|
Post by reamsofverse on May 31, 2016 17:21:32 GMT
Drinkwater and Townsend miss out in favour of Rashford who looked out of his depth bar the goal against the Aussies and Sturridge who's fitness just like Wilshere's is 50-50!! I find that decision pathetic to be honest. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36413882
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 17:40:20 GMT
I'd have taken Rashford personally.
Agree Townsend should definitely have gone, nobody else in the squad carries that type of threat.
For me, I can't understand why Milner is there yet again, offers nothing at all!
|
|
|
Post by paperboy on May 31, 2016 19:22:06 GMT
Drinkwater should have definitely gone. He adds something to the midfield, that sometimes is lacking with England.
|
|
|
Post by canterburyaddick on May 31, 2016 19:29:06 GMT
Drinkwater is not international quality imo as he doesn't hold onto the ball or consistently find a team mate. Just because you deserve it, that is not enough in itself. Townsend gives you a real threat when you are chasing a game and does something different to the other attacking players. I can understand Milner as although he is not exciting, you always know what you are going to get which is 100% effort and decent delivery from set pieces. Rashford too early, but is clearly there because of the doubts about Sturridge.
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on May 31, 2016 19:52:07 GMT
Totally agree about James Milner, well past his best.
|
|
|
Post by gorman on May 31, 2016 20:26:49 GMT
Milner was past his prime at international level a few years back ( if he ever achieved the level)
|
|
|
Post by addikted on May 31, 2016 20:27:48 GMT
I don't think Drinkwater offers anything different compared to our other midfielders. As for Rashford he will gain more from the experience than Townsend and neither will offer us that much
|
|
|
Post by MidlandRed on May 31, 2016 21:18:50 GMT
Milner shouldn't be there. Always said the same about him, consistently ok, nothing better. I'm happy with Rashford going
|
|