3 Mar 2012

LFC legend: Snubbed star 'must' replace Glen Johnson for England

When Fabio Capello was in charge of England, he continually and inexplicably snubbed Manchester City's Micah Richards. I'm no fan any Manchester team (!) but even I can see that Richards is a really strong option on the right. There is lots of competition for places on the right side of England's defence, but Liverpool legend Mark Lawrenson argues that Richards should definitely be part of the Euro 2012 squad.

Speaking to The Mirror, Lawrenson - who played almost 40 games for the Republic of Ireland - argued:

"Micah Richards has improved so much as a defender and he must go to the Euros.

"The Manchester City full-back has also grown up. You won’t get a harder opponent than Arjen Robben but it was a test and that’s good for any player.

"Richards can start the Euro 2012 opener and deserves credit for upping his game".

If Richards does indeed start England's Euro 2012 opener, then that means Glen Johnson would miss out, so it seems that Lawro is suggesting Richards should replace the Liverpool right back as England's first choice.

I totally agree with that; for me, Johnson is always prone to mistakes for both Liverpool and England, and Richards seems to be a much more solid and reliable option.

Jaimie Kanwar


  1. Neither are 'superb' at defending but Richards is better at the defensive side of the game comfortably and is solid generally, which is what has me choosing Richards over Johnson. Johnson is pretty mediocre when it comes to the defensive side of the game. Sometimes I truly do think Johnson defends better at left back than he does at right back!

  2. i think johnson should play as a right winger, and as for micah richards i rate him as a very good player, but i think playing in that man city team compared to liverpools team he will always look good

  3. Isn't Kyle Walker now a head of those 2?

  4. I think England's 2 best rightbacks at the moment are Micah Richards and Martin Kelly. Kelly is a brilliant defender and supports attacks very well. Richards is very strong and hard to get past or dispossess, and is himself a dangerous attacking threat.

    Johnson and Walker are just very fast going forward and Johnson shades it in being able to beat a man and for his scoring ability, but neither are as effective defensively as Richards and Kelly. Richards has more valuable experience than Kelly at the moment and that is what truly separates the 2 in terms of effectiveness despite possessing different qualities. Johnson seems pretty good on the left though, and seems a better right footed leftback than Lahm.

  5. "Must" replace Johnson at rightback? That would imply that Johnson has been a major weakness for England. Which he hasn't. The guy is just held to a completely different standard than everybody else.

  6. I think it implies that in Richards, England has a better player than Johnson, not that he has been a weakness. Alot of the other players are garbage without clearly superior replacements.

  7. Lahm excretes all over Johnson at left back. Not even in Johnson's dreams would he be as good as Lahm. Laughable notion, to suggest that Lahm is inferior to Johnson at left back. 

  8. You only 'have' to replace a player if he is clearly damaging the team. If one if a bit better than the other, but not so much that results/performances will actually be impacted much if at all, then it would be nice to have the change but not imperative.

    It would be nice if improvements could be made on certain players, such as Johnson, although he is serviceable at his job. It is imperative that players that are clearly incapable of doing a job (e.g. Kuyt or Henderson's right wing) are replaced.