Trapattoni - who would you replace him with?

[Charlie Darwin]

Could dahamsta afford the hosting fees such an appointment would bring about?

[geysir]

It would be a distraction from the antics of the panel.

[brine3]

442 was his ireland choice. It was his tried and trusted after a few other experimentations....thinking in particular against iceland and macedonia at home in wc98 quals and croatia away in euro 2000.

We were playing 4-5-2 when Roy Keane was on the pitch, how could we lose.

[back of the net]

We were playing 4-5-2 when Roy Keane was on the pitch, how could we lose. we wud get docked the 3points by fifa or uefa though

[Fixer82]

442 was his ireland choice. It was his tried and trusted after a few other experimentations....thinking in particular against iceland and macedonia at home in wc98 quals and croatia away in euro 2000.

Football has changed since then.
Very few international teams seem married to 4-4-2 any more. Plus we had Roy in the middle of the park commanding play and winning ball better than any irish midfielder has done since

[ArdeeBhoy]

It's all down to the manager though and their choice, rather than the current tactical fad. And hopefully someone who can get the best out of a rather limited squad.

[Crosby87]

Off topic but looks like Bob Bradley (Who guided the US to the top of the group over England in WC '10) Got the Sports Illustrated treatment. Glowing article, abject failure.
Article made it sound like he was pretty much the only sane voice in all of Egypt, and would take them to the WC amid all the death, after a home and home vs Ghana.
A bald american visiting cancer patients.
TBH I enjoyed it. I looked and Africa play is only six games?
Egypt were 6-0.
Now I look and Egypt lost 6-1 or something. To Ghana.
SI curse is real.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20131009/bob-bradley-egypt/

[ifk101]

Maybe time to change your name to Off Topic.

[Kingdom]

I think that might show what Strachan has brought to Scotland. They look a far better outfit than under Levein, as did Wales under Speed rather than Coleman. What all this suggests to me is that we don't need a genius tactician from some far flung land, we need someone who can motivate and organise with a decent understanding of the modern game. Does MCCarthy fit that bill?

I'm not so sure Stutts. Scotland have been quite a mess for a while, so there was really only one direction that Strachan was going to be able to take them. and while I'm going to seriously stereotype Croatia here, you would have to question their motivation in 2013 - they've taken 1 point from their last 4 group games, and still cantered to 2nd spot - which was sealed by beating Serbia back in March. That said it will be interesting to see how well they do in the next set of qualifiers.

Coleman is just a bad manager. It was always going to end badly with Wales, particularly when he didn't appear to be the choice of the players.

European football has become tougher since Mick resigned, certainly at International level. Remove Spain, Germany, Holland, Russia and probably Italy, and then remove San Marino, Luxembourg, Andorra, Liechtenstein and Malta (i.e. the incredibly strong and weak) and there really isn't a lot to choose from the 40 odd teams left when they are broken into the seedings. Lots of the second seeded teams would fancy themselves at England, Greece.

Even looking at our group this time out. Austria took us in Vienna, and Sweden too. Sweden took us in Dublin, while Kazakhstan did a number on both. That's been replicated throughout groups this past decade. We'll need motivation and organisation as you say, that's fair enough, but when the whole of Europe is playing some form of either 451/4321/4231 then we need a manager that is tactically savvy.
Mick struggled not because of the fall out over Saipan - he struggled because when faced with Hakan Yakin lying deep, and Loskov doing the same for Russia.

[Duggie]

im in the john giles school of thinking, formations arent that important IMO. 4-5-1, 4-4-2, 4-3-2-1 or whatever. it still amount to 11 v 11. you play it as you see it and if your good enough you will get your rewards. now every game is different and if you need to dig in you dig in but im with gilsey on the formation thing. football is a simple game, dont overthink it.

[back of the net]

Football has changed since then.
Very few international teams seem married to 4-4-2 any more. Plus we had Roy in the middle of the park commanding play and winning ball better than any irish midfielder has done since

All very fair points Fixer - i did allude earlier to the fact that we had alot of very good players in their pomp back then.

I always loved the Keane/kinsella partnership back in those days.

