England 0 Chile 2

First topic message reminder :

Well, that was a lesson, wasn't it..? If any match could demonstrate the enormity of England's task next summer, this was it.

It was nice to see Frank Lampard get his celebratory 100th cap before the game. It was all downhill from there, wasn't it.

England have been comprehensively put to the sword by a Chile team that were quicker, sharper, better skilled, better organised and also, when they deemed it necessary, happy to resort to the dark arts. Frankly, they were miles better than England and with a scoreline of 2 - 0, I'd say England were lucky to get nil.

It has to be said that this was not an England 1st XI, but that's no excuse. I reckon this Chile team would have beaten any team England put into the field.

Well played, Chile. Let's hope we don't meet in the World Cup. If this is how they play on a chilly Autumn evening in London, I dread to think what they would do to us on their own South American turf.

If they play together they are learning each other's games. Remember they are fairly inexperienced and quite often these players don't pick up on how to play with others as quickly as more experienced players.

It's always of value seeing how things are done In the full squad - is it of much value to be called up to a partial squad and get a run out for a few minutes? I don't think so.

Milner and lampard whilst derided can go into a side ifnthe irbid an injury and shore things up and be reliable. I'm not sure the same can be said for the others. I don't get the rush with those two either, they are doing alright but don't look like world beaters yet, plenty of time for them.

Morrison is easily the most exciting English talent I've seen for a long time. I don't just say that cos he's at West Ham, the boy is outstanding. We bemoan not having players with technical and physical ability and then won't let players like Morrison, Barkley and Wilshere go out and play.

Whilst Milner and Lampard can slot in, they are both about 3rd or 4th choice in their position. I don't see the point in taking them to a World Cup, let alone to be part of a friendly squad. What has Roy learned from seeing Defoe, Milner and Lampard on that pitch? Nothing positive.

There is benefit to playing together, but they'd have learned more coming into a team and playing with Rooney, Townsend and the full backs of England. They'd have learned more being exposed to top level football.

We aren't going to win the World Cup. Other nations go to these tournaments to excite and entertain. Chile, Uruguay, Portugal and for years Spain and Holland, let alone new Germany and the big South American sides, they all embraced letting natural players exhibit their skill. I'd rather see a young team that's learning go out in the second round over the same faces in the quarters.

If I pick a World Cup squad I don't take anyone with experience who will only make cameos. I'd also look at the ridiculous top club bias in our setups.

Think about Morrison's development Dolphin!

He isn't mentally there yet

Lets be patient for once!!

Oh and he picked Lalana didnt he.

He looked the best technical player we, excites and lays at a lesser club

Morrison is having a decent season for a club sitting in 16th in the pl table.

Also remember his attitude problems etc, he needs to work for an England call up- a senior cap now could do him more harm than good. I'd also want him to go to a tournament before the World Cup given his personal history if I was England manager.

I fail to see what would be learned for these 3 named players to play together for the first time in the most important area on the pitch, could have been a disaster.

The big club bias is nonsense - they tend to have better players with more elite level experience, very very simple.

These teams go to win, not sure what you are on about but in recent times Spain, Germany, Italy, France have sent some very negative squads to tournaments with the purpose of winning.

I can't think of a serious side ever who has picked a load of 21 year olds with no caps 6 months previously and sent them to a major tournament to entertain and learn.

Roy has a handful of friendlies to prepare, he's got to pick some established players and see how they do in different partnerships/positions in case he gets injuries etc.

I think he's blooded enough young players recently and the simple fact is if you are good enough you are old enough and these players aren't good enough - yet.

I dot say we should take a squad full of young players, but I don't see the point as a nation in transition to just sit on the old guard.

Morrison has destroyed a Tottenham defence making notable improvement and is top scorer in a team in 16th from midfield in his first premier league season.

