Talk:England national football team/Archive 2

message: It is stated to be 9-1 versus Hungary but on the History page it is 7-1. Which is correct? 125.239.233.253 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record defeat 

message: There is soon to be an England legends v. Germany legends, shown own Channel 5. Will that warrant its place in Wikipedia? --Dangherous 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shouldn't see why, I dont think even 'five' deserves a page on Wikipedia ;) Robdurbar 18:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  England legends 

message: Has "Three Lions" EVER been used as a nickname for the team?A Geek Tragedy 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: duh only about 9,460 times on the FA's website. -- Slumgum | yap | stalk | 01:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough :). This gives the impression that they are the only people using it like that, though. Maybe some note suggesting that unlike a lot of team nicknames this isn't what the fans in the stands call them would be in order. A Geek Tragedy 13:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But we do call them the three lions. And your gogle search came up with half a million hits, what are you on about. Philc TECI 09:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do agree with him in theory. It's like 'Red Devils' for Man United, nobody really calls them that in every day speech, but nobody could argue it was not their nickname. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 09:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: no you tw@ it came into use since there are 3 lions on the badge i bet you juch checked and feel pretty stupid now --Numberwang 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nickname?

message: Someone removed the 06 World Cup from latest call up, which is probably a good call. However, its in May (something like the 15th) that the official squad is announced for, not the 9th of June as quoted (this is the last date for changes on injuries collected after the official squad is announced). --Robdurbar 18:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World Cup Squad

message: Re WP:EL we should only have one or two 'fan' sites - i.e. unofficial ones. As we already have a couple of them and this web link is about the World Cup 1966 and not the national team I really think it shouldn't be there; put it in the World Cup 1966 page perhaps, but not here. --Robdurbar 07:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World Cup Years link

message: I prefer the previous version that listed most recent squad call up rather than most recent appearence. It was more informative and kept a better record of who had recently been in the England squad. I propose to change it back? --Robdurbar 10:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think that it is better to include the whole squad. The aim of the list is to provide an overview of the players who are involved in the England set up. A perfect example would be that players called up to a squad who the get injured would now appear to have not been invovled; there is also now no justification on the page why certain uncapped players are listed. The squad provides a more holistic version. --Robdurbar 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: ps, yeah, adding ages is a nice touch --Robdurbar 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current players

message: Does anyone know what this means in the European Championship record
1960 - Did not enter to lake of balls at the traning ground 
Seems weird?
Cheers
Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.154.170 (talk • contribs) 
:Er where did you read this? Not in this article, unless it's vandalism surely. I assume the writer meant "lack of balls at the training ground. Jooler 22:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lake of Balls? 

message: We've now got pages for * Argentina and England football rivalry and England and Germany football rivalry, but we're still missing the biggie ... England and Scotland football rivalry. Jooler 11:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have a go at doing a first draft version others can add to after the World Cup is over. (For those who don't know, I'm the one who created the other two articles Jooler mentioned). I'm one of those people for whom all else stops for the World Cup, I'm afraid! ;-) Angmering 19:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell yeah!  Though I got in trouble with the powers-that-be about putting an england flag and three lions in my sig...  oh well i've got the userbox and the banner so that'll do!  DJR (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scotland is no match for England. Maybe that's why we don't have such an article?--Sir Edgar 00:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch... Bentley Banana 09:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rivalries

message: Anyone remember him? - The unofficial England mascot. Famous among other things for covering up Erica Roe. He even had his own Subbuteo figure. Doesn't seem to be much info one the web about him on the wb, but I've found this. Jooler 12:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ken Bailey]]

message: There is a yellow star on top of it representing the 1966 victory.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.133.221 (talk • contribs) 
Look at the old and new badges.  Can people tell the difference? The newer version should be on the article. SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  01:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a yellow star,, I don't see a differance other then quality of the pixels, font, and color shades --mo-- (Talk | #info |  ) 22:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all about the font - it's part of The FA's "rebranding" to make it "more in touch with the modern world" or some rubbish like that.  DJR (Talk) 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears on the training tops.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: right you are, my bad --Numberwang 10:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emblem 

