Séamus Coleman (D Everton b.1988)

[tricky_colour]

You're lapsing into self-parody now.

He lightly places his hands on a slumbering McCarthy's back for a split second - gaining no apparent advantage in doing so - as he makes his way around McCarthy before running toward the ball after Coleman's fluffed it. You're seriously not trying to claim that was a foul too? If anything, you'd have hoped it would have kept McCarthy on his tows and sprung him into some defensive action!

Not that it's necessarily indicative of anything certain, but you'll also notice that neither of the two Irish players claim for a free-kick.

Well main thing that struck me was the difference in attitude between the Kazak player and McCarthy, the Kazak player literally
has to push dawdling McCarthy out of the way in order to get to the ball! He starts off be hind him, pushes him out of the
way, and gets to the ball before him (McCarthy never gets to the ball).

You could actually say McCarthy is being clever here, obstructing the Kazak player deliberately, but it certainly is not deliberate,
the game is passing him by at this stage, he has merely wandered into the path of the Kazak player, and you could well argue
he obstructed the Kazak player at this point (albeit without knowing it), however the ref would be right to play advantage.
However there seems to be some ambiguity in the rule which seem contradict themselves.

One rule refers to blocking a player for tactical reasons, however clearly McCarthy's block is clearly not tactical, he has no awareness of what
is happening around him, he is merely wandering around the pitch in the same manner in which someone might absently
mindedly wander into the path of a bus whilst strolling around town.

However the other rule on obstruction makes no mention of intend so he seems to be guilty of obstruction there.
The ref however allows play to continue, so the question is can the Kazak player push the obstructing player out of
his way?

Another unclear aspect of the rule is " moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block..."
does this mean intentional movement? It is unclear if there has to be intent or not.

In McCarthy's defense, I think he could well argue that that the Kazaks were only able to win the ball
buy obstructing Coleman, so his lolling about in the midfield is irrelevant.
Hence my criticism of his play is not actually valid (on this occasion ;)).

And I am not suggesting the Kazak fouled McCarthy I am suggesting the McCarthy obstructed
the Kazak, whether the Kazak committed a foul at this point seems to be a grey area as I am
already working on unclear rules. However I doubt it will say in the rules that you can push a player
out of your way (outside playing distance), granted it was not much of a push, McCarthy was
letting him through anyway.

[tricky_colour]

Yeah, Roy Keane would have pulled out of the friendly on some flimsy pretext, so he wouldn't have even had the opportunity to pull out of the tackle

I can't really speak for Roy, but I think his attitude was if you are not in it to win it you might as well stay at home,
and that is precisely what he did.

[DannyInvincible]

Well main thing that struck me was the difference in attitude between the Kazak player and McCarthy, the Kazak player literally
has to push dawdling McCarthy out of the way in order to get to the ball! He starts off be hind him, pushes him out of the
way, and gets to the ball before him (McCarthy never gets to the ball).

You could actually say McCarthy is being clever here, obstructing the Kazak player deliberately, but it certainly is not deliberate,
the game is passing him by at this stage, he has merely wandered into the path of the Kazak player, and you could well argue
he obstructed the Kazak player at this point (albeit without knowing it), however the ref would be right to play advantage.
However there seems to be some ambiguity in the rule which seem contradict themselves.

One rule refers to blocking a player for tactical reasons, however clearly McCarthy's block is clearly not tactical, he has no awareness of what
is happening around him, he is merely wandering around the pitch in the same manner in which someone might absently
mindedly wander into the path of a bus whilst strolling around town.

However the other rule on obstruction makes no mention of intend so he seems to be guilty of obstruction there.
The ref however allows play to continue, so the question is can the Kazak player push the obstructing player out of
his way?

Another unclear aspect of the rule is " moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block..."
does this mean intentional movement? It is unclear if there has to be intent or not.

In McCarthy's defense, I think he could well argue that that the Kazaks were only able to win the ball
buy obstructing Coleman, so his lolling about in the midfield is irrelevant.
Hence my criticism of his play is not actually valid (on this occasion ;)).

And I am not suggesting the Kazak fouled McCarthy I am suggesting the McCarthy obstructed
the Kazak, whether the Kazak committed a foul at this point seems to be a grey area as I am
already working on unclear rules. However I doubt it will say in the rules that you can push a player
out of your way (outside playing distance), granted it was not much of a push, McCarthy was
letting him through anyway.

http://doblelol.com/uploads/12/awesome-funny-gifs.jpg

Both rules implicate intent as a necessary component of fouling by impeding the progress of an opponent (at least implicitly). There was no foul on McCarthy and there was no foul by McCarthy.

[DannyInvincible]

I can't really speak for Roy, but I think his attitude was if you are not in it to win it you might as well stay at home,
and that is precisely what he did.

Eh? That doesn't even make sense. Didn't you more-or-less say he had a winning attitude? A prime example of deluded revisionism/apologism, that.

[tricky_colour]

Eh? That doesn't even make sense. Didn't you more-or-less say he had a winning attitude? A prime example of deluded revisionism/apologism, that.

Yes I did, and that is why he went home, he realised he was surrounded by people who had no intention of achieving anything beyond a decent tan.
It is an example of me being correct, nothing more, nothing less.

[DannyInvincible]

Yes I did, and that is why he went home, he realised he was surrounded by people who had no intention of achieving anything beyond a decent tan.

But that would be Roy exhibiting a defeatist mentality. :confused:

Anyway, enough of the mythical, romantic guff; it's not even logical. Roy consistently missed friendlies because his club, Manchester United, weren't too keen on the idea and the risk they presented in terms of their players potentially picking up injuries in what they viewed as meaningless fixtures. Roy was evidently happy to toe the club's line and, as a result, overplay injury concerns when international friendly breaks came round.

Also note Ryan Giggs' friendly record for Wales. In a 16-year-long senior international career, he picked up only 64 senior caps. The following line from his Wiki article is interesting:


After his international debut in 1991 against Germany, Giggs did not attend a friendly international until some nine years later, after which he missed a further 18 consecutive friendly games. Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson had a policy of refusing to release the player for friendly games.

It references a 2000 article by Paul Walker in the Independent titled "Ferguson 'protects' Giggs from Wales".

[tricky_colour]

But that would be Roy exhibiting a defeatist mentality. :confused:

Anyway, enough of the mythical, romantic guff; it's not even logical. Roy consistently missed friendlies because his club, Manchester United, weren't too keen on the idea and the risk they presented in terms of their players potentially picking up injuries in what they viewed as meaningless fixtures. Roy was evidently happy to toe the club's line and, as a result, overplay injury concerns when international friendly breaks came round.

Also note Ryan Giggs' friendly record for Wales. In a 16-year-long senior international career, he picked up only 64 senior caps. The following line from his Wiki article is interesting:

It references a 2000 article by Paul Walker in the Independent titled "Ferguson 'protects' Giggs from Wales".

Well again I can't really speak for Roy, although I will (lol), he might argue that the team were already defeated by their poor preparation.
He might also argue that the ROI friendlies were a waste of time, and he was being pressured by Fergie it seems.
Certainly Roy, as you point out, did more for his country than Giggs.

I am sure there are a few stories about about Roy's fierce attitude even in training, I think there maybe one from Nial Quinn,
I am not too sure if I remember it correctly but I think it may have revolved around whether it was better to be on Roy's
side in training matches or the opposition. ie was it better to be on the receiving end of a crunching tackle if you were in
the opposing team, or a tongue lashing (or possible punch in the face) for not playing well enough, if you were on his side!!

I mean articles like this are typical of Roy's attitude:-

http://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/ipswich-town/ryan_tunnicliffe_wants_to_emulate_his_idol_roy_kea ne_1_2314215



“He was a winner, he was 110% in everything he did, not just in games on a Saturday but in training as well. That was his character and I picked up on a lot of that.

Without his attitude he may well have been just a mediocre player, however I don't know if you can learn an attitude like that.

I expect like Lady Gaga, he was born that way!!

[DannyInvincible]

I'm not doubting Roy's competitive attitude; in my opinion, he was one of our greatest ever players and dragged us to the World Cup in 2002.

I was, however, casting doubt over your deluded assertion as to why he pulled out of so many friendlies, which you're continuing to peddle. Not only was it rooted in that over-simplistic and clichéd Roy-could-do-no-wrong fantasy, it didn't even make logical sense. Indeed, you ought to stop speaking for Roy and assuming his past intentions, especially when the facts simply don't support your contentions.

[tricky_colour]

I'm not doubting Roy's competitive attitude; in my opinion, he was one of our greatest ever players and dragged us to the World Cup in 2002.

I was, however, casting doubt over your deluded assertion as to why he pulled out of so many friendlies, which you're continuing to peddle. Not only was it rooted in that over-simplistic and clichéd Roy-could-do-no-wrong fantasy, it didn't even make logical sense. Indeed, you ought to stop speaking for Roy and assuming his past intentions, especially when the facts simply don't support your contentions.


I am not speaking for him, just saying he might make that argument, however the reality is he didn't, he just said he was injured.
I cannot really dispute that as I am not in a position to do so, unless you have medical evidence to prove otherwise I think
you have to accept that he was injured. Personally I do not think he would fake injury.

[DannyInvincible]

I'm not necessarily saying he faked injury. It's possible to cite or even over-emphasise what might be a genuine injury concern without faking an actual injury. Lots of players do it.

[DannyInvincible]

I mean articles like this are typical of Roy's attitude:-

http://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/ipswich-town/ryan_tunnicliffe_wants_to_emulate_his_idol_roy_kea ne_1_2314215



Without his attitude he may well have been just a mediocre player, however I don't know if you can learn an attitude like that.

So, in order to demonstrate His 110-per-cent winning attitude and dogged commitment, He dropped out of friendlies because His international team-mates couldn't match even half of His desire? Their desire for a sun-tan trumped all. In essence, Roy was forced out of squads by the embarrassing vanity and downright incompetence of His supposed fellow footballers. Thus, Roy would offer a grand total of zero per cent to the international cause in the end? The narrative of the hampered hero; it just doesn't follow.

I'm not necessarily attempting to cast aspersions upon his commitment, when he did turn up for us, of course. And he wasn't in the same league of missing friendlies as his United team-mate Ryan Giggs was, to be fair. I'm just trying to debunk your rather fanciful assertion that merely serves to play into this mythical notion of Roy as a demigod who was right about everything, who was better than his mortal peers in everything he did and in everything he ever could have done - he could do anything, after all - and who was simply too good for us. The reality was that he was as fallible and vulnerable to human fault or critique as anyone else.

When he wore the green, he excelled and undoubtedly gave his all. If, however, he had come to the conclusion, as advised by his club and employer, that avoiding international friendlies would protect his long-term fitness and benefit the potential longevity of his career, that's another matter worthy of isolated discussion. I have more important things to worry about than let myself get agitated by players' apparent apathy or lack of commitment when they pull out of friendlies citing injury or injury concerns. I'm content enough to "admit" that Roy wasn't the most dedicated of our players when it came to showing up for friendly games whilst simultaneously acknowledging the qualities that made him such a great player for us; my idol and favourite footballer growing up.

Joey O'Brien, Kieren Westwood and Robbie Brady used the international breaks recently to see to what were long-term injury concerns rather than full-blown injuries at the time. James McCarthy was a similar case that season he continually pulled out of our international friendly squads but might then have appeared for Wigan in a competitive Premier League game the following weekend. They weren't injured per se but it wasn't exactly a case of them fabricating matters either. They were simply protecting the longevity of their professional livelihood, which, I think, is pretty reasonable in moderation. It would have been reckless for McCarthy, for example, to have risked aggravating a long-term injury worry by playing in a voluntary non-competitive fixture. The reason he might then have appeared in a competitive fixture for Wigan a following weekend was because that was the job for which he was receiving a salary. He was duty-bound by a legal contract.

[tricky_colour]

I'm not necessarily saying he faked injury. It's possible to cite or even over-emphasise what might be a genuine injury concern without faking an actual injury. Lots of players do it.

Well I think you might be happy to play in important games, but playing friendlies with an injury is too much to ask.

[DannyInvincible]

Well I think you might be happy to play in important games, but playing friendlies with an injury is too much to ask.

Well, obviously, but a lot of fans often accuse players of lacking commitment when they pull out of friendly squads citing "dubious" injury concerns, especially when those players end up playing for their clubs the very next weekend. In fact, you seemed to regard the suggestion that Roy might have missed friendlies because they weren't worth the risk even when he wasn't actually injured as a possible mark on this "untaintable" character that "always gave 110 per cent". You went as far as fabricating an illogical narrative in his defence that held, not Roy's attitude, but his team-mates' alleged inferiority, accountable for his missing of friendly games. If it were even true, it would actually be an indictment of his character.

My basic point is that Roy Keane is and was as fallible as anyone else. As a result, there is no need to view his "suspect" record of turning down friendly call-ups on some black-or-white scale of extremes; one extreme being a treacherous lack of commitment to our cause with the other being this flawless notion you've dreamed up, that the natural inferiority of his peers, in contrast to his greatness, virtually forced him to reject friendly call-ups due to some innate impossibility to lower himself to their supposed bog-standards. For us to hope that he'd suffer the shame would be simply unwarranted on our parts!

[tricky_colour]

Well, obviously, but a lot of fans often accuse players of lacking commitment when they pull out of friendly squads citing "dubious" injury concerns, especially when those players end up playing for their clubs the very next weekend. In fact, you seemed to regard the suggestion that Roy might have missed friendlies because they weren't worth the risk even when he wasn't actually injured as a possible mark on this "untaintable" character that "always gave 110 per cent". You went as far as fabricating an illogical narrative in his defence that held, not Roy's attitude, but his team-mates' alleged inferiority, accountable for his missing of friendly games. If it were even true, it would actually be an indictment of his character.

My basic point is that Roy Keane is and was as fallible as anyone else. As a result, there is no need to view his "suspect" record of turning down friendly call-ups on some black-or-white scale of extremes; one extreme being a treacherous lack of commitment to our cause with the other being this flawless notion you've dreamed up, that the natural inferiority of his peers, in contrast to his greatness, virtually forced him to reject friendly call-ups due to some innate impossibility to lower himself to their supposed bog-standards. For us to hope that he'd suffer the shame would be simply unwarranted on our parts!


As I have said before, I can't really speak for Roy nor know the extent of his injuries, and I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) he was sent home so it was not his decision not to play.

SO the scenario you describe is in fact incorrect? He did was not allowed to play, so it was not Roys attitude but the attitude of Mick (and possibly the rest of the players) which prevented him from playing.

If that is the case then your criticism of Roy is invalid and the attitude problem rests with Mick and the squad ecause they were unwilling to play along side a because they did not like the way he expressed his opinion.Remember it was Mick who accused Roy of faking injury and I very much doubt Mick could prove he faked his injuries.

You can pick up minor injures in games which take a few fays to heal, it would not be sensible to play a game on them especially an unnecessary friendly because that could lead to a more serious injury.

Also not sure why he why expected to play meaningless friendlies in the first place, just what is the point?

For players at his stage of his career the are not helpful.

[Stuttgart88]

Keane regularly pulled out of a Ireland squads with flimsy excuses. Keane didn't travel to Tehran when he could have played, albeit on an injury. Lots of players play through pain or strains. He'd have traveled if we hadn't won in Dublin.

Mick was right to call him on this. The accusation of faking injury wasn't a calculated incision. It was a knee jerk response to a strong of insults laced at Mick by Keane when he was confronted with the Tom Humphries interview which he should never have given (and Humphries and the Irish Times should never have gone out of their way to get). Context is everything.

I think anyone but the biggest United fan in Cork would think its fair to say Keane opted not to play in some Irish games.

Keane himself said later he wasn't sent home.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Heard on the grapevine he was 'under orders' to do so from Fergie, at the time. Including having advance notice of a certain Pacific island.
Which wouldn't surprise me one iota...

[DannyInvincible]

As I have said before, I can't really speak for Roy nor know the extent of his injuries, and I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) he was sent home so it was not his decision not to play.

SO the scenario you describe is in fact incorrect? He did was not allowed to play, so it was not Roys attitude but the attitude of Mick (and possibly the rest of the players) which prevented him from playing.

I wasn't specifically referring to Saipan actually. There was no-one preventing him from playing in friendlies when fit or able, except himself and perhaps Ferguson. As for Saipan, it's ridiculous to suggest that it was the attitude of Mick and the squad that prevented him from playing, as if Roy should not be remotely accountable for his own words and actions. He was the very definition of a sentient and strong-willed individual.


Also not sure why he why expected to play meaningless friendlies in the first place, just what is the point?

Sure, why should we hope any of our players bother turning up for friendlies? :rolleyes:

Friendlies are essential for moulding the team and helping the players bond, both tactically and socially, if you will. They also count towards ranking points, so you can't just dismiss them as "unnecessary" and "meaningless"?

And what about Tehran?


For players at his stage of his career the are not helpful.

In what sense? I think friendlies are a vital part of adequate preparation; something of which Roy was supposedly a staunch advocate. And he wasn't that old when he was missing friendlies. Sure Robbie's still playing away in them without problem.

[tricky_colour]

Keane regularly pulled out of a Ireland squads with flimsy excuses. Keane didn't travel to Tehran when he could have played, albeit on an injury. Lots of players play through pain or strains. He'd have traveled if we hadn't won in Dublin.

Mick was right to call him on this. The accusation of faking injury wasn't a calculated incision. It was a knee jerk response to a strong of insults laced at Mick by Keane when he was confronted with the Tom Humphries interview which he should never have given (and Humphries and the Irish Times should never have gone out of their way to get). Context is everything.

I think anyone but the biggest United fan in Cork would think its fair to say Keane opted not to play in some Irish games.

Keane himself said later he wasn't sent home.


Well it is a bit confusing isn't it because this is what Mick himself said at the time, I remember the words well.


"I cannot and will not tolerate that level of abuse being thrown at me so I sent him home," McCarthy said.

Maybe Keane had also decided to quit at this point.


"Mick sent me nowhere. I told him where to go. What? Do you think Mick McCarthy said to me, ‘I’m sending you home’?" said Keane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuqDypaZTHM

And I don't know if you can say he opted not to play some games, it may not have been the sensible thing to do
to play in a friendly whilst recovering from an injury, certainly from my point of view, as a fan, if say we had a
friendly then a very important game, I think I would be of the mind that we should not be playing any of our
top players in the friendly injured or not. Even if they were fully fit I would be of the view to not play
them in the friendly and ensure they remained fully fit.
So I would not see a player not wanting to play in that match, I would see it is sensible, and I might well be
of the opinion that a top player wanting to play the friendly was being stupid, even disloyal by risking injury
before an important match.

Also as a fan I would have been disappointed with the poor preparation, especially given that Ireland had
EIGHT YEARS to prepare for it!!!!!

Also of this is a bit irrelevant to my initial point which regards competitiveness on the pitch, not off it.

[tricky_colour]

Heard on the grapevine he was 'under orders' to do so from Fergie, at the time. Including having advance notice of a certain Pacific island.
Which wouldn't surprise me one iota...

Well I do not know too much about this, but let's face it Roy did actually go to Saipan against his club managers orders,
hence hardly disloyal to his country.

Had the preparation been better things might have been very different.

[tricky_colour]

I wasn't specifically referring to Saipan actually. There was no-one preventing him from playing in friendlies when fit or able, except himself and perhaps Ferguson. As for Saipan, it's ridiculous to suggest that it was the attitude of Mick and the squad that prevented him from playing, as if Roy should not be remotely accountable for his own words and actions. He was the very definition of a sentient and strong-willed individual.
Sure, why should we hope any of our players bother turning up for friendlies? :rolleyes:
Friendlies are essential for moulding the team and helping the players bond, both tactically and socially, if you will. They also count towards ranking points, so you can't just dismiss them as "unnecessary" and "meaningless"?
And what about Tehran?
In what sense? I think friendlies are a vital part of adequate preparation; something of which Roy was supposedly a staunch advocate. And he wasn't that old when he was missing friendlies. Sure Robbie's still playing away in them without problem.

I think you need to put things into context, Keane as an established first team player.
If you put so much emphasis on preparation you then must agree with Roy about the Saipan preparations.
Same goes for Mick, if he expects Roy to do the preparation, then he should have done his job in
preparing for Siapan, I mean it is not as if managing the national team is even a full time job.

You could argue that Micks failure to prepare properly showed disloyalty. I can see how Roy might be angered
by seeing Micks accusation that he was letting the team down by not attending friendlies when Mick
let the side down by failing to prepare for the biggest tournament Ireland ever faced.

I wonder how many teams at the tournament had neither the right kit nor a suitable training ground
for their preparation for the biggest prize in football?

Nobody was more disappointed than me that Keane didn't play I might add, I genuinely believed
we had a chance of winning the tournament, a slim chance albeit, we were ranked in the mid teens,
but with the right preparation it was not out of the question.
I expect from Keane's point of view he felt we had thrown that chance away.

But at the end of the day, McCarthy was manager, the buck stops with him,
he must ensure the preparation was right and that the players are happy.
I dare say under a different manage things would have been, well different :)

But my main point was about competitiveness on the pitch Keane was a natural
competitor, he wanted to win stuff. Sometimes that might mean missing a friendly.
I don't see a contradiction in that.

[DannyInvincible]

Roy did actually go to Saipan against his club managers orders

Is this true? Why would Ferguson try to get in the way of his player heading off to prepare for a World Cup? Did he try to hold his other World Cup participants back? What did Ferguson make of Keane travelling to Saipan then?


If you put so much emphasis on preparation you then must agree with Roy about the Saipan preparations.

I do. Roy had every right to be angry in Saipan. Indeed, Genesis backed up his criticisms of the set-up. I've always tended to side more with Roy than Mick on Saipan actually.


You could argue that Micks failure to prepare properly showed disloyalty.

It might have been incompetent or amateurish in Roy's eyes, but I don't think an accusation of disloyalty would be appropriate. That would be rather twisted.


But my main point was about competitiveness on the pitch Keane was a natural
competitor, he wanted to win stuff. Sometimes that might mean missing a friendly.

He missed friendlies because he wanted to win stuff? I'm not sure that follows. Can you elaborate?

[geysir]

I do. Roy had every right to be angry in Saipan. Indeed, Genesis backed up his criticisms of the set-up.
I've always tended to side more with Roy than Mick on Saipan actually.
Roy called it a shambles, Mick called it bedlam.
Roy called it bumpy, Mick called it uneven.
I suppose Roy had (slightly) more accurate perceptions of the organisational failures.

More players should have stood up and left, or just Roy?

[tricky_colour]

Is this true? Why would Ferguson try to get in the way of his player heading off to prepare for a World Cup? Did he try to hold his other World Cup participants back? What did Ferguson make of Keane travelling to Saipan then?


OK maybe you were refering to just friendlies.



I do. Roy had every right to be angry in Saipan. Indeed, Genesis backed up his criticisms of the set-up. I've always tended to side more with Roy than Mick on Saipan actually.

It might have been incompetent or amateurish in Roy's eyes, but I don't think an accusation of disloyalty would be appropriate. That would be rather twisted.


Maybe, but he might have just have not been bothered to do it same as people say Roy didn't
bother to turn up to friendlies, it's effectively the same 'crime', except more harmful IMO.




He missed friendlies because he wanted to win stuff? I'm not sure that follows. Can you elaborate?

Yes if you have a friendly then a cup final it would be sensible to miss the friendly to make sure
you are fit for the final. Particularly as you get older and are more injury prone.

For example Man U play very few friendlies in the playing season, the risks involved far out weight the
benefits.

[DannyInvincible]

Roy called it a shambles, Mick called it bedlam.
Roy called it bumpy, Mick called it uneven.
I suppose Roy had (slightly) more accurate perceptions of the organisational failures.

More players should have stood up and left, or just Roy?

Roy's perfectionism was admirable, but in spite of his high standards, I'm not sure he conducted himself in the most professional of manners. Also, it would be unfair to hold Mick responsible for what were FAI failings.

[DeLorean]

I feel like I've been cracked up to 88mph.

[DannyInvincible]

Maybe, but he might have just have not been bothered to do it same as people say Roy didn't
bother to turn up to friendlies, it's effectively the same 'crime', except more harmful IMO.

Not quite. Different words have different connotations. To accuse someone of being disloyal would be to imply there was a degree of malicious intent behind their actions, or lack thereof. Whatever Mick's faults might have been, his intention certainly wasn't to do harm to his country's chances. It's naive and unhelpful to view the whole episode on a scale of such simplistic extremes, with one party viewed as absolutely "loyal" and in the right with the other viewed as "disloyal" and in the wrong. I'm not even sure a question of loyalty or disloyalty is wholly appropriate. If anything, it just seems like a way of fabricating some deeper significance or "crime" as a way of further undermining the party with which one disagrees in order to paint him as the "bad guy".

[ArdeeBhoy]

Is this debate really worth pursuing, more than ten years on though...
They both had faults, except one came out of this situation looking dignified and the other a dick. So what...

[tricky_colour]

Not quite. Different words have different connotations. To accuse someone of being disloyal would be to imply there was a degree of malicious intent behind their actions, or lack thereof. Whatever Mick's faults might have been, his intention certainly wasn't to do harm to his country's chances. It's naive and unhelpful to view the whole episode on a scale of such simplistic extremes, with one party viewed as absolutely "loyal" and in the right with the other viewed as "disloyal" and in the wrong. I'm not even sure a question of loyalty or disloyalty is wholly appropriate. If anything, it just seems like a way of fabricating some deeper significance or "crime" as a way of further undermining the party with which one disagrees in order to paint him as the "bad guy".

Well maybe that is the wrong word, seems I introduced it, but I think I read it elsewhere.
But to take issue with players. top players who need to look after themselves, not playing friendlies
is ridiculous. I expect when he did turn up at friendlies he at least had his boots with him.

[DannyInvincible]

In that case, why should any professional footballer be expected to turn up for an international friendly?

[tricky_colour]

In that case, why should any professional footballer be expected to turn up for an international friendly?

he shouldn't be, there are plenty of players who will turn up if he does not want to play, if they are good they might get a call up to for a proper cap,
sometime it may not be convenient, younger players tend to be keener, it's a new experience for them.
Older players may find the attraction has worn off, and anyway what have they to prove?
I mean presumable they have already shown they have what it takes at that level so particularly for
someone like Keane, what is the point? What will we learn about him? Nothing.
But players are different, some will love that kind of thing others not so much.
Presumable they get some sort of remuneration too, I mean I expect they get free food it nothing else!!!
Particular reassuring for people like Andy Reid!
I mean he has wasted away since he stopped playing for Ireland.

[DannyInvincible]

What sort of example does it set though? Should a player expect to be called into a competitive squad if he's picking and choosing when to show up for friendlies?

I suppose one thing it can prove would be a commitment and willingness to ensure the team is properly prepared for competitive fixtures.

For someone like Robbie, he seems to love playing for us, no matter what the status of the fixture happens to be. It probably gives him an immense sense of pride to represent his country.

[geysir]

Roy's perfectionism was admirable, but in spite of his high standards, I'm not sure he conducted himself in the most professional of manners. Also, it would be unfair to hold Mick responsible for what were FAI failings.
A perfectionism turned out-of-control-pathological, is nothing to admire.
It's ironic that his forced departure from Man U was almost a carbon copy of Saipan, ie, story according to Ferguson.

[BonnieShels]

How's Seamus Coleman doing these days?

[Closed Account 2]

Coleman's cutting the mustard.

[tricky_colour]

What sort of example does it set though? Should a player expect to be called into a competitive squad if he's picking and choosing when to show up for friendlies?
I suppose one thing it can prove would be a commitment and willingness to ensure the team is properly prepared for competitive fixtures.
For someone like Robbie, he seems to love playing for us, no matter what the status of the fixture happens to be. It probably gives him an immense sense of pride to represent his country.

It sets a good example ie that if you reach a high standard that you have more say in when you play.
By being in a top side he is playing more competitive games at a high level so will need more rest.
Seems sensible to me help ensure your best players remain injury free, pointless over playing them just
show commitment. Keeping yourself fit for top games is showing commitment.

Robbie had the extra incentive of chasing a caps record, plus our strikers often see little game play.

[DannyInvincible]

A perfectionism turned out-of-control-pathological, is nothing to admire.
It's ironic that his forced departure from Man U was almost a carbon copy of Saipan, ie, story according to Ferguson.

Perhaps. He's a complex individual and maybe the unbowing single-mindedness of his ambitions and endeavours proved his ultimate downfall as a player. I did note the similarities between the two incidents and, in hindsight, am willing to concede it certainly does Roy's character no favours.

But don't we all love a flawed genius?

No?...

Meh.

[DannyInvincible]

How's Seamus Coleman doing these days?

Good question! :p

He was spotted in the crowd at Killybegs' Donegal county final game against Glenswilly over the weekend: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/seamus-coleman-glenswilly-killybegs-game-025507350.html

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ULgQ2rMzNaQuH.ZcM5evQg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNDI7cT03NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/Journal.ie/79566ef7a84588086a534151cd62cf3c

Quare news round them parts!

[DannyInvincible]

It sets a good example ie that if you reach a high standard that you have more say in when you play.

Sounds a lot like spin, that; a mere excuse for indifference. If a team's leaders and elder members can't be bothered to do the nitty-gritty without having to fear the loss of their place, what motive is that for the younger players?


By being in a top side he is playing more competitive games at a high level so will need more rest.

Not necessarily. Compare Wigan's workload this season to that of a Premier League club. What would you make of a fit James McClean picking and choosing when to show up for us and then taking to Twitter to criticise his later omission from a competitive squad? By my reckoning, he'd have gotten his just desserts. (Not that I'm suggesting James would ever do this.)


Robbie had the extra incentive of chasing a caps record

Well, he's got that now. Yet, he still plays...

[tricky_colour]

Sounds a lot like spin, that; a mere excuse for indifference. If a team's leaders and elder members can't be bothered to do the nitty-gritty without having to fear the loss of their place, what motive is that for the younger players?

Not necessarily. Compare Wigan's workload this season to that of a Premier League club. What would you make of a fit James McClean picking and choosing when to show up for us and then taking to Twitter to criticise his later omission from a competitive squad? By my reckoning, he'd have gotten his just desserts. (Not that I'm suggesting James would ever do this.)

Well, he's got that now. Yet, he still plays...

But the teams leaders have done the nitty gritty, if necessary you can show them videos of Roy playing in friendlies when
he was younger and fitter.

The motive for younger players is to follow in his foot steps. I really do not see the big deal here.

McClean is playing at a lower level, easier games, he needs the experience of playing against international class players
Roy does not, he does it every week.

Older players tend to have more commitments too, you could be more forgiving of Stephen Ireland in that respect,
I think he did say something like it was easier for him to play now his children had grown up IIRC?

Yes Robbie has the cap record, but he will want to keep it, so there is still an incentive for him to keep playing.

[DannyInvincible]

So, you think a regular senior player would have a right to feel aggrieved if he was omitted from a competitive selection after turning down prior call-ups for friendly fixtures because he simply wasn't bothered?

[tricky_colour]

So, you think a regular senior player would have a right to feel aggrieved if he was omitted from a competitive selection after turning down prior call-ups for friendly fixtures because he simply wasn't bothered?

Depends on a number of factors, if he was irreplaceable (ie did a great job for us) definitely not, if he was sh1te, then best not call him up anyway.

The only thing that really matter to me is if they help us get results in competitive matches.

So basically I think he would have a right to feel aggrieved if he was doing the business in competitive matches
I would be very annoyed too, in fact I would want the manager sacked.

[Eminence Grise]

How's Seamus Coleman doing these days?

Who cares? I'm all a-quiver waiting for the next exciting post about... whatever the last barrage have been about.

[tricky_colour]

Gave away a penalty apparently


"Benteke, on the other hand, had been guilty of wastefulness in a lively opening first period.
Villa's top scorer, returning to the starting line-up after a hip injury, won the early penalty after being tripped in the penalty box by Seamus Coleman. The 22-year-old stepped up confidently, but Howard dived superbly to his right to tip the ball over the bar with his left hand. "

[DeLorean]

That show on Sky Sports, Barclays Premier League World, are doing a piece on Coleman's Irish football background next week. They are also following some dedicated Irish Liverpool fans from Dublin to a match at Anfield, or something along those lines.


Sky Sports 3
Thursday, 24th October @ 18:30


Here's the piece on Coleman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9nZjAoUlh4)

[paul_oshea]

Gave away a penalty apparently


"Benteke, on the other hand, had been guilty of wastefulness in a lively opening first period.
Villa's top scorer, returning to the starting line-up after a hip injury, won the early penalty after being tripped in the penalty box by Seamus Coleman. The 22-year-old stepped up confidently, but Howard dived superbly to his right to tip the ball over the bar with his left hand. "

Another penalty?

[tricky_colour]

Another penalty?

Well another refereeing error to be precise, the refs seem to have got it in for Coleman at the moment, dunno why.

Clearly a dive.

[paul_oshea]

The ref must have watched previous games where he did pull or push like me and then not objectively seen the actual offence and just made an assumption based on previous.

[Stuttgart88]

Today's ref must have read Paul's post.

Coleman very lucky not to be penalised for nudging down an opponent in the box. Similar to the others, he got too close from behind and on this occasion the opponent (Vertonghen?) slowed down, Coleman ran into the back of him and pushed him down. Not a heavy contact but a definite foul for me. Lucky boy.

Only saw the first half and McCarthy looked ordinary enough, again.

[DannyInvincible]

Coleman should have had a penalty himself after being hacked down onto his knees from behind in the box before swiftly regaining his footing to drag a deflected shot wide of the goal. The Spurs player (can't recall who it was now) made absolutely no contact whatsoever with the ball. Coleman's honesty of effort, or the fact he got up again so quickly to get a shot in rather than make the most of it, appears to have worked against his favour.

[paul_oshea]

Unfortunately for Coleman players aren't as honest as he is.they don't have that gaa background stop that soccer sh1te playacting attitude.

I do feel unless he changes he will cost us one yet. Hopefully it won't be too important of a game.

Everything I've seen so far of him has been pretty accurate.