Football has changed and I guess this co-incides with Stutts earlier point in that can Mick adapt to deal with that.

On a seperate note : We are down one place to 60th in the rankings with Scortland now 25 places above us in 35th
http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_ranking

[ArdeeBhoy]

Yeah, but those rankings are so volatile...

[Stuttgart88]

Wouldn't it be great if Noel King's legacy was what he appealed for here?

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/ireland-team-is-not-the-enemy-noel-king-29667677.html

This is the first time in years proper rational debate has been encouraged.

[Stuttgart88]

im in the john giles school of thinking, formations arent that important IMO. 4-5-1, 4-4-2, 4-3-2-1 or whatever. it still amount to 11 v 11. you play it as you see it and if your good enough you will get your rewards. now every game is different and if you need to dig in you dig in but im with gilsey on the formation thing. football is a simple game, dont overthink it.I'm in between.

Formation isn't so much where players are on the pitch, it's what type of players are picked.

Let's take 4231 as an example.

The back 4 needs no explanation, although the role of the full backs is variable. Ideally they'll be getting forward.
The 2 refers to the fact that you've picked 2 midfielders who do their best work in deeper positions.
The 3 ought to mean that you have picked a predominantly central player who does his best work in the opponent's half: a Reid, Ireland, Hoolahan.
The other 2 in the 3 can either be orthodox wide players, or forwards playing wide-ish but not as wingers.
The 1 is most likely to be your best goalscorer, someone who does his best work in an around the penalty box.

So, that means you are not instructing players to hold positions, but if these players play to their strengths the team will have a certain type of balance to it. Most attacking will come from a diamond of the front 4, but good teams will also have one of the deeper two getting forward and also the full backs.

This type of balance would be different to 451. In 451 I interpret that as being a flatter midfield 3 and very definitely two wide players. This will naturally lead to a different type of play. It's more of a nuance but I think most people see 4231 as more fluid than 451, 451 being more dependent on using the full width of the pitch.

In a 442 you are playing with a central midfield pair, and either out-and-out wingers or wide midfielders (I always think of Robert Pires as an example of the latter).
The central midfield pair are likely to be one "ball winner" and one "ball user". The two are likely to have complementary attributes.
You'll have an orthodox front two and even if one was to drop deep to add an extra body in midfield this will bring a very different dynamic the play than having an Andy Reid "advanced playmaker" occupying the same part of the pitch.

Given how the game is played these days I think picking a 442, even if numerically it's 451 at times, means it's harder to make good use of the ball. No matter what "formation" is picked most teams have bodies behind the ball when the opposition has the ball and most teams these days will try to put pressure on the ball quickly. You then have the transition phase from being without the ball to having the ball. 4231 means you probably have better ball players and you can work the ball forward better. 442 lends itself more to having to play a longer pass to the front two.

So, in a nutshell, formation refers to the make-up of the team rather than a player occupying a certain place on the pitch by dictat.

Discuss...

[Duggie]

I'm in between.

Formation isn't so much where players are on the pitch, it's what type of players are picked.

Let's take 4231 as an example.

The back 4 needs no explanation, although the role of the full backs is variable. Ideally they'll be getting forward.
The 2 refers to the fact that you've picked 2 midfielders who do their best work in deeper positions.
The 3 ought to mean that you have picked a predominantly central player who does his best work in the opponent's half: a Reid, Ireland, Hoolahan.
The other 2 in the 3 can either be orthodox wide players, or forwards playing wide-ish but not as wingers.
The 1 is most likely to be your best goalscorer, someone who does his best work in an around the penalty box.

So, that means you are not instructing players to hold positions, but if these players play to their strengths the team will have a certain type of balance to it. Most attacking will come from a diamond of the front 4, but good teams will also have one of the deeper two getting forward and also the full backs.

This type of balance would be different to 451. In 451 I interpret that as being a flatter midfield 3 and very definitely two wide players. This will naturally lead to a different type of play. It's more of a nuance but I think most people see 4231 as more fluid than 451, 451 being more dependent on using the full width of the pitch.