message: the star is only part of the match kits (ie not training tops), it is worn by all national teams that have won a world cup, hence brazil having 5.--Numberwang 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears on the training tops.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: right you are, my bad --Numberwang 10:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Star

message: I've formatted this section accordingly to the guidelines, found here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams, as a sample. This Panairjdde fellow (Italian, I presume) wanted to remove this section outright (in the Korean article, no doubt) whereas I wanted this section in. To show I'm not being fussy about other national teams, I've made the necessary changes to the English article. It's quite clean and efficient so I will assume that no one has any problems with the changes.--Sazabel 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems okay to me.  DJR (Talk) 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup 2006 Information Section 

message: I've removed this section because:
* It's poorly titled.
* It's not accurate. Neville and Rooney haven't played together.
 SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  13:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never will be accurate now that Owen's gone home. Bentley Banana 10:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or when England is frickin' gone home.--67.68.60.136 21:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 World Cup Squads 

message: I'm so fucking upset England are out! But I know penalties aren't our thing!
If you're first here to add to players' stats following a World Cup match, please do them all, not just the goalscorers or high profile players. Each time Beckham wins another cap, up to 13 other players do as well. That way when I update every single one, I don't get the stats wrong, look an idiot and have to see someone else correct my errors. For which I apologise.
Meanwhile, I wish Gary Neville would stop getting injured. I put a fiver on him in 1996 to win 100 caps. Bentley Banana 03:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you think poor old Chris Kirkland's dad feels, with his famous bet that his son would play for England before he was thirty? Looked like he was quids in there a couple of years ago, yet still no cap! Angmering 09:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well hes got his money now --Numberwang 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates during the World Cup 

message: we need to edit the team's template to match other teamsTrackMonkey 02:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: template

message: I've just noticed the extra text added yesterday to the Famous past players section.  Does anyone consider the additional information completely unnecessary for this article?  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say remove the whole section. It's very selective. Or at the very least move it to another article. "List of ..."Jooler 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was surprsied to see the extra text added to each player; and I added to/embellished it because it was a little inconsistent stylistically. I'd prefer to see the list stay, but the text can be removed. I am in no doubt that the players in question all merit their inclusion. Bentley Banana 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The POV of these add-ons has always concerned me. If we have a mini-list with links to those players' articles, that should be sufficient without weighing down this article with embellishments in that section. -- Alias Flood 00:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous past players 

message: Does anyone think we need a section depicting how bad England are at penalty shoot outs. We've only ever won one and it's becoming a bit of a joke. Jimmmmmmmmm 09:08 2 July 2006
:The Dutch team has an even worse history of penalty shoot-outs. -- Arwel (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the fact they've won one on foreign soil puts them just ahead of us... Angmering 18:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penalty shoot outs 

message: I think it is a little early to be declaring in the article that Rooneys foot connecting with Ricardo Carvalho's groin was a definate 'accident'. That should be re-worded to reflect the ambiguity of the incident until such time as a general concensus is reached. Considering that Wayne is now the subject of a forthcoming FIFA investigation for alleged violent actions when he left the pitch and his well known short fuse I think it is a little early for POV distinctions. Apart from that I think the subject has been well written so congrats to whoever penned it Adam777 12:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamp or Accident? 

