England Discussion

Red in STL said:
IMO that would be a disaster for Scotland and for Wales as well, but ultimately it's up to the people
Click to expand...

Why?

We have a bigger economy than Ireland.

There are nations with populations of thousands who survive just fine.

When did the rumour that Scotland is a 3rd world country come from?

Scotland contributions to the UK:

32% Land area
61% Sea area
90% Surface fresh water
65% North Sea natural gas production
96.5% North Sea crude oil production
47% Open cast coal production
81% Coal reserves at sites not yet in production
62% Timber production (green tonnes)
46% Total forest area (hectares)
92% Hydro electric production
40% Wind, wave, solar production
60% Fish Landings (total by Scottish vessels)
55% Fish Landings (total from Scottish waters)
30% Beef herd (breeding stock)
20% Sheep herd (breeding flock)
9% Dairy herd
10% Pig herd
15% Cereal holdings (hectares)
20% potato holdings (hectares)

£17 billion construction industry
£13 billion food and drink industry
£10 billion business services industry
£9.3 billion chemical services industry
£9.3 billion tourism industry
£7 billion financial services industry
£5 billion aeroservice industry £4.5 billion pound whisky exports industry
£3.1 billion pound life sciences £350 million pounds worth of textile exports

Gold-- one working mine in production last month. Second mine or gold field, found by Aberdeen University, This field has been extended to 200 square miles in Aberdeenshire.

There are very few countries in the WORLD that rival Scotland's resources per head.

These are the reasons why Labour and the Tories created a coalition in the guise of "Better together" to desperately keep Scotland in the Union.

There is also a reason why England don't have an independence party. It's because they profit greatly from the union. More than any UK country.

It would be a disaster for England if Scotland got independence.

An independent Scotland would have to join NATO immediately as England would inevitably invade and probably bomb Scotland. Why? Oil. England wouldn't lie down as they lose their golden goose.
 
diarm said:
Pope is a better keeper than Pickford. A better coach than Southgate finds a way to make Trent work at RB. Tomori, Branthwaite, Colwill are all better options at CB that he has ignored.

Front 6 picks itself at this stage. He needs to get his back 5 right if your boys are going to perform as ye should at the Euros.
Click to expand...

Yeah those guys won't get a proper look in until Southgate finally leaves the England job,also expect that White will be more open to a return when that happens too.
 
TheBatman said:
An independent Scotland would have to join NATO immediately as England would inevitably invade and probably bomb Scotland. Why? Oil. England wouldn't lie down as they lose their golden goose.
Click to expand...

I genuinely hope Scotland does get its independence but JFC this part cracked me up.
Absolute nonsense England would bomb Scotland for its oil. Get a grip.
 
Scanny said:
I genuinely hope Scotland does get its independence but JFC this part cracked me up.
Absolute nonsense England would bomb Scotland for its oil. Get a grip.
Click to expand...

I hope England gets it's independence. A union should be about equal parties.

Yes. Because a country bombing the crap out of another for oil never happens.

Talking of, 3 billion barrels of oil are off the coast of Palestine. FYI. I'm sure that's not relevant to anything....
 
TheBatman said:
I hope England gets it's independence. A union should be about equal parties.

Yes. Because a country bombing the crap out of another for oil never happens.

Talking of, 3 billion barrels of oil are off the coast of Palestine. FYI. I'm sure that's not relevant to anything....
Click to expand...
As I said. Nonsense.

The rest of your post mostly made sense. Spoiled it at the end.
 
Last edited:
TheBatman said:
Why?

We have a bigger economy than Ireland.

There are nations with populations of thousands who survive just fine.

When did the rumour that Scotland is a 3rd world country come from?

