Gutted that Rodgers has persuaded Liverpool to ditch their DoF "system", because I thought that would have been as successful as their signing of Joe Cole and the interview process for their new manager.

Liverpool finished [size=1508th[/size, not 7th.

Don't think he's got them to change anything. Since Comolli (and the many others) were sacked, the plan has always been to bring people in to oversee specific roles. That is still happening, I guess the owners have just assured Rodgers that it won't be one single person pulling the strings, instead a 'group' or 'committee' of people making collective decisions, instead of just one man's judgment being trusted to invest X amount of millions.

Even better.

I just don't rate Welbeck the same as you don't rate Henderson. He has underachieved this year, IMO.

Where have I said I don't rate Henderson. I think he's a cracking player with bags of potential. No real weakness in his game. Great prospect for the future. Welbeck has most of the atrributes to be a very good player, his first touch needs lot's of work though, has a better all round game than any england striker not named Rooney.

I dunno, what about Defoe in his pomp?

Liverpool are hillarious. Rodgers was clearly not intending to go back for more talks with Liverpool and was getting stuck into tying up Swansea's transfers for next season. Then the talks with Roberto Martinez fell down because of his refusal to work with any stupid DOF system and they call Brendan. Then every single person at Liverpool from Rodgers to Ayre to the Yanks all reel out the comment I said they would, about Rodgers being first choice. Even Steven Gerrard read out a statement at the England camp which was so funny, "I've been in the loop all along, Brendan Rodgers was first choice, he was the first choice, I knew, I always knew, he was first choice".

Why do clubs need to lie like this? When did football become so dishonest? Why not stick with the truth, that Rodgers was the only man formerly offered the job (As Martinez told them he wouldn't work in their system) and not try to add in the fact that he was first choice, when he so clearly wasn't?

Just tell me how you know what's gone on at Liverpool? Seriously. You're ranting on the basis of rumour and nothing more. Who's to say that Rodgers didn't say to the club "I won't speak to you until you offer me the job", so they spoke to a few others then decided that he was worth the risk? I don't know - or care - if Rodgers was our first or fifth choice, he's our manager now and if they want to say he's their first choice, good for them, who are you to argue?

He's not incredible

I posted that they would say that and they did, repeatedly so everyone would believe them. It's not a big issue, it's just funny they feel the need to insist he was first choice.

surely not

They do it to instill support into the manager and get the fans behind him. If they came out and said "we interviewed Klopp, Deschamps, de Boer, Martinez and Mazzarri, they all rejected us so we were kinda stuck with Rodgers", how on earth do you think people would react? Similar to Hodgson, that's how.

If they tell fans he's the number one, fans will feel a little more satisfied because the club 'have their man' and will buy into the whole 'determined to win' thing, as it looks good for the owners looking determined to get who they want.

Basically, it's all media stuff, saying the right things and sending the right message. It happens with signings as well, it's always "we got the player we always wanted". Nobody knows what's been going on, so nobody knows if they're lying or being truthful, but then nobody really cares as most people see it for what it is -- media crap.

Pulling the wool over the fans' eyes by fabrication? Tut tut.

Yes, Osman may be average, he may be a 'plodder', but, at present, he's still a better player than Henderson, which is probably even more of an indication of how awful Dalgish's transfer dealings were.

Your reason for Henderson's inclusion seems to be based on the basis that we aren't going to win this tournament and so we should select a player who might be decent for future international competitions??.....Well, on that basis, we should bin Gerrard and bring in Ross Barkley, a player regarded by many as a future star?

Henderson's inclusion is baffling at best and its only positive is that it will only enforce the pessimism surrounding England's chances and so, thankfully, we won't have the media wailing that usually surrounds our failure in these tournaments.

England v Belgium line-ups: https://twitter.com/henrywinter/status/ ... 61/photo/1 Not quite sure where Milner sits in all that.

England v Belgium line-ups: https://twitter.com/henrywinter/status/ ... 61/photo/1 Not quite sure where Milner sits in all that.

Well thats the first time I've seen Hazard apart from a few Youtube clips. Didn't do much today.

People arguing between Osman and Henderson

English football is in a great state

It is.

English football players generally suck though.

England are going to really struggle. They really will.

I love the whole - theres no expectation so we might do quite well, wink wink approach from the pundits and media.

This is the first tournament in many years where our expectations will be met. I don't expect england to qualify from the group.

france - unbeaten in 21 games
sweden - never beaten in a competitive fixture
ukraine - host nation

I know hodgson has barely had chance to make a cup of tea since becoming england manager but there is no difference in our play to under capello. Rigid, 442, with inability to create chances and keep posession.

We only just qualified from that p*ss easy group in south africa, but not this time.

I wouldn't be bothered if he did drop Gerrard for Barkley, more power to Roy.

So many people talk about other countries and talk about what they do well. All people harped on about at the last world cup was how young Germany's team was and how so many of them had 'came from the U21s'. Henderson has played for England's U21s for a few years now and he's done well, an opportunity has came for him to play in the senior side and they've decided to continue his development by bringing him in. If you want to see hopeless players like Osman in the team, then good for you, but I can see the potential in Henderson and could see why they'd rather invest in youth, than invest in dross with no future. The only way England will win future tournaments is if they invest in their younger players and begin to get the best from them. This generation clearly couldn't cut it, for numerous reasons, but now players like Wilshere, Ox-Chamberlain, Jones etc. are beginning to establish themselves in the side. Henderson isn't quite in their league, but he's a decent player who could feature for years as a dependable player, the sooner they get him settled and can rely on him, the better.

Except create half a dozen opportunities which, had Belgium an out-and-out goalscorer, could and possibly should have made the difference.

Cahill out, Kelly in. I didn't mind the Henderson inclusion but come on?

He seems to be picking players who have done well for the under 21's which isn't a bad idea.

I can only assume that Micah Richards turned down the option of being included on the standby list as he was the obvious choice to replace Cahill in the squad.

Another Liverpool player called up for England. Ha ha!