Jump to content
duckerDavies

Sir Bobby On Gerrand/England

Recommended Posts

Awesome and so True.

 

Rafa Benitez is one of the best examples of how the relationship between top foreign managers and English football has benefited everyone. We've learned from their tactical ability and professionalism, they have become enthused with our passion for football.

 

Rafa has brought many good things to Liverpool but he would be the first to accept England has also been a very good home, allowing him to earn great money to work in the most exciting league in the world.

 

That is why his attitude towards Steven Gerrard playing for the international team has begun to alarm me. He seems to be making comments that can only disrupt Steve McClaren ahead of two absolutely vital qualification games.

 

I know the pressure managers at big clubs are under — I was in charge of Barcelona, arguably the biggest — but when you work in England, like Rafa does, you also have a duty to help the national team when you can.

 

When Gerrard fractured his toe last month, he played for Liverpool a few days later against Chelsea and then pulled out of England's friendly versus Germany.

 

It was a clear case of putting club before country.

 

To be fair, it was only a friendly, so I am sure McClaren gritted his teeth and got on with it, while Gerrard said his withdrawal was to help him play for England in the games that matter, against Israel and Russia. Now Rafa is suggesting maybe Gerrard should only play in one of the qualifying games rather than both and is warning England to be careful.

 

Why is he making such a statement? Surely it is up to the England doctors, in conjunction with McClaren, to decide.

 

All Rafa is doing is putting his player — who I am sure is desperate to play for his country — under more pressure.

 

If Steve's foot isn't up to two games in five days, it is partly Rafa's responsibility anyway — after all, he selected Steve in the Liverpool team just a few days after the original injury because it suited the club. If it is OK for Gerrard to have an injection to play in a big match for Liverpool, why shouldn't it be OK for him to do the same for England?

 

Given the horrific injury list McClaren faces anyway: no David Beckham, Wayne Rooney, Gary Neville, Aaron Lennon, Dean Ashton and possibly Frank Lampard, it is all the more important that those who can play, should play.No longer can England boast one of the largest squads in the world.

 

There will always be club-versus-country conflicts because there will be differing interests at stake. But what is happening now is taking it a step farther, because a club manager is intimating one of his star players should miss a key qualification game, not just a friendly.

 

If this continues, international football will become a second-class citizen in this country and that is very short-sighted.

 

I am speaking not just as a former England manager, but as a fan of the game.

 

The Premier League relies on a good England team for its own long-term health.

 

England might not have won a major trophy since 1966, but we always qualify for the finals of major tournaments and produce nail-biting matches — too many of which we lose on penalties, of course! If we don't qualify for Euro 2008, it will have a major detrimental effect not just for the Football Association and the England team, but for Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United and other clubs, too.

 

Players like John Terry,Wayne Rooney and, yes, Gerrard will be desperately unhappy to watch the other big nations play in a major tournament while they are on holidays.

 

They will be embarrassed to see Sweden out there, for example, and not England.How can that happen with our history and our league?

 

We have to come to a decision in this country: do we want a successful England team which challenges for the major trophies?

 

If the answer is no, we will drop out of contention for winning anything and the new Wembley will be a huge white elephant. If the answer is yes, and I hope it is, we need co-operation from the club managers without quibbling. That is why Rafa should be doing what he can to encourage Gerrard to play, not rush him into games for Liverpool and then claim he might not be 100 per cent for England.

 

The obvious weakness in McClaren's squad named on Friday is up front. Last week, I asked if it was time to leave out Michael Owen. I'm sure if his rivals were in form and scoring goals, it would be a distinct possibility.

 

The trouble is that hardly any of our top strikers are playing, let alone scoring.

 

Of the five forwards picked by McClaren, Owen, Jermain Defoe and Peter Crouch have not been first-choice strikers this season, while another — Alan Smith — is being played in midfield. The only striker who is a regular No 9 for his club is Andy Johnson and, unfortunately, his form at Everton has been hot and cold.

 

While we have a surplus of quality centre-halves and some cover in midfield, the lack of strength in depth up front is a big worry, even against sides like Israel and Russia that we would normally beat.

 

In the first game particularly, I think it's important to play as many attacking players as possible for goal options. Ideally, I would like to see Gerrard and Lampard both in the side because they are capable of scoring at any time.

 

It was a surprise for me that Jermaine Jenas was left out of the original squad because he has been in good form for Spurs. If Lampard doesn't make it, maybe Jenas can be called up because he can at least thread his way from midfield into the opposition penalty area better than Owen Hargreaves or Michael Carrick.

 

Because we have problems up front,we need players in the team who are capable of scoring goals, and Gerrard comes highly into that category. He could even play as a second striker.

 

This is a major test for Steve McClaren, there is no doubt about it. He has enough injury problems without the best of our club managers adding to his

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same Bobby Robson who was unhappy at Solano jetting off to Peru?
And the one that didn't want Bellamy playing for Wales

 

 

In fairness Solano was after he'd got a new contract on the back of promising he was retired from international football (and then going back on it).