message: Seems odd to me that Steve McClaren's name is now down as manager (albeit with the 1st August caveat) and yet Tord Grip is still there as assistant. Technically true until McClaren shuffles his pack, but the very idea of Grip being McClaren's assistant in any form at all is ludicrous. Also, don't England deploy a 'head coach' rather than a manager? Bentley Banana 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst the term Head Coach is used by England, one usually uses the title manager in general, so I think it is acceptable. I have, however, removed Tord Grip from the article and replaced him with an English flag, and vaccant. I have done the same for the Swedish doctor. For the record, I understand newspapers have confirmed that McLaren will offer the Assistant's job to Terry Vennables, and a coaching job to Alan Shearer. I will also look up some odds for the next England captain.Abcdefghijklm 17:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the match commentary yesterday it said Macca is manager "with immediate effect".  Logic tells me that this would be accurate. Although he might not have his own desk, he can start doing his homework.   SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  17:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaching staff 

message: Isn't this section total speculation and not verifiable? Any reason why we should keep it without citations? --Spartaz 17:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine now as a one paragraph overview of the obvious candidates. McClaren is under no pressure to appoint straightaway but the use of Terry, Gerrard and Neville in this paragraph, while not mentioning far less likely players, at least deals with the ongoing situation of England's vacant captaincy  as an issue without relying too much on conjecture and speculation. Bentley Banana 23:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like how someones put Vacant next to Captain in the info box at the top of the page. Not alot changed then, could have let it saying David Beckham, means the same thing! Jimmmmmmmmm 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I'm concerned the space should be left vacant until the FA announce who the captain is. Anything else by any other media source is speculation. (Pally01 13:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are a number of candidates, although the vice-captain under Eriksson, Michael Owen, is almost certainly out of the running. This makes the next captain likely to be either John Terry or Steven Gerrard, both of whom are captains of their clubs (Chelsea and Liverpool respectively) and popular with England supporters generally. Another club captain, Manchester United's Gary Neville, though an accomplished leader and an articulate and frank interviewee, is unlikely to get the role due to his age, although he was handed temporary captaincy for a portion of the World Cup quarter final against Portugal, in place of an injured Beckham.
Removed speculation to talk page. --Spartaz 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  any objection to my reverting the section?
--Spartaz 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my comments from 2 July above. I'd prefer it to be in the main body of the article. Bentley Banana 10:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Captain 

message: I'm not sure I'm all that happy about the vast amount of material that is being removed without dicussion by Marcus22. Out of respect for the editors who have previously worked on the article, such widespread re-writing of an article should not be attempted without discussion. Jooler 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its healthy for articles to be trimmed in this way occaisionally, by people who bring a fresh reading to them. --Robdurbar 08:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rob.  (The cheque is in the post!)  Marcus22 09:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Dross? How dare you! It's my stuff you've edited, and as far as I was concerned it was comprehensive and not overboard. Your place to edit, but not denounce. Bentley Banana 09:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As dross is scarcely a term of abuse, I assume that is a joke?  Dross means trivia, and too much trivia, however well researched or well intended, weighs an article down.  You want the thing to be easily read and not lose it's readers interest?  Marcus22 10:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope when someone shows you equal disrespect for their efforts and hard work, you protest just as much. Bentley Banana 10:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps going off on a tangent here, but I think most people use the word dross as a perjoritive - http://www.answers.com/dross Jooler 11:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is going off on a bit of a tangent; I've said how I use the term but do agree that one can understand Bentley's reaction - to an extent - if he uses the term as a perjoritive.  Beyond that though my point is a simple one: too much waffle spoils an article.  And the inclusion of terms such as 'fitted up' is inappropriate.  Marcus22 13:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depends on your interpretation of 'waffle'. 'Waffle' to me is material which is ill-thought, inarticulate and inaccurate. I suggest that the additions I made to give a comprehensive and categoric overview of England's post-war history was none of these. I feel like you've become judge and jury. Bentley Banana 18:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What does the intro say? Something about not contributing unless you're willing for your material to be edited mercilessly? In all seriousness, though, a lot of the info removed concerned the achievements of certain players (record caps etc.). How about using that info to re-jig the famous past players into something more than just a list? The contributions of the likes of Billy Wright, Gary Lineker and Jack Charlton can be discussed under that heading; we could then remove the majority of players and we'd have an informative section rather than just a list. --Robdurbar 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vast amount of material removed