Scotland contributions to the UK:

32% Land area
61% Sea area
90% Surface fresh water
65% North Sea natural gas production
96.5% North Sea crude oil production
47% Open cast coal production
81% Coal reserves at sites not yet in production
62% Timber production (green tonnes)
46% Total forest area (hectares)
92% Hydro electric production
40% Wind, wave, solar production
60% Fish Landings (total by Scottish vessels)
55% Fish Landings (total from Scottish waters)
30% Beef herd (breeding stock)
20% Sheep herd (breeding flock)
9% Dairy herd
10% Pig herd
15% Cereal holdings (hectares)
20% potato holdings (hectares)

£17 billion construction industry
£13 billion food and drink industry
£10 billion business services industry
£9.3 billion chemical services industry
£9.3 billion tourism industry
£7 billion financial services industry
£5 billion aeroservice industry £4.5 billion pound whisky exports industry
£3.1 billion pound life sciences £350 million pounds worth of textile exports

Gold-- one working mine in production last month. Second mine or gold field, found by Aberdeen University, This field has been extended to 200 square miles in Aberdeenshire.

There are very few countries in the WORLD that rival Scotland's resources per head.

These are the reasons why Labour and the Tories created a coalition in the guise of "Better together" to desperately keep Scotland in the Union.

There is also a reason why England don't have an independence party. It's because they profit greatly from the union. More than any UK country.

It would be a disaster for England if Scotland got independence.

An independent Scotland would have to join NATO immediately as England would inevitably invade and probably bomb Scotland. Why? Oil. England wouldn't lie down as they lose their golden goose.
Click to expand...
No idea, it wasn't me, but the majority of your countrymen don't agree with you
 
Scanny said:
As I said. Nonsense.

The rest of your post mostly made sense. Spoiled it at the end.
Click to expand...

It took the leaders of Labour and the Conservatives to have their backs to the wall for them to call for a ceasefire In Palestine.

Don't kid yourself, where Oil is concerned nothing is off the table.

Red in STL said:
No idea, it wasn't me, but the majority of your countrymen don't agree with you
Click to expand...

That's not factually correct.

52.7% of Scottish born voters voted Yes. Voters who were born in the rest of the UK swung the vote as they voted 72.1% No.
 
diarm said:
Pope
Trent Tomori Stones Shaw
Rice Mainoo
Saka Bellingham Foden
Kane​
Click to expand...

Ramsdale would be a much better GK to switch to after the Euros, as he's actually a technical goalkeeper, who's good with his feet and at passing. If England want to play possession football and dominate on international level, he's the one to start bedding in, if Pickford is binned. Pope is similar to De Gea, that's why he'll eventually be replaced at Newcastle.

If you want to start phasing out Maguire, it would be infinitely better to have Stones at RCB and have Colwill or Branthwaite at LCB, instead of Tomori, who I feel like is worse than every other name I just mentioned, anyway.

Not sure about Trent. I'd rather have him at right back. If the coach can make it work, he can be a priceless asset for England. The other options are great as well, so it's not like Southgate can get it totally wrong. Walker, Trippier, etc. are all quality options.

Foden is not ideal on the left. Rashford, Grealish, Sterling, Gordon all better options there. If you want to find a place for Foden no matter what, it should be at #10 with Bellingham dropping back to #8, but then Mainoo gets left out.

My team for the Euros would be: Pickford - Walker Maguire Stones Shaw - Rice Mainoo - Rashford Bellingham Saka - Kane

After the tournament ends, you can start phasing out the older players if there's a great player you can replace them with. Colwill and Branthwaite are both really good and left footed as well, so it would make sense to have one of them replace Maguire eventually.
 
Rojofiam said:
Ramsdale would be a much better GK to switch to after the Euros, as he's actually a technical goalkeeper, who's good with his feet and at passing. If England want to play possession football and dominate on international level, he's the one to start bedding in, if Pickford is binned. Pope is similar to De Gea, that's why he'll eventually be replaced at Newcastle.

If you want to start phasing out Maguire, it would be infinitely better to have Stones at RCB and have Colwill or Branthwaite at LCB, instead of Tomori, who I feel like is worse than every other name I just mentioned, anyway.