In a 442 you are playing with a central midfield pair, and either out-and-out wingers or wide midfielders (I always think of Robert Pires as an example of the latter).
The central midfield pair are likely to be one "ball winner" and one "ball user". The two are likely to have complementary attributes.
You'll have an orthodox front two and even if one was to drop deep to add an extra body in midfield this will bring a very different dynamic the play than having an Andy Reid "advanced playmaker" occupying the same part of the pitch.

Given how the game is played these days I think picking a 442, even if numerically it's 451 at times, means it's harder to make good use of the ball. No matter what "formation" is picked most teams have bodies behind the ball when the opposition has the ball and most teams these days will try to put pressure on the ball quickly. You then have the transition phase from being without the ball to having the ball. 4231 means you probably have better ball players and you can work the ball forward better. 442 lends itself more to having to play a longer pass to the front two.

So, in a nutshell, formation refers to the make-up of the team rather than a player occupying a certain place on the pitch by dictat.

Discuss...

ya ok all good points but at any point in a game when your running around if you froze the pitch and looked at it would any of these formations look like how they do on paper. I suggest not. I understand its not just as simple as saying formations dont matter, its just i think some people seem to think there essential in modern football. Like for example if you have a 4-4-2 and you cant seem to get the ball back, almost naturally your strikers will tend to come back a bit to help out. thats not a science its just instinct. formations are a good talking point before a game but it just all depends on how a game pans out in front of you. get your best players on the pitch first and take it from there i say.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Think we're stating the obvious here people...

[Kingdom]

Really good work there Stuttgart. Your use of Pires as an example is perfect.

It's why I get annoyed by the cliché that our players play in the premiership. For me it's an irrelevance, as when they play for Ireland they will not be facing the same type of drudgery, physical and lightning quick football, it will be more technical, and tactical.
The new manager whoever he is, will need to decide that he wants to incorporate the best XI players and mould a system around them, or have a system that is best suited to international football and find the players for it. A mixture of the two will not work. And I personally thinks it's going to be a big problem in the immediate future.

I looked at match again yesterday (up to the 84th minute) and while a couple of the assumptions were confirmed, a few of my opinions changed too. Robbie Keane is our greatest goal-scorer. But I don't think that he comes close to being one of our greatest players, and I'll back that up by comparing him to Pippo Inzaghi (minus the ridiculous inability to navigate the offside law). Inzaghi is probably the greatest modern day goal-scorer Italy have had, but added zip-all in open play. Robbie isn't that bad, but I can appreciate both sides of the argument when someone feels he offered nothing but a poacher's instinct. Modern football has tended to weed that out in favour of more rounded forwards, and it's going to be a real conundrum for the next manager. I'll give examples too.
Three times during the game, Ireland had prolonged periods of possession (on two occasions the ball was worked up to the edge of the box, before going back to centre-half and back up to the box) and on all three occasions, the move broke down when Robbie came out to the area Reid would have been occupying to try and get involved. It was as clear as day, and was very frustrating. It wasn't even a case that he was trying a killer pass, twice he was actually struggling to pick and pass and was caught dawdling.

We ironically enough, have quite a few choices to make in the offensive areas of the team. Realistically, Keane, Long, Walters, Stokes, Reid, Hoolihan, McGeady, Brady and Pilkington are the immediate options to take 4 places of the team. That is a welcome conundrum. But I'd prefer to narrow that down. I don't believe that we can consider anything other than 4231 or 4321, and in the former I just don't think Andy Reid is the man to play as the central or advanced player of the 3. He is undoubtedly skillful, and has a wonderful eye for a shot, but I just don't think he is dynamic enough for the role. And that has nothing to do with fitness, it's to do with mobility and pace - what I would call the Totti role. I've always fancied McGeady for that spot, but who I'd really like to see get a run out in the position would be Stokes. Everyone assumed that the change in emphasis came when McGeady was introduced. I think it had as much to do with Stokes going central.