Top team bias exists. Notably in players who can't hold down places in their side still making England squads. What is Cleverley doing at United that Delph isn't doing? What is Henderson doing that Howson hasn't? Swap those players around at club level and you know which ones would make England squads. The fact is that if Ravel had played like this at Man United then he'd be in the squad. Same league, same opposition, different club.

The attitude has been good on the field from Ravel. I don't think moving young players up rushes them either. With friendlies like these you should nurture young players into the set up. They learn about the big time, they learn and the manager learn about each other.

Two points. One, this buzz word of development. There are many ways to develop players and clubs all over the world have promote young players to senior squads. Januzaj isn't being safeguarded in the reserves for example. Second, Southampton are the buzz side at the moment, in the top three. Lallana exhibited all of this last season.

I think wasting space in the squad on older players is just that; a waste. Psychologically, being in a full England squad is massive development, let alone the process of playing with that squad daily. I don't think anything can help your game on the training field much more than training with people like Gerrard, Rooney and someone like Ashley Cole.

Big team bias does not exist, cleverly is in the side I the back of a good olympic tournament and form in an England shirt in 2012. He has shown Roy what he can do and he wants him in the side.

Morrison has 3 league goals, west ham can't score and that is why he is top goalscorer. It's his first pl season there is absolutely no rush with him. Would you really want him steering a crucial World Cup game if one of the first choice midfielders got injured?

Delph has been getting booked every other game for a relegation threatened side - why does everyone who has a decent run of games need to be going to the World Cup? Unless they are a superstar in the making I.e. Rooney they can prove their worth over time.

I don't rate Henderson but he has come through the u21s.

Januzaj is being protected with limited game time and not featuring in the big big games yet.

Llanna is a bit flavour of the month but he has earnt his call up for his play in the last 12 months. Again England were struggling in qualification why would you call up inexperienced players and take a gamble?

Why is taking your best players a waste?

If fit the squad will contain jones, smalling, Wilshire, welbeck, oxlaide chamberlain, Townsend. All young players. Cleverly and Henderson could well go who are just out of the u21 system. Foster and hart are young for goal keepers really at 25 and 26. You can only take 23 players, there will be a handful of over 30s and really very few players at a peak age.

When you consider the centre halves aren't that experienced who do you want to leave out for these players who have either failed to consistently show form domestically until this season or have a handful of pl appearances?

I don't get where the complaints are coming from.

crazy to suggest we should take youth to the world cup to gove them experience for future tournaments. I want the best players going to the world cup, you can use friendlies and qualifying matches for euro 2016 to give younger players experience.

There's always loads of England "fans" every major tournament, who bang on about "blooding the youngsters", scrapping the "old guard" and telling 'em to "play with freedom and no pressure".

That would never get you anywhere, other than at least 2 heavy defeats, and damaging the mental state of the team in the future.

Duty281 wrote:There's always loads of England "fans" every major tournament, who bang on about "blooding the youngsters", scrapping the "old guard" and telling 'em to "play with freedom and no pressure".

That would never get you anywhere, other than at least 2 heavy defeats, and damaging the mental state of the team in the future.

Exactly, imagine if England did decide to scrap the experienced players and instead just played all the youngsters can you imagine the humiliating defeats we would suffer.

You're removing my point stretching it and arguing a point I've not made. Ludicrous.

Why doesn't Delph get rewarded for good form? What is Cleverley doing that's good? He can't make a team that is noticeably weak in midfield? Why can you sneer at a player performing very well in an underperforming team? It comes across as ignorance more than arrogance, but they're close.

Big team bias is quite clear to me. Walcott never makes that World Cup squad under Sven if he was signed by Everton. I rate Smalling, but he has patchy appearance record and wouldn't make the squad of he was at Newcastle. What are Henderson or Cleverley doing better than even Noble or Huddlestone? Cahill isn't even first choice at Chelsea.

Long term, mid term and possibly even short term England would be better with Lampard, Milner and Defoe out. I'd even take Hebderson over Milner, he arguably does much the same dogsbody work and will improve for being part of the squad