message: I would quite like to have a civil discussion on this, if that is at all possible. I am not meaning to be rude.
But why do people keep on deleting my World Cup table? As far as I know it's not original research like my previous work. It doesn't take up much more space than the information which it replaces, which is just a simple outline of the positions reached. Such a table has been installed on the Brazil page without any controversy at all. Why shouldn't people have the right to know how many goals England scored in 1966, or which tournaments we didn't lose any matches in? Even the 'positions' in the third column are in no way unhelpful - they are officially sanctioned by FIFA. See National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, they're on that page and nobody has complained there.
I'm sorry if I have somehow offended anyone, but I just cannot understand the motives of those who repeatedly delete the table. Perhaps if you could be so good as to explain them to me. Cheers. --Mark J 17:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i removed it initially becasue it was replecating the info already in the page. But I don't think that there is any problem with placing it in instead of the current World Cup bit (though I'm not personally a fan of the idea of positions at each World Cup). --Robdurbar 17:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People can choose to ignore information that is there, however they cannot choose to read information that isn't, so I think you should put the most informative thing there, and leave it to the readers discretion. I'm for putting the table back. Philc TECI 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But this is you opinion that these positons don't matter. They are official FIFA stats so as encyclopedia Wikipedia has the right to show them. Just because you believe they are pointless doen't give you the right to remove them. They were done for a reason only FIFA know really but they've been done so they should be included. Jimmmmmmmmm 15:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are "rankings" not finishing positions and they are just as if not more statisically flawed than the much derided FIFA World Rankings. The only psotions that were competed for were Winnder, Runner-Up and 3rd place. Jooler 15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Who finished 3rd and 4th in last year's FA Cup? If someone produced a table showing team rankings would it have any merit? Would Chelsea or Middlesbrough declare that they finished 3rd or 4th on their stats? Jooler 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA don't produce a list of this , FIFA do though for the World Cup. You reason for deleting is a point of view, mine for keeping is fact based, and we all know wik's stance on fact v POV. Jimmmmmmmmm 15:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about merit it's about fact Jimmmmmmmmm 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the fact is no-one ever competed for any 5th, 6th, 7th, etc place in any world cup ever. 15:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And fact is FIFA position teams in that place. You could argue nobody plays for second or third so we'll remove all stats for second and third all stats for silver and bronze medals at the olympics etc. Jimmmmmmmmm 15:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: People get medals for second and third in the Olympics. There is no fifth place medal. In 1930 there was no 3rd place medal. Please understand that these "rankings" are not actually finishing positions. Please look at Talk:National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup with regard to the rankings in earlier World Cups and how it is statistically flawed. Pay particular attention to Bolivia's ranking in 1950. Jooler 15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the table? 

message: Sorry if this has been already answered, and I'm not complaining anyhoo, but how do we (the UK) get away with having four different national football teams?  I'd have thought countries like France would have been looking to have four teams themselves. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 4 separate national Football Associations. You say " but how do we get away with it". Others would argue that it is disadvantageous. A combined GB side might have done better than England in the 1970 World Cup or '74 (when they didn't qualify for the World Cup) if George Best had been playing. Jooler 23:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, of course.  But a team with George Best playing in it would be a UK team rather than a GB team, though. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 10:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Today almost certainly. In 1970 the distinction of the differences between GB and UK was not quite such a hot potato among those in control of such matters. When a combined UK team competed in various friendlies and in the Olympics in the 40s,50s and 60s they were known as Great Britain. Even now the Olympic team which includes competitors from NI or from the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands (both of which are not part of the UK) it is still known as "Team GB" or Great Britain. Jooler 10:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 teams? 