The boy is talented, quick, and skillful, but he doesn't have the winger mentality when he gets to the bye-line. I think Andy Reid might actually be suited to being part of the withdrawn 2, or if we went down the 4321 route, as the withdrawn central player or Pirlo role.
Watching the match back, the number of times that Gibson and McCarthy, and subsequently Whelan and Mac dovetailed with pretty little patterns was impressive, retaining and recycling possession, but when it came to the crucial final ball, a high proportion of the time the pass was cut out or went astray. Coincidently, all of Reid's good work was the slide rule ball, or spreading of the play, but it was too peripheral. I think if he drops back alongside McCarthy or alongside Gibson, then you might just have the ideal solution.
Couple that with Brady and I have to say McGeady on the flanks, and that is a cohesive, footballing collective that will rank alongside all of the other second,third and fourth seed nations. One stat that I collected the other night was that in the first half the ball was lost, or possession conceded 52 times, or approx 6 times in every 5 minute period. That's just when we had the ball. To me that seemed a high total. It got better in the second period, but only marginally, but the type of possession conceded was much better (i.e. blocked crosses leading to corners, rather than misplaced passes). I think withdrawing Reid deeper, would help with this.

A solution needs to be found for left-back asap. I appreciate the calls for Joey O'Brien, but it's no different to Wilson, and for me Wilson doesn't work there. It's not his natural position, and it's not one he's particularly good at. What annoyed me about Tuesday was that the manager thought it was more suitable to have Wilson at centre midfield/left of centre, with Kelly at left back against Germany, but then Wilson back at left back against Germany. I would look at the genuine left-footed left-backs, regardless of what level they are playing and try them out over the next 10 months. Cunningham, is the one I'd like to see a bit of faith put into.

[geysir]

Think we're stating the obvious here people...

You're stating your obvious and Stutts is stating his :)

[Kingdom]

ya ok all good points but at any point in a game when your running around if you froze the pitch and looked at it would any of these formations look like how they do on paper. I suggest not. I understand its not just as simple as saying formations dont matter, its just i think some people seem to think there essential in modern football. Like for example if you have a 4-4-2 and you cant seem to get the ball back, almost naturally your strikers will tend to come back a bit to help out. thats not a science its just instinct. formations are a good talking point before a game but it just all depends on how a game pans out in front of you. get your best players on the pitch first and take it from there i say.

Well, I'd counter that argument.
Against Germany, we picked a solid back 4, despite Germany not having a centre-forward. Which meant that Delaney and Clark were almost redundant until a ball came into the box despite us being under the cosh severly from the word go.
We all knew Germany were not going to have a centre-forward. That's why when I saw the team announcement I thought he might have done something quite unorthodox and had Delaney as the stopper (so to speak) with Clark and Wilson slightly ahead of him in a convoluted 532, which would have allowed them to push slightly out onto Muller, Ozil and Kroos. This would have really compacted the pitch, which is not what happened despite his narrow 4 in midfield supposed to be doing the same thing.

[Stuttgart88]

Think we're stating the obvious here people...Not to a lot of people it isn't. That's why I went to the bother. I'm always getting "but positions aren't fixed". The positions might be the same but the roles differ. 4411 with an Andy Reid in the first "1" is miles different to 442 with Robbie Keane dropping deep even if an aerial snapshot shows the same thing. Lots of people don't get that.

King made the point this morning that Germany's 70%+ possession wasn't a big issue. He said they were happy for them to have the ball away from our goal but that our plan was to nick the ball on the 6th or 7th pass and then counter, and King says he felt we did that well.

Whatever about his shortcomings I think most here would agree that he encouraged us to take a small step into the modern era of international football.

Kingdom, what would you think of Clark at left back?

[Stuttgart88]

get your best players on the pitch first and take it from there i say.I'd say that if we got our best players on the pitch there's almost no way would they naturally fill the positions that 442 describes. I also think it's too simple to say just get the best players on the pitch. You've got to think of the overall balance of the team. The best team may not necessarily contain all the best players.

[peadar1987]

I'd say that if we got our best players on the pitch there's almost no way would they naturally fill the positions that 442 describes. I also think it's too simple to say just get the best players on the pitch. You've got to think of the overall balance of the team. The best team may not necessarily contain all the best players.

