Group D - opponent watch!

[DeLorean]

No, but it's the positive approach that has seen them move quickly up the rankings. They look livelier, hungrier and more dynamic than we do right now. O'Neill admits there is work to be done and explained that he overrated Georgia. My reading of his subsequent remarks is that he knows this is just the start and Sunday's team was just that, Sunday's team.

How could he overrate them though in fairness? We've played them quite often ourselves over the past few years and they never looked anything other than completely limited. I don't think they've done anything for that perception to change.... especially on the back of all the video analysis they would/should have done. If anything, it looks as though they are stronger defensively but still weak going forward, so wouldn't that have been even more reason to play an extra creative player or two? I do believe O'Neill was reasonably content with the draw near the end, his comments about it being vital not to lose, although sensible and accurate, had a booming echo of Giovanni Trapattoni.

I agree with you that we have to wait and see what is learned from the performance, that is what will or will not set him apart from Trap's in terms of rigidness and ambitiousness.

[paul_oshea]

I think the vital not to lose is an interesting one.we definitely didn't overplay for the win.

That's worrying but I think we know how we will lineup for germany.3 in midfield and containment. its probably the right game not to play wes but will he actually do this against poland and Scotland?We will need more creativity against these otherwise we will be nullified and could lose by a 1 goal margin through the opponent happy to sit on a lead and we incapable of doing anything or a winner in the last few mins for them.

[KK77]

No, but it's the positive approach that has seen them move quickly up the rankings. They look livelier, hungrier and more dynamic than we do right now. O'Neill admits there is work to be done and explained that he overrated Georgia. My reading of his subsequent remarks is that he knows this is just the start and Sunday's team was just that, Sunday's team.

Yes would agree the Scots impressed and look well ahead of us but still early days for us under MON.

[Jovial Rambler]

Having watched his post-match RTE interview again, i notice that MON said 'There was a nervousness in the squad before the game'.
i find this understandable as it was the first competitive game of his reign, introduction of new players, it was away from home, against a somewhat unknown quantity.
And i do feel this nervousness was reflected in his team selection and tactics....didn't the Argentina manager also suffer from this in their opening WC game?
The Argies went on to change personnel and tact in their next and following matches.
It may not be that he over-rated the opposition, rather he over-rated the occasion...
Obviously MON will shake things up vs Gibraltar, but with the nerves settled, the team and system against Germany (regardless of the result)will be a good indicator of what is to come during his tenure.

[DeLorean]

It may not be that he over-rated the opposition, rather he over-rated the occasion...

Interesting take... I suppose it did have a ten month build up!

[ArdeeBhoy]

Obviously MON will shake things up vs Gibraltar, but with the nerves settled, the team and system against Germany (regardless of the result)will be a good indicator of what is to come during his tenure.

Far more likely after the Scotland (A)/Georgia (H) games...

[SwanVsDalton]

How could he overrate them though in fairness? We've played them quite often ourselves over the past few years and they never looked anything other than completely limited. I don't think they've done anything for that perception to change....

Don't have a quote to hand but I believe he said something of the lines of Georgia were not as good as they were against France and Spain in the 2014 quals (they drew 0-0 and lost 0-1 at home respectively). Guessing he based his assessment on those performances.

Don't think that's a completely ill-judged outlook. Underestimate at your peril. They may never have been anything but limited, but they've also been never anything but awkward too.

[DeLorean]

You don't need to underestimate in an attempt not to overestimate.

[SwanVsDalton]

You don't need to underestimate in an attempt not to overestimate.

Indeed, and O'Neill got on the wrong side of that balance. But, at least he appeared to admit it.

[ArdeeBhoy]

If you think we're pessimistic, you should speak to the average Georgian...
Was more polite about their team than they were?

[Stuttgart88]

I want to see an end to round pegs in square holes. This was a theme of Trap's tenure. In my mind Walters wide right is one such peg, even if he has experience there. Pick a naturally wide player for a wide berth. For avoidance of doubt I'd be happy with Quinn on the left. He's not a winger but he can play wide midfield. Furthermore, Walters RHM meant McGeady was forced left.

The other wrong peg was McCarthy. He's a midfielder, granted, but not the kind of midfielder that'll own the last third of the pitch which is what O'Neill wanted him to do. In the clips RTE showed of "no build up play" McCarthy was hiding from the ball. Quinn wasn't, nor was McGeady.

Lesser teams can look like good teams if they have balance, players all playing in roles that suit them and that suit the balance of the team. The corollary is that a team populated by good players but not all playing in roles that suit them will not look like a good team. That's what happened to us. Trap appeared blind to this. O'Neill has made the mistake once out of one.

Personally I think two deeper midfielders is fine, and not necessarily defensive. If the three players immediately in front are attacking players capable of feeding a lone forward (via width and through balls) and stretching defenders, that's better than one sitting midfielder behind a dysfunctional front 5.

I think the Italy performance is the template.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Agree about the template and the square pegs...especially those that keep being selected as first choice regardless. And not pursuing newer, supposedly more dubious angles...

[paul_oshea]

It wasnt from trying to hide from the ball, it was not knowing how to get the ball. He was running over and back in a line in front of the backs constantly when we had the ball, he looked lost and didn't know how to get involved. He was getting light-headed that high up the pitch. I think O'Neill as part of his over-estimation of their midfield and perhaps ocassion tried to play the hole role but with a mobile, strong and athletic midfielder in McCarthy. Not a bad idea if he was capable of doing so, but bar the through ball for McGeadys first I dont think he showed anything to suggest he can.

