Scott Sinclair!

Quite frankly it's * criminal how Sinclair and Roberts don't get a sniff at the England squad.

They result tonight further prove how * they are and while it can be debated for a millennia guys like Sinclair and Roberts are difference makers.

England be lucky to get out their group in WC

 

England can * off,they are overrated arseholes and that is a good day

 

Sterling was rotten the night and the Ox is average as * for me how he warrant's that big a price tag is mental, Sinclair however lightening quick bang on form scoring in the champions league, completely over looked... must be disappointing for Sinclair being an Englishman that feeling that no matter how much he ups his game they just over look him.

 

I fully believe every single player of similar position that gets picked ahead of him would have a similar time in our league and some better. Sterling in the spl would be some sight.

 

It really isn't criminal at all..

Roberts/Sinclair are not 'criminally' better than Walcott, Lingard, Antonio, Townsend, Rashford, Chamberlain, Sterling, Lallana, Redmond.. Even someone like Wilfred Zaha who had to switch allegiances.

Sinclair is a superstar in Scotland, and for us, but down there he's a middle-bottom standard player. Southgate is absolutely spot on IMO, Sinclair is just below the level required.

Roberts is a young player with loads of potential and talent, but he just isn't at that level yet.

 

Would genuinely take Sinclair over all of them apart from Sterling and Rashford.

 

Pure bias IMO, Sinclair isn't good enough to take Walcott's gig at Arsenal, Lallana/Ox at Liverpool or Redmond at Southampton.

When it comes down to choosing Sinclair over a Lingard, for Rodger's Celtic, I probably would as well. But Lingard is a young player, playing for an elite club under one of the best managers ever - How can he (or LVG) be so wrong, persist with this player when they could of went out and picked up Sinclair from Villa on the cheap?

He simply isn't as good as our fan base on the whole think. Top, top player for us. Another number down south.

You have basically said Sinclair should be getting in the Arsenal, Liverpool, Utd sides ahead of some of their regular players. Not a chance man!

 

Maybe they aren't but my argument is they are something different to what they are currently using.

If other no marks are given a call up then I see no reason why Sinclair and even Roberts can't be given a go as honestly they may not be as flairy or glamorous as other players but to me they are far more effective.

Down the right even now I don't see anyone in that England squad who have the skill, technique and eye for pass that Roberts does, nor do I see anyone on the left who can as direct at running at defenders and effective, whilst chipping in with goals as Sinclair.

Rashford whether England or Southgate like it or not for them is a striker, Defoe ain't going and Sturidge is to * injury prone and while your at it you cab throw welbeck in there too which only leaves England with Kane as their only recognised striker .

This is the worst England imo in decades and it's ridiculous that Sinclair and Roberts won't even be considered.

 

You telling me this England team who lose games to likes of Iceland couldn't do with a Sinclair or Roberts.

Rubbish, they barely scrape results against semi decent teams lately, * Scotland, Wales, lose to Iceland, las night result among a whole host of others and yet Sinclair and Roberts aren't good enough still? Despite how * they are doing?.

Maybe they won't make much of a difference but at the end of the day when your struggling to beat such teams then maybe you should look at other options as clearly the fan hype around the current crop is clearly far to high compared to the level of results that team is churning out.

 

England are * and will be the whipping boys for the big countries for the foreseeable future while Scotty will win the Europa league this year so who gives a *

 

I never said he should be getting in any team. Just said I would take Sinclair over Walcott, Chamberlain, Lallana and Lingard.

I think you're vastly overrating the EPL to be honest. Just because someone plays at a big club down there doesn't mean they're anything special. Lingard is absolutely bang average. Really don't care who his manager is or was.

 

To be honest the more I look at England the angrier I get thinking how bad Strachan * this campaign up.

Genuinely believe if we had a manager that played our best players from the start instead of anyone who happens to kick a ball down south we could be winning this group instead of going into a must win to try and grab a qualifying place.

 

England and Utd play one up top, aye? As long as that's the case (if it is), then Rashford will be picked out wide. He isn't replacing a red hot Kane, an on form Lukaku, and even if he did, he will soon have Ibra to get past first.

The boy is considered for wide, despite where he's best.

So you have Rashford, Sterling (who I'm sure we can both agree are better players). Next you have Lallana who plays out there more often than not. Then there's Walcott and Chamberlain..

How the * can you honestly expect Sinclair and Roberts to be in there? Who do you take out? That's five wide men, be lucky if 5 even made the squad.

The bias here genuinely hurts my brain.

Mate, what do you honestly think Sinclair is? You're making him out to be this world class, top 5 EPL player that has somehow managed to slip under every England managers nose.

He is a mid-bottom EPL player, no player at that level is a massive miss for England, it's below their level. If you aren't doing well for a mid-bottom EPL side or even just playing for a top 5-6 side then your chances of playing for England are slim.

Scott Sinclair hasn't kicked a ball in the EPL since 2012, his only season of note in a top division. His last experience in that league was poor in a brutal side. Those are the facts, you are basing all of this on his SPL/Celtic form, which in turn, is exactly the reason why he isn't being considered. As right or as wrong as that is.

Roberts is young and hopefully his time will come, he's not on that level yet IMO. There are better options out there who are safer, more experienced and suit England better.

As for how bad or good England are, irrelevant, could even call it a slight on Sinclair/Roberts.

How would you of described Sinclairs 2013-2016 EPL career?

"Bang average" sounds about right.

And for the record, I'm no fan of Lingard either.

Sinclair, in a Rodgers set up team, over Lingard for me as well. But Lingard plays a different role and is trusted for a mega club under a top manager, counts for something.

 

Honestly now, how effective our Walcott, Lingard, Chamberlain for England? even still, how many of them actually start week in week out for their team? my argument this whole time is that England need to go with something different compared to their norm as clearly the this squad sure as * ain't going anywhere and like I mentioned earlier they'd be lucky to get out their WC group with this squad.

Suppose Shaw should start since he's a UTD player under Jose? and with Rashford he's wide player for UTD but he's a striker for England end of, Defoe aint going to any tournements, Wellbeck and Sturridge are injury prone as * and Vardy is starting to become a bit of one season wonder so I say again England are then left with Kane as their only realiable/fit Striker.

So to answer your question, until the others start week in, week out for their team and peform on a level of consistancy that Sinclair has shown since being here then I'd have no * trouble dropping Walcott and Ox to bring in Sinclair and Roberts to at the very * least have a go in a friendly.

If Thompson can get into arguably one of the strongest England teams, even for one game, then there is zero excuse as to why Sinclair and Roberts can't get into this squad right now as they offer something different.

At no point have I said they are better, I say they are different and could provide something England a little something they don't have, I mean come on now look at when England have gone for lesser players who actually turn out to be effective for the national team, you look at players like Crouch, probably one of the worst strikers next to heskey in overall player yet he's got one of the best goals/games ratio of any england striker.

Sinclair and Roberts offer something different to utter * dross England are churning out and if these current global superstar * wits can barely beat Scotland, Wales, Slovakia, lose to Iceland, only beat Slovenia 1-0 over two games then they deserve to show what they got and offer the squad a different style and option.

My whole thing is about effectivness not about quality and right now their current lot aren't effective and I genuinely believe Sinclair and Roberts could be

 

Could even think of it from a Celtic point of view, if a player isn't performing what would we do? we either drop them/give someone else a go/buy a replacment.

With England (fair enough they can't "buy"players) their star players fail to perform nigh on every game and will ultimately crumble at the first big test in a major comp and yet what do they do? do they try anything different? Formations?, Tactics?, Players?. No they do not they continue to persist with the same old * and wonder why they don't achieve anything, they are not willing to take risks, they just continue to go with the marketable household names that everyone knows, they play it safe and look where that approach has got them over the years.

Just because someone plays or sits on the bench of a big side does not make them an effective internationalist and on that basis since Sinclair and Roberts for the majority of the time play regular football should at least deserve a chance it a friendly to show off what they can offer, if they flop then fair * but they deserve the chance to show otherwise.

 

That's the problem with national teams, "going different", selection wise, pretty much means choosing inferior players. Which would be the case if Scott Sinclair was to start playing instead of Sterling, Rashford, Lallana, Redmond etc etc.

No, because Danny Rose is a better player. As is Walcott to Sinclair, Sterling to Sinclair - See where I'm going?

So you're saying England play 2 strikers? Didn't know that, sure it was one up top last time I watched them.

Thompson argument means nothing, but to humour you, Alan Thompsn was probably a superior (although different) player. Different times, different managers, totally irrelevant.

You're effective argument I get, but then you go and say adding Roberts/Sinclair would (effectively) lessen the quality but increase the effectiveness. It's pure hyperbole and a little bizarre.

 

Walcott's * awful

 

This. I haven't watched a PL game for over a year as it just doesn't interest me any more. Even the big rivalries are ridiculously tame. Miss the days when Utd and Arsenal used to get stuck into each other.

 

I've never said England play two up top, what I've said is Rashford is a striker for England as when it comes to the tournements they will only be going into it with Kane as their only * * option meaning should something happen to Kane then it will be Rashford playing as the striker, is that so difficult to understand.

Walcott is the most inconsistent English player for his two goals in one Europa game he'll go 15 without a goal or even a first 11 start for that matter.

So if England went to WC with a squad I'd have Sterling and Sinclair challenging for the left Rashford and Kane challenging for up top and probably Lallana and Roberts challenging for the right as let's be honest here, if Lallana would stay injury free then Ox is getting nowhere near that Liverpool squad.

But here is the crux of the problem for the England sqaud you look through it and all there is injury prone players with the exception of the likes of Kane, Sterling, Cahill?, Alli?. There is every chance some of their "key" players could go into the run up to WC or Euros as an injury concern and therefore right now, Sinclair and Roberts should be given a go right now in a friendly to see if they can offer something different and show their reliability