Agree to a certain extent, if the best 8 players in the country were all nippy left wingers, I think the overall balance might suffer.

However, a team of Gary Breens, on the other hand...

[Kingdom]

For me it's another hexagon peg in a roundish hole. He played there against Uruguay and didn't do well, except his distribution was excellent.

Clark for me is a centre-half, but more than that, he's a leader. Does he make mistakes? yes he does. but he's quick, he is an animal in the air, and offers us a passing outlet at the back. If Duffy could make the breakthrough, they'd be potentially an excellent partnership, a tough sob on one side, and a player on the other.

I'd be interested to see McClean there, even if he is a nutjob. In the modern game, ignore England for the moment, the full back has to be a defender first and foremost, and comfortable on both feet, but crucially needs to be composed on the ball and a good distributor. I think you can get away with having a weaker player at full-back if he is intelligent enough and can be coached.

[paul_oshea]

Well, I'd counter that argument.
Against Germany, we picked a solid back 4, despite Germany not having a centre-forward. Which meant that Delaney and Clark were almost redundant until a ball came into the box despite us being under the cosh severly from the word go.
We all knew Germany were not going to have a centre-forward. That's why when I saw the team announcement I thought he might have done something quite unorthodox and had Delaney as the stopper (so to speak) with Clark and Wilson slightly ahead of him in a convoluted 532, which would have allowed them to push slightly out onto Muller, Ozil and Kroos. This would have really compacted the pitch, which is not what happened despite his narrow 4 in midfield supposed to be doing the same thing.

You have someone sitting deep like that behind then confusion compounds and playing offside becomes a big problem, it also allows for nifty balls over the top and drags Delaney all over the place, making room elsewhere. That wouldn't work against a team like Germany, I notice sweden scored 3 against them, they really do focus so much on attack. A really compact team sitting very deep with 2 very good wingers and a creative player in the middle can beat Germany, at least thats how i see it, had we something like that we might have scored a couple last week.

I'm begining to think the most important player is a Number 10, a world class number 10. And having seen Ibra in the flesh twice, when he is on it and in form, the outcome of the game is very different.

[Stuttgart88]

Kingdom, I'm not sure "McClean" and "intelligent" are hugely compatible terms.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Wasn't a go at you Stutts, but if people don't follow the basic precepts of football tactics, they need to learn them. And with respect, not from us.

Though tbf many 'football people', in my experience, are incapable of explaining succinctly.

[Razors left peg]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/ireland-become-antithesis-everything-roy-040224294.html

I think I agree with pretty much everything in this article

[Kingdom]

You have someone sitting deep like that behind then confusion compounds and playing offside becomes a big problem, it also allows for nifty balls over the top and drags Delaney all over the place, making room elsewhere. That wouldn't work against a team like Germany, I notice sweden scored 3 against them, they really do focus so much on attack. A really compact team sitting very deep with 2 very good wingers and a creative player in the middle can beat Germany, at least thats how i see it, had we something like that we might have scored a couple last week.

I'm begining to think the most important player is a Number 10, a world class number 10. And having seen Ibra in the flesh twice, when he is on it and in form, the outcome of the game is very different.

Quick question: when was the last time you saw a team specifically implement the offside law? It doesn't happen anymore, purely because have made it impossible to play properly.

I appreciate what you are saying, and maybe it wouldn't have worked with the personnel chosen, but what we did was this:


Coleman Clark Delaney Kelly
Schurrle
Muller
Ozil Kroos

Whelan Gibson Wilson Doyle
Schweinsteiger khedira
I]Janssen[/I] McCarthy Lahm

Boateng Stokes Mert

Which meant that there was only going to be pressure onto on the midfield, as we sacrificed two centre-backs as we withdrew deeper and deeper and left big gaps to exploit between the lines.

My point was that (using the players he picked) he could have made a difference by either doing a back three of

Kelly Delaney and Clark, and Coleman and Wilson deep wing-backs, which would have allowed Kelly pushing right to double up on Schurrle, Clark pushing left to double cover Lahm, and Delaney to man mark Muller.

