Richard Dunne

[DannyInvincible]

Jingoistic nonsense.

The doc is a cliché machine.

[OwlsFan]

Jingoistic nonsense.


Indeed. Thank God we don't rely on England for most of our players.

Oh, wait...

Interestingly, I've read suggestions that a problem with the national team is the relative dominance of the club game; many people are club fans first, and national team fans a distant second. There's an apathy about the national team, which feeds into the players to an extent (because they're just people, after all)

We're the same, except it's another country's clubs that dominate. We can see the growing apathy of the national team in crowds at Lansdowne Road, and it's not as if people are putting their money into the domestic game to help produce the stars of the future.

It'll be a long, long time before we're at a World Cup again, I fear.

It depends on the draw. In our current group we have a reasonable chance of competing with Scotland/Poland who wouldn't be world beaters either. A similar draw for the World Cup and we would have a chance although we have of course slipped down the rankings but some good results and that might change. Good management and luck and we can qualify. Never say never.

There were the same numbers attending games when Jack took over. Was it 14k at the Welsh game? Success with the "dream team" will bring back the Play Station/Sky generation.

[Stuttgart88]

Our expectations are different to England's. If their game is so rotten how come they qualify with ease almost every time?

I can't see Ireland ever being in contention to win a group again but I still see no reason whatsoever to think that second place should never be a realistic goal. Sometimes only one result can be the difference between 2nd and 4th. We lost our nerve to Austria at home. We fluffed our lines against Sweden too. Remember Long not setting up Keane for a tap in? We could have won in Sweden with more conviction.

I think Stu is confusing actually doing something at a finals and getting there. It's really throwing in the towel to think getting there isn't realistic, especially in a season where there are extra places.

I'm still not convinced by O'Neill but he has yet to field his best XI and I do believe he will adopt a more contemporary high, pressing game that will suit us. I think the woeful home results from Trap's reign will improve. We may need a bit of luck to get things moving along but we're not immune to a bit of luck.

[paul_oshea]

Crosby must be 26 or 27 if the "87" in his name refers to his year of birth. I can see how he might never have heard of Ian Rush though. He does live in Cloud Cuckoo Land, after all.

my guess is he is in or around 34 or 35 and you are way off with theb87 that's player related too I'd guess.

[paul_oshea]

Do people really think Ian Rush would be known in new york or america generally?not a chance.you'd be living in Cloud Cuckoo Land to think they would

[pineapple stu]

It depends on the draw. In our current group we have a reasonableThere were the same numbers attending games when Jack took over. Was it 14k at the Welsh game? Success with the "dream team" will bring back the Play Station/Sky generation.

It's really throwing in the towel to think getting there isn't realistic, especially in a season where there are extra places.

I was talking about the World Cup for the record; Euros, with twice as many places, does give us a chance. Second place isn't even enough to qualify for the World Cup; still a play-off to negotiate (and we'd probably be unseeded at that)

Martin O'Neill is a good manager alright, and that's a big plus for us at the moment.

There were the same numbers attending games when Jack took over. Was it 14k at the Welsh game? Success with the "dream team" will bring back the Play Station/Sky generation.

I don't doubt that at all. I just wonder have we gotten to a chicken and egg situation? I think most will agree that we can't rely on England to produce our players the way it did back in the day. Getting rid of the three-foreigner rule has done for that.

Our expectations are different to England's. If their game is so rotten how come they qualify with ease almost every time?

I think England have sheer strength in numbers that we don't have. They still suffer the same structural problems as we do (as our games are so intertwined). Give us ten times the number of players and the odds are we'd produce a few great players.

It of course helps that they're top seeds and don't have to face Germany/Holland/Spain and so on. Even when they weren't top seeds, didn't they get Russia?

I hope I'm wrong obviously, and I'll still be supporting come Tbilisi in September. But the spine that got us to the World Cup playoffs in 2010, that stumbled over the line for Euro 2012 and that had prior major tournament experience (in 2002) is now almost all gone. Given, Dunne, Duff, Keane. O'Shea too, though he didn't make the 2002 squad. We've nothing like those kind of players coming through.

[Stuttgart88]

There were the same numbers attending games when Jack took over. Was it 14k at the Welsh game? Success with the "dream team" will bring back the Play Station/Sky generation.

Even after Italia 90 the first two friendlies (USA and Switzerland?) were badly attended, and these games came with the carrot of getting on the FAI's block booking list.

[paul_oshea]

I was thinking about that block, and spin behind the post to Duff. He was so outstreched that it hit the underside and he rolled on top of it under his foot making it go back. The block was incredible but the spin back behind to duff was definitely not intentional.

Yipes was 38 captaining Colombia, I think Richard could have stayed on a bit longer.

