Keita Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 last minute of Injury time to take a penalty, any ideas why?
Guest spk Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 i dont think he wanted lenon involed in the panlties because it would be an unfair amount of pressure to put on the poor young lad. i'm sure sven wanted a fresh player, and one experienced with hgih pressure penalty shoot outs ... from all the players on the bench only carragher fit the bill
Ramón Benítez Hernández Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 i dont think he wanted lenon involed in the panlties because it would be an unfair amount of pressure to put on the poor young lad. If you're good enough, you're old enough. The england management lack boll0cks and should have a bit more faith in their young lads. I suppose had Lennon taken one and missed, Sven would get slaughtered for letting a kid take a pen.
Guest Jack Bauer Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 I didn't think it was a bad decision, Carras pen was perfect. He was always gonna miss the second time though.
smithdown Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 In answer to the original question: why was he brought on to take a pen? Cos neville (team england's shop steward and vice captain), ferdinand, terry, cole etc obviously sh*t out of taking one and Carra was a better option even though he hadn't kicked a ball all day. I'd be interested to hear what Carra thinks of sven and the others after that shambles.
smithdown Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 Forced him to do what? Go on the pitch in the last minute of a World Cup Quarter Final so that he could take a pen? I'm sure he couldn't force him to do anything, but can you imagine turning to a centre back who has barely played for you in those circumstances and saying to him "you go on now, yes you, take the fourth penalty, very good, now go away again", especially when the lad doesn't feckin take penalties in the first place. Carra walked on the pitch looking as if he wanted to chin someone.
Guest Jack Bauer Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 I'm sure they decided before hand because Carra had previously been good at pens.
smithdown Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 Decided beforehand that Carra would come on in the last minute? Thats lunacy. They must have had a list of 7 or 8 penno takers, just cos only four of them are left on the pitch doesn't mean a player who has only ever taken one competitive penno five years ago then goes near the top of the list. OK, to take number 6 or something, but the fourth pen? Look at the players who were left out there - neville, ferdinand, terry, cole and lennon who he replaced. If Rafa did that - eg, putting on someone like Agger in the last minute of a EC QF to take one - I'd think he'd lost his mind.
Guest Jack Bauer Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 No, they decided before hand who the best pen takers before hand were. They had a spare sub, so why not?
smithdown Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 Alright if that spare sub had a record of banging in loads of important penno's, but this was Jamie Carragher. I doubt we'll see any other coaches do that, I can't recall it happening before.
Guest Jack Bauer Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 He had a better record than anyone else on the bench.
Guest Jack Bauer Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 So he put him on against his will and for no reason
Benitez Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 it says more for the lack of quality in Englads squad more than anything. Just comes back to how idiotic Eriksson was for pandering to David Dein and bringing Walcott, a player he obviously doesn't have an ounce of trust in to do a job. And a lump like Jenas who wasnever going to play and just took up the squad place of a talented player. Otherwise you'd have at least a couple more quality attacking subs, who most likely can and do take more penalties! Although I'm sure Carra would have wanted to take a peno (he did in the CL final but Rafa didn't pick him), so theres no point doing the 'poor Carra' thing, cos he'd have been well up for it! The point is - it should never have been an option for him to take one so early in a shoot-out, if the team's manager had any sense in the first place.
Stevie H Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 In answer to the original question: why was he brought on to take a pen? Cos neville (team england's shop steward and vice captain), ferdinand, terry, cole etc obviously sh*t out of taking one and Carra was a better option even though he hadn't kicked a ball all day. I'd be interested to hear what Carra thinks of sven and the others after that shambles. f***ing well said. great responsibility from neville, terry, ferdinand etc there i thought. perhaps carra coming on to take a peno was one of rio's hilarious world cup wind-ups. f***ing circus it is.
floyd Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 I thought when Carra was waliking away, he was thinking to himself,"Thank f*** I missed that pen, and not one at Wrexham in a pre season freindly"
Knox_Harrington Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 At a time like that, if you have a sub left, I don't think it's unreasonable to plan for penalties. Ignoring the fact that he should have used the sub a lot sooner, at that point, I thought it was a reasonable call.The whole "ignoring the fact" part I have a problem with. There was very little clamour for Kevin Nolan to be a part of the squad. But just having him on the bench going into extra time offers a change, a fresh pair of legs and a goalscorer. Defoe, Johnson and Bent would all have offered something too. You can't ignore the fact because it's a massive piece of incompetence.
Guest Anders Honoré Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 The whole "ignoring the fact" part I have a problem with. There was very little clamour for Kevin Nolan to be a part of the squad. But just having him on the bench going into extra time offers a change, a fresh pair of legs and a goalscorer. Defoe, Johnson and Bent would all have offered something too. You can't ignore the fact because it's a massive piece of incompetence. well, I was more going on principle, If sven had been managing a team where, after two subs, he had nothing but lower league dogsh*te on the bench and some fair quality on the pitch except for one experienced defender he was confident knew how to take a penalty and generally responds well to pressure, then I think it is a fair decision to take off a young inexperienced player. In principle, sven of course had plenty of options to try and win the match with a sub long before that and opted not to use it. Lampard had clearly nothing left in him after 90 minutes and gerrard lost his legs soon after.
smithdown Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 The whole "ignoring the fact" part I have a problem with. There was very little clamour for Kevin Nolan to be a part of the squad. But just having him on the bench going into extra time offers a change, a fresh pair of legs and a goalscorer. Defoe, Johnson and Bent would all have offered something too. You can't ignore the fact because it's a massive piece of incompetence. Phil Neal could have gone as well. Just for putting on for penno's, like, obviously. All the coaches will be using this tatic from now on, you'll see.
Guest Anders Honoré Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 That seems to have been sven's thinking. "hang on, this is going to pens...ok Lampo is bound to finally feckin score the fat tw*t, Gerrard plays for Liverpool, so does Crouch, ok, Hargreaves looks lively...feckin ell look at the rest of the wobbly lipped, half tached crying-a*sed gaylords out there, how did I come to pick that shower of sh*thouses?...Jamie, you play for Liverpool as well don't you? OK, get ready son." If that was his thinking, it was a f*ck up. I can only assume Carragher must have been impeccable taking penalties in training, or it does indeed make very little sense.
Guest Cacodemon Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 If that was his thinking, it was a f*ck up. I can only assume Carragher must have been impeccable taking penalties in training, or it does indeed make very little sense. The other thing is that Ricardo is obviously a specialist at saving penalties - the English Management should have known this, and as such, should have gone all out to get a winner in extra time, rather than come up against Ricardo.
Sir Tokyo Sexwale Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 it was gamesmanship on ricardo's part. after istanbul, i can't believe robinson didn't try anything to put them off - that said, he had a shocking tourny. but also, carra didn't even ge a chance to warm-up. he must have been cold when taking it (them) which can't help
Guest Anders Honoré Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 The other thing is that Ricardo is obviously a specialist at saving penalties - the English Management should have known this, and as such, should have gone all out to get a winner in extra time, rather than come up against Ricardo. is he a known specialist like reina? doesn anyone know? Think the English management should simply have done what Germany did: Give your keeper a list of where the players you face tend to shoot penalties
floyd Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 is he a known specialist like reina? doesn anyone know? faced 11 penaltys against England. Saved 4. He's even scored 1.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now