If you switch Doyle and Stokes, so that Doyle is the top man, it leaves the middle three of Mac, Whelan and Gibson to effectively deal with Ozil Kroos, Basti and Khedira, with Stokes doing the sitting on Khedira.
We failed to deal with Lahm and Schurrle properly.

You reference the 10 position. It is definitely the main job now. But it's the play maker role, and it's not simply just off the main man now, it can be the Totti role, it can be the Pirlo role, the Schweinsteiger role.

[Stuttgart88]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/ireland-become-antithesis-everything-roy-040224294.html

I think I agree with pretty much everything in this articleI still think the debate about the 2-2 draw misses the point. We were hanging on by our fingernails at the end, we had no bench to draw on and even though it looked like we'd win for 40-odd minutes there was a spell where it was looking more like we'd lose. We barely touched the ball after their deflected winner. I think Keane was posing a bit afterwards, something he has been inclined to do. He's even admitted a lot of it was an act.

[Fixer82]

For the first time in a long time, over the last two matches, it was plain to see what our formation was.

Under Trap it was never too clear if we were 4-4-2 because we never had the ball. We just watched our lads chasing the other team and when they got near our goal it was a formation of 9-1 (Conor Sammon hanging around the centre circle)

[geysir]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/ireland-become-antithesis-everything-roy-040224294.html

I think I agree with pretty much everything in this article
Some points are good but way too much on a corny rehash of super hero Roy Keane pseudo philosophy about mediocrity - a player who was too good for us, our mediocrity got to him in the end, and we were not worthy to have him, etc etc :rolleyes:
And if a post match interviewer is thick enough to tag on a disparaging assessment of the strength of the opposition to a question, to a by then very príckly Irish manager, I would expect the idiot reporter to be rebuked and the Irish manager to pay proper respect to the opposition.
What a piece of turd it is when our manager is supposed to demonstrate that he does not stand for mediocrity by agreeing with "lets face it, the Kazakhs are not up to much, are they? we should be doing better than that" on post match tv.


He also does not know about some of the examples he uses.
There is no magic formula that countries have where the manager and players hold hands, think positive thoughts about their football prowess and banish mediocrity. It has taken some countries 8 to 10 years of hard work with transforming the way they coached and played the game.
Probably that goes for Switzerland these days, who are finally looking to show the football world the results of all their input with underage coaching, into the success of the current senior team.
Having a good manager is just one piece and no matter who we have, it's going to take time to instil a different game pattern to our play

[Emmet7]

We have the entire planet to choose from. Lets not rush to appoint a manager just because he has an Irish background or is a native English speaker.

Rushing to appoint a boss in time for next months friendlies is just pointless. We shouldn't be rushing to do anything.

Worldwide, would you put MON, Mick McCarthy or Roy Keane in the top 100 managers? Yet apparantly each of them are good enough for Ireland.

Lets get a good coach/manager - an ability to speak decent English would be nice but not essential. It certainly hasnt harmed the manager at Southampton whose English is extremely limited (although a lot of his players are spanish speaking).

[DeLorean]

I still think the debate about the 2-2 draw misses the point. We were hanging on by our fingernails at the end, we had no bench to draw on and even though it looked like we'd win for 40-odd minutes there was a spell where it was looking more like we'd lose. We barely touched the ball after their deflected winner. I think Keane was posing a bit afterwards, something he has been inclined to do. He's even admitted a lot of it was an act.

Having an overriding feeling of relief at full time would have been reasonable enough, but celebrating a 2-2 draw after being 2-0 up did have an air of an inferiority complex about it. I have no problem with Keane over stressing this point and trying to induce a winning mentality, even if it was partially an act.

[OwlsFan]

Having an overriding feeling of relief at full time would have been reasonable enough, but celebrating a 2-2 draw after being 2-0 up did have an air of an inferiority complex about it. I have no problem with Keane over stressing this point and trying to induce a winning mentality, even if it was partially an act.