[Crosby87]

I was born the year elvis died lads. I could be his reincarnation like stutts is herman gorings. didnt watch a soccer game until the 94 wc was in my backyard.

Anyway im depressed about ireland. We might have a better team with peeps that dont play for us. Ireland, dunne, s reid, gibson, duff, given. Etc....

[BonnieShels]

Crosby must be 26 or 27 if the "87" in his name refers to his year of birth. I can see how he might never have heard of Ian Rush though. He does live in Cloud Cuckoo Land, after all.

my guess is he is in or around 34 or 35 and you are way off with theb87 that's player related too I'd guess.

This is the why...

I was born the year elvis died lads. I could be his reincarnation like stutts is herman gorings. didnt watch a soccer game until the 94 wc was in my backyard.

Anyway im depressed about ireland. We might have a better team with peeps that dont play for us. Ireland, dunne, s reid, gibson, duff, given. Etc....

..and Giles and Brdy and Lawrenson and McGrath.

[OwlsFan]

I was born the year elvis died lads. I could be his reincarnation like stutts is herman gorings. ....

Why Hermann Goering? Does he take drugs and dress up in fancy uniforms?

[BonnieShels]

Why Hermann Goering? Does he take drugs and dress up in fancy uniforms?

You're thinking of Max Mosley

[back of the net]

*cowers* I don't know what kind of impact people expect Keane to have against Germany and Poland. I mean I can picture him scoring goals against Gibraltar and Georgia but it's Scotland, Poland and Germany we are in competition with and if we can't beat the minnows with/without Keane then competing is a moot point.

Glad to be/if proven wrong though!

Keane scored against sweden just last year - not sure why u think he cant do the same against scotland/poland?

[DannyInvincible]

Keane scored against sweden just last year - not sure why u think he cant do the same against scotland/poland?

TOWK thinks Robbie will already have packed international football in in a huff by that time.

[paul_oshea]

Well i wasnt right on the age but a lot closer than DI, and also the player!!!

[Razors left peg]

Do people really think Ian Rush would be known in new york or america generally?not a chance.you'd be living in Cloud Cuckoo Land to think they would

I actually did think he would be well known by football fans to be honest, its not like he played for Accrington Stanley .........

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I'd imagine that Robbie won't quit the team in a huff because he will most likely be an automatic starter regardless of form, and the whole team will have to be built around accommodating him, and 1 or 2 players decent players will have to settle for bench roles because of it.

Yes. He scored against Sweden. And aside from that goal, he was a marginal presence. Contrast his performance with Ibrahimovic and it was like night and day.

It isn't all black and white though. The decision to bench him would be easier if Stokes could get a run of games and start taking the mantle, if Long could show more consistency in front of goal or if Doyle's career hadn't stagnated but none of those things have happened; though I believe that people are unfairly scrupulous about Long.

I think the bench is the place for Keane in certain games. It would help his case if his performances, or at least his scoring ratio, was better against bigger teams; or at the least, if he would show some leadership from the front, and stop whining at teammates and the referee and lead by example when the going gets.

[Razors left peg]

I'd imagine that Robbie won't quit the team in a huff because he will most likely be an automatic starter regardless of form, and the whole team will have to be built around accommodating him, and 1 or 2 players decent players will have to settle for bench roles because of it.

Yes. He scored against Sweden. And aside from that goal, he was a marginal presence. Contrast his performance with Ibrahimovic and it was like night and day.

It isn't all black and white though. The decision to bench him would be easier if Stokes could get a run of games and start taking the mantle, if Long could show more consistency in front of goal or if Doyle's career hadn't stagnated but none of those things have happened; though I believe that people are unfairly scrupulous about Long.

I think the bench is the place for Keane in certain games. It would help his case if his performances, or at least his scoring ratio, was better against bigger teams; or at the least, if he would show some leadership from the front, and stop whining at teammates and the referee and lead by example when the going gets.

The decision would be easier to bench him if we had another player capable of filling his boots to replace him. We still dont have another goalscorer so we should not be so quick to dump him.

Stokes will never be the player he should have been, Long is great but doesnt score half enough goals, Doyler same as Long and there is no one else really.

[DannyInvincible]

I'd imagine that Robbie won't quit the team in a huff because he will most likely be an automatic starter regardless of form, and the whole team will have to be built around accommodating him, and 1 or 2 players decent players will have to settle for bench roles because of it.

I wasn't being completely serious with my comment - 'twas a wry nod to the previous lengthy discussion we had on Robbie's commitment a few months back - but, as you know, I don't see his staying with the squad as being dependent on whether or not he's an automatic starter. Of course he won't be quitting the set-up through bad blood. Even if he wasn't to be an automatic starter in the upcoming games, he won't be walking out in a huff.