message: This stuff about Argentina and Germany being rivals looks and reads a bit POV to me.  England may well feel this 'rivalry' but do the Germans and/or Argentines?  I'm not sure that they do.  Can someone provide sources for this? (ie. To show that they feel this same 'fierce rivalry').   Marcus22 09:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the main articles (Argentina_and_England_football_rivalry and England_and_Germany_football_rivalry) suggest this. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 12:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rivalry

message: Sorry for opening up a can of worms here. I see the link cited by Jimmmmmmmmm, and understand where the confusion may arise. My feeling here is as there is not full knockout in the (relevant) Finals positions cannot be reliably be given beyond the 4th place, unless you want 5th-8th for the defeated quarter-finalists, 9th-16th for those in the "round of 16" etc.
(sorry, forgot to sign 86.144.112.160 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try explaining that to Jooler, because I've tried but the man not quite right upstairs. Jimmmmmmmmm 10:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmmmmmmmm - that is a personal attack, you also left a personal attack on my user page calling me a fucking muppet. This is not acceptable. Jooler 13:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Marcus - please see Talk:National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_World_Cup#Bogus_rankings, a letter is being drafted to FIFA in order to clarify the status of these ranks. The long and short of it is that these rankings are not finishing positions, but merely a ranking based upon an unsound statistical comparison as. It's very easy to lie with statistics, change the criteria and you can come up with a different ordering. Jooler 13:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely a simple solution would be to add two optional fields to the infobox template, one for "FIFA Ranking", and in order to provide balance, one for "ELO Ranking".  Covers the bases IMHO.  DJR (T) 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, someone must find them interesting if they wanted to put them in Wikipedia. I don't like them either but, unless we can prove that they are totally unregarded - a number of articles, maybe even quotes from FA officials saying such - then I see little harm in having extra info in the article. --Robdurbar 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World Cup rankings

message: The list just got sorted by name. It was a little unorthodox, but I thought it was more informative to rank players by (numerical) seniority.  Slumgum T. C.   15:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorting: Caps or Name?

message: I really don't think this is deserving of a place in the article. There are hundreds of sports polls like this every year, each with different results. Should be removed, in my opinion. HornetMike 12:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2002 Greatest Sporting Moments

message: Is England playing in or against Denmark in November 2006??
:England national football team#Forthcoming fixtures says no.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football 

message: SQUAD NEEDS UPDATED ON MAIN PAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk • contribs) 
: Remain calm. Someone will do all the work for you.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assertion

message: It's a bit emotive to use 'dropped' next to the players who have not made the latest squad. "Dropped" in football terms means discarded due to poor form or ill-discipline, but at least two of those particular players - Hargreaves and Lennon - are injured. Perhaps "Absent" would be more appropriate? Bentley Banana 08:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The aim is to list players who aren't in the current squad but were in the previous one; I'm not sure how else we could express this (concisely) --Robdurbar 11:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "In" and "Out"? jnestorius(talk) 13:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, KISS (hmm, need to cut down on acronyms). That works; the revsisions amde to the box are good as well, though. --Robdurbar 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't bother. Suspensions happen too infrequently at international level. Bentley Banana 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dropped"?

message: This has recently been removed as a result of difficulties with a similar section at the Germany national football team. Personally I think that the problems had there are irrelevant: this is an informative section, whose removal has not been discussed here and with which we have never had any problems. We have a clear and obvious rationale behind which players are included/excluded and its removal only misinforms readers (by not giving a full picture of who is in and around the England squad). --Robdurbar 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly noit an informative section Kingjeff 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is; for example, it informs users that Joe Cole, Scott Carson, Owen Hargreaves are members of the wider England sqaud. Indeed, to exclude players such as Joe Cole or Hargreaves from the page is to misinform; it gives the impression that they are not involved in the squad. --Robdurbar 17:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But readers might be interested in players recently called, but not in current squad. What about injured players, for example?--Panarjedde 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Call Ups

message: There's a comment in the article that Gerrard always wears the No. 4 shirt wherever he plays — but didn't he wear the No. 9 shirt when he played up front against Hungary last year? Angmering 11:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The change of shirt was purely due to a change of position and formation. If Gerrard is selected in what has become the regular circumstances, he gets No.4. Bentley Banana 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely the very fact it was due to a change of formation and position means the article's statement that he wears No. 4 wherever he plays is thus untrue? Angmering 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gerrard's number