Not sure about Trent. I'd rather have him at right back. If the coach can make it work, he can be a priceless asset for England.

Foden is not ideal on the left. Rashford, Grealish, Sterling, Gordon all better options there. If you want to find a place for Foden no matter what, it should be at #10 with Bellingham dropping back to #8, but then Mainoo gets left out.

My team for the Euros would be: Pickford - Walker Maguire Stones Shaw - Rice Mainoo - Rashford Bellingham Saka - Kane

After the tournament ends, you can start phasing out the older players if there's a great player you can replace him with. Colwill and Branthwaite are both really good and left footed as well, so it would make sense to have one of them replace Maguire eventually.
Click to expand...

Agree with all that. The 11 you have chosen there is the same 11 I would have and it looks fairly uncontroversial to me. Foden might feel a little unlucky but he will be first sub and can be a game changer.
 
I feel like our defensive issue could be solved by using either shaw or walker in central defence with stones as both have the much needed pace, maybe even both in a 3 man central defence with stones and go with saka and chilwell as attacking wing backs, 3 man midfield of Bellingham, mainoo and rice and kane and toney up front
 
Doracle said:
Agree with all that. The 11 you have chosen there is the same 11 I would have and it looks fairly uncontroversial to me. Foden might feel a little unlucky but he will be first sub and can be a game changer.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd also accept if someone preferred a Bellingham-Rice pivot with either Foden or Maddison at #10 instead of Bellingham.

On the left, I'd be starting Rashford because for me, his pace and power is simply better for international football, where England won't be dominating their opponents for 90 minutes, like Manchester City do on a weekly basis. It's also not optimal for me to have a left footer on the left wing, because he can't cut in and either shoot, or pass to his overlapping fullback, like Saka does on the other side. I also have to mention how great of a partnership Shaw and Rashford have on the left side.
 
Lee565 said:
I feel like our defensive issue could be solved by using either shaw or walker in central defence with stones as both have the much needed pace, maybe even both in a 3 man central defence with stones and go with saka and chilwell as attacking wing backs, 3 man midfield of Bellingham, mainoo and rice and kane and toney up front
Click to expand...

If you go with a back 5, Maguire has to be the CCB in all scenarios IMO. He's more of a physical presence and a better organizer than Stones, or any English CB currently. He would be an absolute monster at the centre of a 5-man defense.
 
The definite players, if no injures, that Southgate will pick.

Pickford

Walker
Stones
Maguire
Shaw

Rice
Bellingham
?

Saka
Kane
?

The two remaining places in the team I would pick, would be, Mainoo and Foden.

Not sure Southgate will do that.
 
Josh 76 said:
The definite players, if no injures, that Southgate will pick.

Pickford

Walker
Stones
Maguire
Shaw

Rice
Bellingham
?

Saka
Kane
?

The two remaining places in the team I would pick, would be, Mainoo and Foden.

Not sure Southgate will do that.
Click to expand...

What makes you think he'll drop Foden, and who do you think he'll pick instead?
 
duffer said:
What makes you think he'll drop Foden, and who do you think he'll pick instead?
Click to expand...
Form going into the tournament might be huge. If Rashford goes on a tear up, it gives Southgate an alternative.

Having said that, let's just earmark Sterling.
 
A front 3 of foden, kane and saka feels like shoe Horning your best players at the cost of the best balanced team, only saka has pace out of the 3 of them and none of them will stretch the opposition defence which does allow for the opposition to play a higher back line
 
Lee565 said:
A front 3 of foden, kane and saka feels like shoe Horning your best players at the cost of the best balanced team, only saka has pace out of the 3 of them and none of them will stretch the opposition defence which does allow for the opposition to play a higher back line
Click to expand...

What would your front 3 be?
 