[ArdeeBhoy]

McCarthy should be playing with ideally Gibson/Quinn or Noble/Meyler in that order...

[paul_oshea]

Indeed, and O'Neill got on the wrong side of that balance. But, at least he appeared to admit it.

He admitted it, but with 70 mins gone surely he had worked it out and not right after McGeady scored. Because he should have and yet he didn't really make the correct changes to rectify the problem. That's the worrying bit, knowing you got it wrong is one problem, but not knowing how it should be fixed is the bigger problem.

[DeLorean]

I want to see an end to round pegs in square holes. This was a theme of Trap's tenure. In my mind Walters wide right is one such peg, even if he has experience there. Pick a naturally wide player for a wide berth. For avoidance of doubt I'd be happy with Quinn on the left. He's not a winger but he can play wide midfield. Furthermore, Walters RHM meant McGeady was forced left.

The other wrong peg was McCarthy. He's a midfielder, granted, but not the kind of midfielder that'll own the last third of the pitch which is what O'Neill wanted him to do. In the clips RTE showed of "no build up play" McCarthy was hiding from the ball. Quinn wasn't, nor was McGeady.

Lesser teams can look like good teams if they have balance, players all playing in roles that suit them and that suit the balance of the team. The corollary is that a team populated by good players but not all playing in roles that suit them will not look like a good team. That's what happened to us. Trap appeared blind to this. O'Neill has made the mistake once out of one.

Personally I think two deeper midfielders is fine, and not necessarily defensive. If the three players immediately in front are attacking players capable of feeding a lone forward (via width and through balls) and stretching defenders, that's better than one sitting midfielder behind a dysfunctional front 5.

I think the Italy performance is the template.

That's a great analysis and probably the biggest disappointment was McCarthy. To be fair, I was kind of contradicting Dr Peepee the other day but now I'll contradict myself. The more I think about it, and as much as I still think he should have been played in his natural role, it was depressing to see McCarthy hiding from the ball. He's a good enough player to look for possession in any area of the pitch. If he loses it he loses it but there's nothing worse than a player hiding. I'd love to know, firstly, exactly what duties they wanted him to carry out and, secondly, what they will say to him after analysing his performance? He strikes me as a guy who would respond better to an arm around the shoulder than a kick up the arse, probably why he has excelled year on year under Martinez.

One slight point about McGeady being "forced left"... I think that's a role far more suited to him than playing wide right anyway. The time has probably come to give him a licence through the centre though, which probably isn't good news for Wessi.

[paul_oshea]

He wasnt hiding Delorean, you wouldnt have noticed his runs off the ball on TV as it wasnt being shown, but he was running about and trying spot gaps or breaks in the defensive line and then look for the pass, but more often than not he looked lost, bar the the ball for mcgeadys two goals. He was just so high up the line he was ineffective, he didn't seem suited to the role at all. That's why I go back to the other point O'Neill never made the right change, he should have brought mccarthy back, brought on hoolahan, taken off walters. Still time to make the Long substitution but that should have happened on 60 mins.

[DeLorean]

Yeah sorry I only saw your post #213 after posting. Fair enough, it really looked like he didn't want the ball on TV.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I'm all for a more positive, engaging and inspiring approach, but it's also worth remembering that for all the heroism and effort expended by the Scots last night, they still lost. Germany promptly had them back behind again immediately after what was more-or-less a brief kick up the arse for a team who had been cavalier and wasteful in front of goal all night.

Danny.

We were losing 0-6 to Germany in Dublin. How can you be so blase about Scotland's performance in Dortmund? In the game I was watching Scotland were outplaying Germany in parts and had them on the ropes at times. Yeah Germany could have had one or two more (anything else is exaggerating). They could have netted a lot more in Dublin against us too.

Drawing 1-1 with the World champions at a pivotal point of the game - 70 minutes - is a bloody fantastic achievement in itself when we utterly collapsed and gave up after half-time.

We played the ball on the ground a bit more against Georgia than we did under Trap but there was a shocking lack of any kind of formula or fluency to our play.

I also think Tony O'Donoghue is allowed to make a polite observation about how sh*t we performed without O'Neill throwing a hissy fit. God knows he's earning enough to engage. We have had enough hostility and belligerence from the previous regime to last a life time. Trapattoni and Tardelli's formula to answering difficult questions was ostensibly to act like he was managing Luxembourg and betray ridicule at the thought that we should be doing any better. The difficulty here is O'Neill is going to go down the same path and blame our terrible performances in friendlies and competitive games and his tactical backfires on a lack of talent or a what can we do? He made several sh*te tactical decisions towards the end of the Portugal game so he's merely following a trend now. Hopefully it cuts out by the time we play Germany.

Also, what is Keane doing to earn his money? The only thing I noticed about him in Georgia was laughing and joking during our anthem.

[paul_oshea]

Towk when ye make these sensible posts without any one way direct hatred/bitterness its very refreshing for me, especially after I come back from games cos this is exactly what the foot soldiers were saying after the game. I do wonder how there are so many strange viewpoints here. Does everyone live in treehouses or some tent in the woods?

Strachan came out and said he thought after the equaliser that they were going to win, I thought watching parts of it that they would too. Some woeful defending especially the 2nd goal cost them. We are nowhere near them, and it definitely cant be just that our personnel aren't good enough as stutts pointed out man for man there is very little difference and we have the edge more than likely.

And the point about Scotland still lost is so naive, they lost after a very good performance and though they didnt get the result against Germany if they play like that against the other top teams in the group they will "out-result" the other teams in the group.