fred milne

Parker would be a decent shout if he was fit but I'm not convinced the other five would be any better than Hargreaves in that role.

Who do you put ahead of him in that role?

Nicky Butt has always been the very definition of the word ordinary but he was a useful player to have around in Japan/Korea four years ago.

Think its more that that. England having to resort to drafting in Canadians? Are we no better than Jack Charlton's Ireland? That kind of thing.

Canadian accent you mean?

I must admit that from the limited amounts I've seen of him he looks a reasonable player - not a world-beater by any stretch but certainly not worthy of the abuse that is being heaped on his head. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why are the knives out for England's best defensive midfielder? Rob SmythJune 7, 2006 11:42 AM Owen Hargreaves may be the only watercarrier in the village, but try telling that to little Britain. Ever since England's World Cup squad was announced with 412 midfielders and only four strikers, Hargreaves has been constantly ridiculed on the basis of... well, on the basis of what, exactly? Small minds, it would seem. Hargreaves is quite simply England's best defensive midfielder, not exactly an unimportant position in modern football, and the only man in the squad capable of playing the role in its broadest sense. Of course he has limits, but so did Gilberto Silva in 2002, Didier Deschamps in 1998, Carlos Dunga in 1994, and so on. Not everyone can run the ball down blind alleys as thrillingly as Theo Walcott or Joe Cole. Besides, Hargreaves' qualities become especially vital in view of Sven-Goran Eriksson*s modus operandi: score first and squeeze the bejeesus out of a game. The problem, of course, is that Hargreaves plays abroad and so becomes an easy target. And while it's heartwarming to envisage the English footballing cognoscenti taking time out from chewing wasps at their Hackett conventions to fly to Germany every weekend and keep tabs on Hargreaves' form, it's not likely. They've never seen him play for Bayern. And if we're going on country form alone, that Steven Gerrard's not up to much, is he? So Hargreaves is crap because, err, he just is, alright? He's Owen effing Hargreaves. If he can play for England, so can you and I. Hargreaves is the latest victim of English football's most insidious phenomenon: the consensus that spreads throughout the country in no time, and enables people to pass off as gospel comments about a player they have barely seen. When it comes to misinformation, Chinese whispers have nothing on the English discourse. So Tony Adams was a donkey; ditto Gary Neville; Andy Cole needed seven chances to score; Teddy Sheringham was far too old to be part of England's 1998 team - he was 32! Look how slow he was! He'd be in a wheelchair by 40! Then there's David Beckham who, in an unfortunate coincidence for Real Madrid, literally went from the world's greatest player ever to completely crap the day he joined them. In fact, let's get Aaron Lennon in for Beckham. He looked good against Bolton, he'll murder Roberto Carlos. Let's be clear on this: Hargreaves has not come from the Greek league. He plays regularly for one of the world's biggest clubs, Bayern Munich, and has won more titles than anybody in the England squad bar Neville and Beckham. He played 120 minutes of a Champions League final with remarkable sang-froid at the age of 20. If he is not one of the best 23 players in England, then Jermaine Jenas is. It is Jenas, football's first ever jack of no trades and master of none, who is the real duffer in Eriksson's squad. Studies show that, of the 124,561,892,756 paths any given football match can take, not one will prompt a manager to think: "I need Jermaine Jenas here." Yet nobody criticises him. Then again, he plays in England. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/worldcup06/200...im_of_litt.html

I'd agree that he didn't have a great game at Cardiff. However, I do think that he doesn't get exposed defensively half as much as he used to - probably down to a combination of coaching from Rafa, as well as the fact that we control play more these days.

I was expecting to see Sharp vs Liverpool 84-5 season.....

Links to the two goals: http://worldcup.itv.com/Video/0,15954,7195_1017910,00.html

The goal Yeboah scored against us was a stunning strike. I'll throw in a couple more World Cup goals that I don't think haven't been mentioned so far: - Cruyff vs Brazil 1974 - Socrates v Italy 1982

I'm sure you do: Clemence, Neal, Thompson, Hansen, A Kennedy, Case, McDermott, Souness, R Kennedy, Dalglish, Johnson. (As with all good sides) they used the full width of the pitch but I don't think you could say that any of them were particularly adept at running with the ball at pace.

Cough...the 78/9 team? (Almost certainly the best side we've ever had.)

Surely it would be Gerrard v Beckham, Alonso v Carrick and Sissoko v Lampard.

Only up front. Everywhere else I'd say we at least match them. Comfortable Liverpool win for me.

I know. So?

Swap Pennant for Malbranque and that looks about right to me. Bring in a top-class striker to replace Cisse and I think we have the makings of a side that can compete for title - assuming the luck with injuries that any successful side must have.

I didn't really notice him in the World Cup but I'll confess I thought he started off reasonably promisingly here. I don't think its too difficult to work out why GH bought him. He wanted an alternative to Didi who was more mobile and aggressive and who could win the ball higher up the pitch. It was clear by summer of 2002 that Biscan wasn't going to be that player. As it turned out Diao wasn't that player either. However, it looks as though Sissoko might be.

In a nutshell. There are lots of fine players in the England set-up (Terry, Owen etc) but Rooney and Gerrard are on a different level altogether and the team should play to both their strengths.

If Sven wants to play a CB in the holding role, why not use Ferdinand who has played there this season for Utd.

The argument that is usually made is that these days top-flight teams have much bigger squads and youth academies so there is less chance of good players slipping through the net and ending up in the lower leagues.

I'd agree with that. What I would say though is that our transfer policy during the days of Shankly and Paisley was all about buying young, hungry players on the way up. I struggle to remember a player either manager signed who was over 26 yrs. This has always been a more important issue for me than the price paid.

A UEFA Cup place?

Neither was Houghton in 94.

Can someone post the link to the official website for the online renewal.

I think it was only one game where he played LB in 99-00 season but he did play RB on quite a few occasions that season. Indeed, Tommy Smith was going round saying that's where his future was.... I don't remember him playing as a "striker" but he's certainly played as a deep-lying forward last season a number of times.