Rojofiam said:
Rashford - Kane - Saka is almost objectively the best front three
Click to expand...
Rashford is less technical of three, that's not saying he's bad BTW, but he is direct and we've seen how effective he can be when on form.

So, I generally like the variety of this three.
 
England are favorites to win the Euros. Well I have them favorites anyway. The strength and depth of that England squad is amazing.
 
duffer said:
2024 Marcus Rashford? I strongly disagree that's he's objectively part of an England starting XI.
Click to expand...

FrankDrebin said:
Rashford is less technical of three, that's not saying he's bad BTW, but he is direct and we've seen how effective he can be when on form.

So, I generally like the variety of this three.
Click to expand...

First of all, for the left wing, I don't see how you choose an incredible, left-footed, technical player in Foden, over a right-footed, PnP monster like Rashford, who also has incredible ball-striking and ball-carrying qualities.

2024 Marcus Rashford is still a better left winger than Phil Foden, despite having a bad season. Find a place for the latter in the middle, or on the right side...but there are better options in those areas as well.

For all the talk about Southgate being clueless, people want to shoehorn the most in-form players into the same team, disregarding optimal balance, and player qualities.

Rashford can be England's very own Mbappé or Vinícius on that left side.

I'm not trying to downplay Foden or be delusional about Rashford, I know he's been struggling this season. I just think Rashford is the perfect fit on that left wing for a major international tournament, but Foden can play a huge role for this England side, just in another position. Like I said, I'd rather have Grealish, Sterling or even Gordon at LW instead of shoehorning Foden into the starting 11, just because he's having his best season of his career.
 
Grealish and Rashford are the only ones who might take Fodens spot, but Rashford doesn’t deserve a place on form over Foden and I think Southgate prefers Rashford off the bench anyway, and he knows it’ll save him media grief to play Foden
 
duffer said:
I didn't miss your post, I just thought it was a dumb post. Of course if Rashford goes on a tear up form-wise, that changes things but you could say that about Foden, Saka, Palmer, Bowen or even Mount.
Click to expand...
For the left wing spot?

That's a straight shoot out between a few players.
 
FrankDrebin said:
Rashford is less technical of three, that's not saying he's bad BTW, but he is direct and we've seen how effective he can be when on form.

So, I generally like the variety of this three.
Click to expand...
So we are going to become more 1 dimensional again?
 
duffer said:
2024 Marcus Rashford? I strongly disagree that's he's objectively part of an England starting XI.
Click to expand...

That’s the guy with 8 goals or assists in his last 13 matches for his club, including magnificent goals against the best two clubs in the country, who also was England’s best player at the last World Cup? I’m curious which left winger you think is better placed to fill that spot?
 
Doracle said:
That’s the guy with 8 goals or assists in his last 13 matches for his club, including magnificent goals against the best two clubs in the country, who also was England’s best player at the last World Cup? I’m curious which left winger you think is better placed to fill that spot?
Click to expand...
Tell us you haven’t actually watched Rashford play for over a year without telling us you haven’t actually watched Rashford play for over a year.
 
Lee565 said:
A front 3 of foden, kane and saka feels like shoe Horning your best players at the cost of the best balanced team, only saka has pace out of the 3 of them and none of them will stretch the opposition defence which does allow for the opposition to play a higher back line
Click to expand...
I agree .
Trying to play Foden and Bellingham in the same team was like trying to play Gerrard and Lampard in the same team.
 
Doracle said:
That’s the guy with 8 goals or assists in his last 13 matches for his club, including magnificent goals against the best two clubs in the country, who also was England’s best player at the last World Cup? I’m curious which left winger you think is better placed to fill that spot?
Click to expand...
He started one game (which was the final group game after England had already qualified). England's best player at the world cup? Come on. He wasn't even England's best Man United player at the world cup (that was Maguire).

As for who I prefer, I've already said I'd prefer a front 3 of Kane, Saka and Foden.
 
Probably the most talented England squad in a decade. Southgate should be expected to win it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.