 

And Bellamy was on the back of him being injured 2-3 times in a row when playing for wales when he wasn't fit enough to play for us.

 

Both I think he had reason to comment on.

 

So I'm not sure the label of "hypocrite" really fits, although every club manager going to put his club (and job) first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same Bobby Robson who was unhappy at Solano jetting off to Peru?
And the one that didn't want Bellamy playing for Wales

 

 

In fairness Solano was after he'd got a new contract on the back of promising he was retired from international football (and then going back on it).

 

And Bellamy was on the back of him being injured 2-3 times in a row when playing for wales when he wasn't fit enough to play for us.

 

Both I think he had reason to comment on.

 

So I'm not sure the label of "hypocrite" really fits, although every club manager going to put his club (and job) first.

 

Errr...so what? If he thinks Gerrard should join up with England when not fully fit, what's the difference? With regards to Solano, his international availability shouldn't come into the equation if that's his stance on Gerrard.

 

Total fucking hypocrisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same Bobby Robson who was unhappy at Solano jetting off to Peru?
And the one that didn't want Bellamy playing for Wales

 

 

In fairness Solano was after he'd got a new contract on the back of promising he was retired from international football (and then going back on it).

 

And Bellamy was on the back of him being injured 2-3 times in a row when playing for wales when he wasn't fit enough to play for us.

 

Both I think he had reason to comment on.

 

So I'm not sure the label of "hypocrite" really fits, although every club manager going to put his club (and job) first.

 

Errr...so what? If he thinks Gerrard should join up with England when not fully fit, what's the difference? With regards to Solano, his international availability shouldn't come into the equation if that's his stance on Gerrard.

 

Total fucking hypocrisy

 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same Bobby Robson who was unhappy at Solano jetting off to Peru?
And the one that didn't want Bellamy playing for Wales

 

 

In fairness Solano was after he'd got a new contract on the back of promising he was retired from international football (and then going back on it).

 

And Bellamy was on the back of him being injured 2-3 times in a row when playing for wales when he wasn't fit enough to play for us.

 

Both I think he had reason to comment on.

 

So I'm not sure the label of "hypocrite" really fits, although every club manager going to put his club (and job) first.

 

Errr...so what? If he thinks Gerrard should join up with England when not fully fit, what's the difference? With regards to Solano, his international availability shouldn't come into the equation if that's his stance on Gerrard.

 

Total fucking hypocrisy

 

Solano got a new and improved contract BECAUSE he said he'd retired from international football. He then went back on it. Robson had every right to be annoyed about that (I understand that to most people giving their word means nothing, but Robson was and is someone it genuinely does).

 

Bellamy kept getting injured or played semi-fit and then getting badly injured for Wales (happened 2-3 times in a row before Robson got annoyed - maybe even in friendlies one time).

 

 

 

 

Gerrard's situation is nothing like the Solano one (even prior to it as he was often missing 2 competitive league games for 1 international friendly due to travel time, schedule and needing to rest).

 

It is a bit similar to Bellamy's, but the difference is probably the injury and the whether he can play with it, he's already played once with it with an injection for Liverpool, and even Benitez thinks he can play one England game.

 

If he were saying Gerrard should play after the sort of injuries Bellamy had (which it was stupid to try and play with) then fair enough, but Gerrard's is very different injury....... although equally enough to keep the likes of Luque or Marcilano out for a season. :razz:

Edited by Fop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main reason is that Liverpool pay his wages and thats why!!

 

End of the debate, clubs should always have the final say on any of their players. They pay millions for them, pay them millions in wages and insurance and treatment for injuries and its the clubs (and their fans) who suffer when England send them back fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he were saying Gerrard should play after the sort of injuries Bellamy had (which it was stupid to try and play with) then fair enough, but Gerrard's is very different injury....... although equally enough to keep the likes of Luque or Marcilano out for a season. :razz:

 

Don't see what difference what injury it is tbh. Benitez says he's injured, Gerrard doesn't go.

 

Sounds like Robson is envious that Gerrard is more loyal to Benitez and Liverpool than Bellamy was to him and Newcastle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he were saying Gerrard should play after the sort of injuries Bellamy had (which it was stupid to try and play with) then fair enough, but Gerrard's is very different injury....... although equally enough to keep the likes of Luque or Marcilano out for a season. :razz:

 

Don't see what difference what injury it is tbh. Benitez says he's injured, Gerrard doesn't go.

 

Sounds like Robson is envious that Gerrard is more loyal to Benitez and Liverpool than Bellamy was to him and Newcastle.

 

A hair line fracture the very tip of a toe can be played with (Gerrard did it when Liverpool needed him versus Chelsea - it's not like they rested him when they needed him - now THAT is hypocrisy) without necessary further harm. The issue is it does need rest to completely heal, but even Benitez is fairly happy for him to play one game.

 

Where as you cannot play with muscle or tendon injuries (or other types of breaks or fractures) or often coming back from them too soon, as you do just do more damage.

 

So what England are wanting to do is basically the same thing as Liverpool did with him, the debate is whether one is enough or if two games could be done.

