David Beckham, helps USA chance in world cup????

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**hcordes**

Well David Beckham will completely miss the World Cup, what does this mean for England in the world cup??
Does this improve the chances of USA making out of group play and into the brackets?
I think its too bad he hurt himself the way he did, especially on a free kick... no one even touched him, he was barely jogging up to the ball. While i usually dissagree that one player makes or breaks a team, I can not help thinking that Beckhams absence on the field will effect how England plays. Becks may be on the older side, his skill and talent are un-denyable. What do you think all you world cup fans out there??

**Commissar Molotov**

He wasn't projected to start for England, as far as I know - I doubt his absence will make much difference one way or the other.

**hcordes**

Commissar Molotov wrote:He wasn't projected to start for England, as far as I know - I doubt his absence will make much difference one way or the other.

his leadership and general experience is second to none, this would have been his third (fourth?) world cup.

**Redbeard**

Nothing says he won't show up for leadership and general experience reasons even if wounded.

**hcordes**

and I would think that as well, and have no doubt he will, but it effects moral when your general can/will take the field with you rather than sit on the side line.

**mattyrm**

England are absolute gak. But Beckham is too old for his loss to be of any great significance. I dont think the USA are much better than England, but they have an outside chance of a win vs the fething nancy boys that make up the English national side.

**SPARKEYG**

The loss of Beckham will not negatively impact England. They will still be a tough nut for the US to crack. If you want to look at issues that English soccer fans should be concerned w/, I'd point to the rash of injuries national team starters have had in the past month.

**hcordes**

So are we thinking that USA, becks or no becks, has a fair chance of getting out of group play?

**reds8n**

Commissar Molotov wrote:He wasn't projected to start for England, as far as I know - I doubt his absence will make much difference one way or the other.

QFT. In all honesty he was these days a fringe player at best. This would indeed have been his 4th tournament, and I suspect this is one of the reasons Capello has, apparently, offered to let him tag along anyway.

A more cynical man might suggest that having him there and not playing is a great way to deflect some of the media attention away from those who are playing (assuming we actually have any bloody players fit and/or willing to play anyway by the time the tournament rolls around

) whilst still keeping "Brand England" in the spotlight.

Gotta sell those shirts.

Jokes about John Terry aside -- and there's so many -- he, Gerrard, Lampard and even Rooney, all pretty much have comparable or even more experience of playing in big games than Beckham has.

**Flashman**

Yes, sad for Beckham (although not that sad, because he is a millionaire and hangs around with Tom Cruise), but he wouldn't have played that match anyway. Your biggest concern is Rooney and a showing signs of returning to form Walcott.

**Albatross**

Yeah, sad for Becks - but anyone who knows anything at all about football would be aware that Beckham is Englands 11th best outfield player, if that. USA could could conceivably sneak a result against England, but the harsh reality is that England completely outclass USAs national team in pretty much every area. The only position in which it would be debatable, is the keeper, at a push.

mattyrm wrote:England are absolute gak. But Beckham is too old for his loss to be of any great significance. I dont think the USA are much better than England, but they have an outside chance of a win vs the fething nancy boys that make up the English national side.

Yawn. Are you still banging this particular drum? England are a good team. Not the best team in the world, but better than most teams in the world. Certainly better than the USA. They would swap teams with us in a heartbeat, as would most countries.

**hcordes**

I will be hoping for a USA win, and be extremely happy with a tie. I really am just hoping that USA gets out of group play, that would really make my day lol

**olympia**

Beckham's old arse wouldn't have contributed much anyways. The U.S. loses 2-0.

**J.Black**

Whilst i hope we beat the USA, i think it'll be a lot closer than people expect. The USA have made great strides in recent years and from the few games i've watched they play nice, aggressive football.

England under Capello have been better than they have been for about 15 years. We play as a team and have some excellent players who look to be playing with a lot of confidence atm.

David Beckham has just about completed his translation from player to figurehead and would have only played a very peripheral part at the World Cup anyway (Barring injuries to other players. Oh! the irony

).

Bring it on USA! I expect a good showing from you lot.

**Albatross**

Yeah, I think it will be a good game - USA are a pretty good team. I think we hammered them last time we played them, mind.

**chaplaingrabthar**

I think England and the US advance from the group. I also think this injury is a blessing, as we can play Walcott/Lennon/Whoever on the right

**Albatross**

No argument from me on either point.