QuoteNo, sure he was at Euro 2012 when Trap was manager. His debut was in a friendly in the RDS just before the World Cup that Henry ensured we didn't qualify forOriginally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Algeria I think. His debut?
No, sure he was at Euro 2012 when Trap was manager. His debut was in a friendly in the RDS just before the World Cup that Henry ensured we didn't qualify for
Folding my way into the big money!!!
Pretty sure Green made his debut against Algeria and scored. Think we played Paraguay in the other game of a double header before the 2010 World Cup.
Personally thought he looked average enough in the game, goal aside.
Sweden is probably one of the only games where Green looked serviceable imo.
Green's debut was against Paraguay, his first start was against Algeria. Nearly knocked himself unconscious with the goal too.
Might be best not trying to explain this one Marty
Martin O’Neill thinks critics are missing the point
And FAI are looking into arranging a friendly for November.
This might not go down too well with some of the purists on here
Clough's principles still hold key to success - but it's not all about attacking, says O'Neill
Last edited by DeLorean; 04/10/2016 at 4:37 PM.
Indeed it doesn't go down well. When I click on a link, I like it to open into the relevant page.This might not go down too well with some of the purists on here
Clough's principles still hold key to success - but it's not all about attacking, says O'Neill
Yet another example of very sloppy standards infecting this discussion board.
Somehow you managed to annihilate the link with your paste action.
Oops... fixed.
Not a happy bunny with these guys. I thought selecting Brady in the hole when we had Hoolahan was a wrong call and they did nothing about it after one of the most turgid first halves I have witnessed for a long time. Surely Brady's strength is crossing not slide rule passes and dominating possession. Only substitutions made were forced upon them. Bringing on O'Shea to hold on to a 1-0 against Georgia was only going to invite more pressure which duly materialised. I waited for and was duly rewarded with the usual press conference by O'Neill talking up the opposition. Also is there an issue with Arter which possibly they are not handling too well ?
I am of course happy with the result and that's all that matters at the end of the day but are we really witnessing Trap II the sequel ?
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
Well said Owls Fan.
I hadn't been that deflated since Glasgow, but at least things improved a bit after that game. I was slightly encouraged by O'Neill's interview, in that he did realise himself that it was awful. Okay, he talked the opposition up a little but also accepted our own failings and didn't just point to the result as he had done in Serbia. We somehow have four points when we really should have zero.
I know what you're saying, and I agree with it. But if I said to you that we should really have 6 instead of four, I don't think I'd be wrong either. A different mindset of a manager would have won in Belgrade. At this level, with a squad of players long exposed to the routine of international football, to get the start we got in Belgrade and capitulated before showing extreme testicular fortitude, is not good enough.
The buck stops with the manager. Part of me hoped last year he'd leave for pastures new, and even an enjoyable Euro's hasn't changed that. If anything, the Belgian performance probably compounded it.
Here they come! It’s the charge of the “Thanks” Brigade!
I don't know if we "should" have lost last night necessarily. Arguably a draw was a fair result. We both hit the woodwork. They had the two best chances other than that (shot wide on the turn late in the first half, and Randolph's save at the near post shortly after); we had a goal disallowed. The goal that was scored was a bizarrely scrappy goal. So while we deserved to win on the basis of scoring a goal where they didn't, I think on the balance of play, a draw would have been the fairest result. So I think we should be on 1 point after the first two games, but here we are on 4.
I'd look at it more like we could and probably should have been 0-2 down at half time. The shot on the spin and the one where they hit crossbar and post, in particular, as well as Randolph's save just before half time. The one at his near post was going wide anyway to be fair. Would we have come back from 0-2 down? Maybe, but unlikely. We had a couple of chances in the second half but the game had taken on a different kind of context by then and McClean's goal was rightly disallowed so no arguments there. Simply put, they were clearly the better team overall I thought.
I don't think you can say we should have been 2-0 down because they had two chances though.
We probably deserved to be 1-0 down, and then shaded the second half - scored, hit the post, had another ruled out, I presume correctly, though it was tight?
I don't know who was the better team overall. I think either way, to have been the better team of the two on the night isn't a particularly high accolade.
Could have won, maybe, we'll never know. I'm not defending the way we played, how could I, but there are really no guarantees that the result would have been any better if we had only come out of our shell a bit more. Serbia would probably have welcomed us trying to play a bit. I can see why people say they were there for the taking but so were we, as we always are really against decent opposition. I think when two fairly evenly matched teams play each other the away side is always going to be fairly content with a point, especially when they equalise with a few minutes left. We were so bad that we just don't know what would have happened if the approach/performance had been different, it would have just been a completely different game all round.
I don't really think we have any grounds for assuming we'd have taken them if we'd just got the finger out, passed the ball around and went at them. We might have, or we might have went home with a moral victory for our performance and no points on the board, like Scotland in Germany that time (not that I'm comparing Serbia to Germany). One point very much gained for me, but that has been discussed to death with Paul o'Shea and co. in fairness who are firmly in agreement with you on this.
Just thinking back to the B&H away game in the fog, did we play well that night, or was everybody just happy with the positive result despite us never remotely threatening their goal before or after Brady scored? I'm not sure what my point is exactly but there seems to be a far bigger outrage with regards the Serbia game. I was and still am willing to forgive the performance in Belgrade, there were some factors in our favour but overall I think it was a very difficult early season assignment, bit of a Euro hangover, playing a side that have been waiting for this game for basically a year or more, horrible pitch, etc.
I'd be much less forgiving about the approach and performance last night, and indeed the unwillingness to try to rectify it. Following his interview and the interviews with some of the players though, I would concede that at least O'Neill didn't send the team out to play like that. It may still have been a cave man approach, but at the very least he would have expected a higher and more intensive press where we would cause them problems and, crucially I think from his point of view, win set pieces where Clark and Duffy might flourish. I don't think there's anything O'Neill could say to convince me that he was right not to start Hoolahan though, that was probably the most soul destroying thing for me. I thought we had moved on from that sort of conservatism, in the home games at least.
I'm slow to get on his back too much. By hook or by crook he seemed to eventually find a system that suited us near the end of the last qualification campaign, basically the kind of diamond thing with an out of position McCarthy and two up front. He delivered our best result in years against Germany and followed it up with a very good playoff win and a solid Euros, Belgium game aside. I don't think it can be overstated how badly we needed that win over Germany or the restoration of some pride at the Euros after our awful campaign in Poland. It seems like a couple of steps backwards at the moment but at least he shows the willingness to adapt and change after we play poorly. We should have a more settled side by now though, it's still a bit all over the place, as it is tactically.
Typed much more than I intended there - some of it is replying to you, but most of it is general waffle, just so you know.
The only possible defence of not picking Hoolahan I can think of is his seeming inability to play 2 games in 4 days. Maybe MON thought we could spare him at home to Georgia and use him away to good effect against a weaker Moldova. Just a guess...
The lack of Hoolahan surprised me alright - especially when Brady went off injured. Hoolahan was the logical replacement, not Whelan, a holding mid (even if Hendrick ultimately took Brady's position)
But Hoolahan has previously been used more in the home games than the away games - so I don't understand why he'd now play in Moldova and not against Georgia.
I presume Brady is out injured for Sunday btw? That'll be one forced change, and maybe Hoolahan will come back in. But wouldn't be too sure.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks