Yes i wasn't 100% clear on what uppercut meant.

 

[sledger]

It isn't as perfect as Becks, but they can cross - they just try to beat defenders & roam infield from the flanks.

So basically, you're now saing something completely different to your original post.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It seems utterly bizarre to me that I may have to argue a case for why David Beckham is a better player than Theo ****ing Walcott.

It's obviously escaped your notice that, when he comes on, Beckham's invariably deployed in the middle for England now. He's effectively a midfield general in his dotage.

 

[Uppercut]

I have noticed that, but I don't agree with it. Beckham's at his most effective when he stands wide on the right touchline and pings crosses into the middle. Started to wander a bit too much for a while when he was captain.

 

[cpr]

I'd take Beckham over Walcott any day on the right, if the game was gonna be 45 minutes long. Personally I think a Walcott/Lennon are best to start with, as lets face it they are a full backs nightmare, they'll mentally and physically tire out a defence, but will tire themselves too, to be replaced by Beckham who's delivery of a ball is still better than any other Englishmans, thus creating many a chance for Heskey to **** up.

In theory it'd be beautiful. In practice it'd just be typical England

 

[Uppercut]

Personally I think a Walcott/Lennon are best to start with, as lets face it they are a full backs nightmare

Common myth. Full backs love people running at them. There's nothing they love more. Why else would we be full backs?

I'd love to play against Aaron Lennon. Freddie Ljungberg or Robert Pires would be a nightmare because their movement off the ball is so special, and David Beckham is a nightmare because there's not really any way of dealing with him. You can't stand next to him on the right touchline all game, but you can't just let him cross it. What do you do?

 

[sledger]

Common myth. Full backs love people running at them. There's nothing they love more. Why else would we be full backs?

I'd love to play against Aaron Lennon. Freddie Ljungberg or Robert Pires would be a nightmare because their movement off the ball is so special, and David Beckham is a nightmare because there's not really any way of dealing with him. You can't stand next to him on the right touchline all game, but you can't just let him cross it. What do you do?

 

[aussie]

Common myth. Full backs love people running at them. There's nothing they love more. Why else would we be full backs?

Technically yes. I'm sure Cole loved his battles with Ronaldo & Evra againts quality winger he has to deal with.

But if a full-back isn't good enough to counter a winger defensively - then the full-back would have a nightmare facing the winger he is up againts. A perfect example is Cole vs Mattias Jonson in WC 06 or Ronaldo vs Essein in the CL 08 final.

I'd love to play against Aaron Lennon. Freddie Ljungberg or Robert Pires would be a nightmare because their movement off the ball is so special, and David Beckham is a nightmare because there's not really any way of dealing with him. You can't stand next to him on the right touchline all game, but you can't just let him cross it. What do you do?

All true. But for ENG i would think utilizing the pace of Walcott for 60-70 minutes first before bringing on Becks, is a better tactic than starting Becks then bringing on Walcott since the side needs pace somewhere early.

 

[sledger]

Technically yes. I'm sure Cole loved his battles with Ronaldo & Evra againts quality winger he has to deal with.

But if a full-back isn't good enough to counter a winger defensively - then the full-back would have a nightmare facing the winger he is up againts. A perfect example is Cole vs Mattias Jonson in WC 06 or Ronaldo vs Essein in the CL 07 final.



All true. But for ENG i would think utilizing the pace of Walcott for 60-70 minutes first before bringing on Becks, is a better tactic than starting Becks then bringing on Walcott since the side needs pace somewhere early.

I don't neccessarily disgaree, but I would like to hear the reasoning behind that statement. As arguably Walcott's pace against a tiring defence would be more effective in the last 20 minutes than in the early stages of a match.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, you get paid plenty everywhere else too!

It's true though. I hear all the time about how much full backs hate players who run at them, and I wonder where it comes from. Why would you choose to play in the one position on a football field where players run at you ALL THE TIME if you hated it? It's a challenge, and you love it. You know you're in a game.

 

[aussie]

I don't neccessarily disgaree, but I would like to hear the reasoning behind that statement. As arguably Walcott's pace against a tiring defence would be more effective in the last 20 minutes than in the early stages of a match.

Well looking ENG under capello recently, in our 4-4-2 XI. Without Walcott there is no pace except for Rooney. The mid-fied isn't a flat 4-4-2 to me they play like this during a game:

----------------------------------------------------------Heskey----------------------------------------

Gerrard----------------------------------------------Rooney------------------------------Walcott

--------------------------------------------Barry------------------Lampard----------------------------


Gerrard, Wazza, Walcott (Lennon the other day) roam alot. Especially Walcott/Lennon on the right, i have seen alot of times those cats been given passes almost unmarked on the flank & the run down the opposition full-back - which basically is the only time we play with pace. If Becks start i think we would slow up alot, since we dont posses that speedy passing game in the centre of the park like Spain.

 

[sledger]

Haha, you get paid plenty everywhere else too!

It's true though. I hear all the time about how much full backs hate players who run at them, and I wonder where it comes from. Why would you choose to play in the one position on a football field where players run at you ALL THE TIME if you hated it? It's a challenge, and you love it. You know you're in a game.

Well, though I don't doubt what you say, and my money post was a bit tongue in cheek, a lot of players who end up playing full back often end up there because they simply do not have the phsyical presence to play elsewhere. Ashley Cole for example was a striker for a lot of his younger years until he was moulded into that position when it became apparent that he would not be suitable elsewhere. I'm sure a lot of players would take the chance to play at full back rather than not at all. Not the greatest point in the world, but thought I would throw it out there anyway.

 

[cpr]

Common myth. Full backs love people running at them. There's nothing they love more. Why else would we be full backs?

Usually because either

A) pacy enough to half a half decent crack at a winger
B) tackle better than you cross
C) too short to be a centre back


When I've played outfield I'm either a winger or a full back, and early on when both sets of players are fresh i'd rather a winger stood back from me and crossed early than ran at me, because a fresh legged guy running can make you commit and stick you on your arse, whereas the winger who stands back and crosses can be distracted by you closing down, may be made to mi**** it, or charged down.

When the legs are going later on and cant charge down the ball, that guy who can place it on from the flank can rip a hole between you and the centre back and place it nicely for an alert striker