---

This week the round-table debates England's striker crisis and commiserates with the U.S. on their round one departure.

James Whittaker: If there were concerns pre-tournament about the England squad selection — in particular the strikers — then there must be huge question-marks now.

Michael Owen is out for the rest of the tournament, Rooney didn't look match-fit last night, and Crouch never looks like a football-player and where is Walcott?

Why did Sven not bring him on against Sweden? Answer, cause he must not be good enough and everyone has seen that in training.

It is the only explanation.

If he didn't play last night, he will never play. Why bring on carded players in a match you don't need to win?

Robert Calderon: Omitting Defoe and Bent was and remains a strange decision. In addition, England look a little suspect defensively. Ashley Cole's obvious lack of match fitness, and Neville's suspect calf convinces me that England could have real problems against Ecuador. If they survive that test they will have massive problems against any of their possible quarterfinal opponents.

Lee Beauchamp: I think it would be easier to pick the New York lottery numbers than predict what Sven "Go-Wrong" Eriksson is thinking. I agree with James regarding Theo Walcott. The youngster is either too busy studying for his GCSE exams to train or as James suspects, he's just not good enough and all of the squad realise it.

However, as uninspiring as some of the performances have been, Sven keeps getting the results and England should be able to deal with Ecuador and progress to the quarterfinals.

True, Rooney doesn't look match fit, and you have to feel that the further England progress the more out of place Crouch will look, but with Gerrard and Cole scoring against Sweden, Lampard getting into attacking positions where his dry run will soon surely end, maybe England can make it to the semis from the midfielders goals.

Realistically, however I see no way a team can win a World Cup without a top strike force firing on all cylinders.

JW: In that respect things don't look good for Portugal either. Holland have the opposite problem — great strike force (Robben, Van Persie, Van Nistelrooy), no midfield. Spain, Germany and Argentina have no such problems and Brazil, will no doubt come good in that department.

England needed five goals from Owen if they were ever going to win the World Cup.

LB: We've just seen The Czech Republic go out. A team lauded and mentioned in certain quarters as potential Champions, after their initial impressive victory over the USA, due to exactly the same circumstance(s) as England, namely the lack of fit, quality strikers.

I hear a faint, ominous, ringing sound in the distance that seems to be gaining volume.

I think it may be the bell tolling for England.

Don Burgess: While the bell has already tolled for the U.S. You may accuse me of sour grapes, but the U.S. Was hosed by the officiating of the last two games. The penalty awarded to Ghana at the end of the first half was one of the worst I've seen.

The American Oguchi Onyewu was charged with pushing off — not with his hands or arms but with his chest while going up for a header. It just rubs more salt in the wound after the sending offs in the match against Italy.

JW: Cue a day of public mourning in the U.S., right?

I think the majority of the footballing world was happy to see them go out.

Most of America doesn't give a toss about soccer and the feeling is mutual.

Neutrals would much rather see a talented African country like Ghana, where football is the number one sport and a national passion, go through. And come on, they got some rough decisions, but even boring, boring England look exciting next to the non-scoring U.S. side.

RC: I am not a great fan of U.S. football but their growth over the past 20 years has been amazing. It scares the breath out of well-established footballing countries. Not sure if much of the dislike for U.S. soccer is purely football related.

LB: Looks like Robert and I disagree on the state of U.S. soccer, however I will say that unless the Americans are successful at ANY sport, their public enthusiasm and support is easily diverted to more satisfactory ventures.

My example would be the U.S. Ladies soccer team. Was the public interest in their success due to love of the game or love of success?

RC: The future wel being of U.S. football is not tied to how well they perform in this competition. Their youth programmes are world class, evidenced by their consistently excellent results at related world championships. They have been on the wrong end of a number of questionable calls however be assured that they will continue to improve on the world stage as they have excellent coaches and the sport is starting to reach the ethnic communities.[[In-content Ad]]

---