Yes. He scored against Sweden. And aside from that goal, he was a marginal presence. Contrast his performance with Ibrahimovic and it was like night and day.

We were very limited that night and had no back-up plan whatsoever. Robbie was left starved up front, fighting for scraps and chasing non-transpiring long-ball knock-downs as a result. If we can create chances for him, he's undoubtedly our most accomplished and clinical finisher.

I think the bench is the place for Keane in certain games. It would help his case if his performances, or at least his scoring ratio, was better against bigger teams; or at the least, if he would show some leadership from the front, and stop whining at teammates and the referee and lead by example when the going gets.

It would help his case?! Give me patience. What on earth are you talking about? His scoring ratio against the so-called big teams is very much commendable; it's the best record we have! Your bullish intransigence on this issue is both ignorant and infuriating. Out of interest, what ratio have you mustered up? Have you got an actual total/figure or are you just spouting disingenuous nonsense based solely on your anti-Robbie prejudice again? We only ever play big games/top seeds in competitive games very rarely, but when we have, Robbie has frequently done the business. Who else have we got that has been scoring so freely against the high-flyers? Robbie's record has been analysed in great detail and pointed out to you before in the relevant thread, if I remember correctly. He has consistently scored in big games and small.

He has also cut a lot of the whining and arm-waving out of his game. When it does occur, it's mostly towards officials rather than his own team-mates, no? Anyway, we've won every game in which he has scored, bar two (Russia and Sweden; two big teams, it should be noted). He's scored plenty of absolutely crucial goals to get us out of trouble or to drag us through to the next level. I don't quite think he's leader-material in the same sense that, say, Roy was, but he's stepped up to lead the way on plenty of occasions down through the years. Your stubborn vendetta against him is completely unreasonable.

[DannyInvincible]

I went back and found the Robbie stats that had already been pointed out to you (by geysir and samhaydjr) last January:

Robbie has scored about 14/37 competitive goals at World cup, play offs and against top 3 seeded teams in qualifiers. In friendly games, about 50% of his goals were against top 3 seeded teams. Nations Cup, I'd regard as friendly.

Nineteen of his fifty-four goals against European opposition have come against teams that are top three seeds for Euro 2016, or 35%. And to put that into context, Niall Quinn only scored nineteen goals in total against European opposition, John Aldridge got 17, near half of which were against Latvia (before Latvia were decent for a while).

Even then, you tried to dodge, deny and twist the reality whilst accusing others of the type of manipulation of which you, and solely you, were guilty. Your conduct provoked the following responses from geysir:

We can all manipulate?
Robbie started playing and scoring in competitive games in 1999. Why do you start in 2000? Why ignore World Cup Finals and play offs.
Before you claimed that Robbie scored 85% to 90% against 4th 5th and 6th seeds.

He has scored against Yugoslav Turkey Netherlands Iran italy France Russia Estonia Sweden 10 goals
WC finals 3 goals
13 of his 39 competition goals came that way
The point is that you can make an argument about Robbie's worth to the team now, without manipulation of facts or rewriting history. It just betrays a bias and devalues any analysis.

Let's do a quick recall, you made a statement that 85 to 90% of Robbie's international goals were against 4th 5th and 6th seeds.
Then you proceed to deliberately ignore the year 1999, Play Offs and the World Cup Finals, meanwhile bizarrely regarding as an explanation, that Robbie's club record being more relevant to his international goal scoring stats than the goals he scored at the World Cup Finals.
The only nerve that you irritate is the subterfuge alert nerves.

Edit: You're clearly an intelligent guy, TOWK. I do respond (or react, even) to quite a few of your posts, but I don't want you thinking I have it in for you. Why I find some of your arguments so frustrating at times is because you clearly have the capacity for critical and logical thought, but, for whatever reason - be it prejudice (such as that consistently demonstrated against Robbie, Richard Keogh, Jack Grealish...) or something - you instead frequently jump to the worst conclusions possible or choose to regurgitate the same old broken records that have been debunked time and time again. And when you simply ignore counter-arguments in which others have invested a bit of time producing in order to properly discuss the nitty-gritty of an issue with you, it's just downright bad etiquette. Worse, you'll then repeat the same old points again a few days or weeks later, presumably pretending never to have seen the original responses? It's not only myself whose had to endure that manoeuvre with you. You've also done it with others over the past few days in the Richard Keogh thread. You've clearly seen DeLorean's post there, but I'll be surprised if you pay him the decency of a response, either offering a credible counter-argument or admitting that you were wrong... You've perfected the ostrich effect as a "debating" technique. I don't want to accuse you of being a wind-up, but it's seriously hard to know sometimes with the way you carry on!