Edited by Fop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that to most people giving their word means nothing

:razz:

 

Supercilious little swine, ain'tcha?

 

Jealousy is SO unflattering tbh. :icon_lol:

 

 

 

 

 

But are you saying that it's not true?

 

Yeah, I thought not. :icon_lol: (does that make you an insignificant nescient strumpet now? :icon_lol: )

 

 

 

The reason for Robson not coming here in after KK is purely down to that, so he clearly does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he were saying Gerrard should play after the sort of injuries Bellamy had (which it was stupid to try and play with) then fair enough, but Gerrard's is very different injury....... although equally enough to keep the likes of Luque or Marcilano out for a season. :razz:

 

Don't see what difference what injury it is tbh. Benitez says he's injured, Gerrard doesn't go.

 

Sounds like Robson is envious that Gerrard is more loyal to Benitez and Liverpool than Bellamy was to him and Newcastle.

 

A hair line fracture the very tip of a toe can be played with (Gerrard did it when Liverpool needed him versus Chelsea - it's not like they rested him when they needed him - now THAT is hypocrisy) without necessary further harm. The issue is it does need rest to completely heal, but even Benitez is fairly happy for him to play one game.

 

Where as you cannot play with muscle or tendon injuries (or other types of breaks or fractures) or often coming back from them too soon, as you do just do more damage.

 

So what England are wanting to do is basically the same thing as Liverpool did with him, the debate is whether one is enough or if two games could be done.

 

The Chelsea game was a one-off and he had injections to get him through it. Besides which, he played for England the following Wednesday anyways.

 

You can't just pump someone full of injections every game and delay the injury as this could lead to worse damage down the line. Robson should keep his mouth shut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he were saying Gerrard should play after the sort of injuries Bellamy had (which it was stupid to try and play with) then fair enough, but Gerrard's is very different injury....... although equally enough to keep the likes of Luque or Marcilano out for a season. :icon_lol:

 

Don't see what difference what injury it is tbh. Benitez says he's injured, Gerrard doesn't go.

 

Sounds like Robson is envious that Gerrard is more loyal to Benitez and Liverpool than Bellamy was to him and Newcastle.

 

A hair line fracture the very tip of a toe can be played with (Gerrard did it when Liverpool needed him versus Chelsea - it's not like they rested him when they needed him - now THAT is hypocrisy) without necessary further harm. The issue is it does need rest to completely heal, but even Benitez is fairly happy for him to play one game.

 

Where as you cannot play with muscle or tendon injuries (or other types of breaks or fractures) or often coming back from them too soon, as you do just do more damage.

 

So what England are wanting to do is basically the same thing as Liverpool did with him, the debate is whether one is enough or if two games could be done.

 

The Chelsea game was a one-off and he had injections to get him through it.

 

Aye an important game in which Liverpool needed him - as I said that IS hypocrisy.

 

 

Besides which, he played for England the following Wednesday anyways.

 

Against Germany in the friendly? No he did NOT play.

 

Which was one of the reasons people thought Lampard looked better than usual for England.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/i...als/6954720.stm

 

You can't just pump someone full of injections every game and delay the injury as this could lead to worse damage down the line.

 

Not really. It shouldn't worsen the injury, just it may lengthen the total time to heal, hence why Benitez was happy to play him vs Chelski when they needed him, and is fairly ok with him playing in one England qualifier.

 

 

 

Robson should keep his mouth shut.

 

Someone should keep their mouth shut to avoid being repeatedly WRONG about pretty much every aspect of this, but it isn't Robson. :razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so you've said it will increase the time to heal if they keep pumping him full of injections. Why the holy fuck should Liverpool potentially pay the price of him missing games for them just so he can play for England?

 

My mistake, I thought he had played for England, he was certainly in the squad though, something Benitez was against anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, so you've said it will increase the time to heal if they keep pumping him full of injections. Why the holy fuck should Liverpool potentially pay the price of him missing games for them just so he can play for England?

 

May increase the time (it's not a certainty), but it shouldn't worsen the injury as such.

 

And the injections are just a mild pain killer, it's just the potential exertion that is the issue, it's likely he could get though 1 game from England certainly with no real drawbacks, possibly both if it's had enough time already.

 

Whether he plays is down to the player really, but Benitez can't say much without hypocrisy as he's already played him with injections when he needed him to play.

 

 

My mistake, I thought he had played for England, he was certainly in the squad though, something Benitez was against anyway.

 

He probably had to report maybe, he wasn't on the game sheet though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've just gave a load of ifs and buts there.

 

Why take that risk?

 

Why take it with Chelsea?

 

If he hadn't he have had a strong moral (if not medical) case for saying he shouldn't play two (or even one) now..... although if he'd not played that game it might well have been fully healed by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've just gave a load of ifs and buts there.

 

Why take that risk?

 

Why take it with Chelsea?

 

If he hadn't he have had a strong moral (if not medical) case for saying he shouldn't play two (or even one) now..... although if he'd not played that game it might well have been fully healed by now.

 

Going round in circles tbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×