I don't remember anyone "celebrating" the 2-2 draw. Managers don't wring their hands and berate the players when they get a draw like that. They try to put a gloss on it otherwise they lose the dressing room. Not something I think Keane ever learned. I, like most Irish fans coming out of the ground, was disappointed we couldn't hold on to the win but was happy to take the draw in the end. I didn't see anyone "celebrating". The usual "I would have taken a point" before the game stuff but that's what you say to mask disappointment.

As for Kingdom saying "Keane (Robbie) is FAR from being our best player ever", I find that bizarre. He is not one of the greatest strikers in the world but he is by a long shot our greatest striker. Without scoring goals, you do not win games. Football is about winning games (well for me it is - not the aesthetics of the game as obviously I wouldn't otherwise be following Sheffield Wednesday). It is the most important position on the field since midfielders, wingers and defenders usually only score a handful between them. It is a huge talent to be able to read a game, be in the right place at the right time and then be able to finish. THAT is TALENT. It is a talent no other Irish forward has come close to having. Try putting any of the other Irish players you say are greater players than Robbie in his position and see how many goals they come up with. It is unique to him and he still never gets the credit he deserves . He is truly one of our greatest players ever.

[Charlie Darwin]

Robbie is our greatest player ever, in my opinion. In terms of technique and having that awful buzz-word "x-factor", he is far and away above anyone we've ever had, including Roy, Brady, Giles, etc. McGrath was a totally different player and the only one who comes close, I think. I really think if Keane wasn't such a homebird (by which I mean living in England, close enough to go home whenever he liked), he'd have excelled on the continent. It's no coincidence he's done better in international football than he did in the pace and power-fuelled Premier League.

[eekers]

We're gonna qualify for Euro 2016 with its stupid new qualifying format regardless who is manager.
So its time to go for broke and build something for the future.
Martin O'Neill and his boring football isn't the answer. He's never played with passing midfielders.
Mick McCarthy though a lovely fella is just a step back to the past.

Roy Keane is never gonna get it and it probably not the answer anyway.
Hughton isnt gonna leave his Premier League job.

But out there is a manager who Pep Guardiola reckons is the best in the world. He turned Chile into one of the most watchable teams in the world, finishing level on points with Spain in their World Cup group. Then he made Bilbao into one of the most exciting clubs in Europe, with a magnificent run to the Europa League final devastating Manchester United along the way. We could go the boring route and bring Mick back or we could go for broke and bring in Bielsa. The guys loves managing underdogs and is suited to international football. There's nothing to lose here as the Euro 2016 qualifying is a joke.

[gastric]

Charlie, can't agree with you about our greatest player ever, but all to their own choice. I remember McGrath as a freak, who with two shot knees, held a very mediocre Villa defence together and shone brightly on so many occasions for Ireland. Robbie is without doubt, our greatest striker and probably will be for a very long time. I do remember when people were shocked when big Niall forecast that Robbie would eclipse his record of goalscoring for Ireland, he has certainly demolished it!

Guardiola for Ireland? The reality is the sheer cultural difference in football philosophy would mean too much of a change by him and the Irish team, to be successful. It would end in tears. I think Mick has proven that he can put out a team which plays attractive football, Japan /Korea, showed this, and when necessary we played hoofball, like when big Niall helped Robbie equalise against Germany.

The controversy with Roy is history which would also help Mick.

Just on a sidenote, the Australians are now questioning their philosophy of following a Dutch style of football as they believe it has not helped them produce quality players. The point that is made here is that you can't impinge a style of play developed in one country directly to another. Worth considering in relation to the debate about our style of football.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/dutch-model-failed-us-exais-official-20131017-2vpsy.html

[Fixer82]

Guardiola for Ireland? The reality is the sheer cultural difference in football philosophy would mean too much of a change by him and the Irish team, to be successful. It would end in tears. I think Mick has proven that he can put out a team which plays attractive football, Japan /Korea, showed this, and when necessary we played hoofball, like when big Niall helped Robbie equalise against Germany.

The controversy with Roy is history which would also help Mick.


http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/dutch-model-failed-us-exais-official-20131017-2vpsy.html

He didn't say Guardiola for Ireland, he said Bielsa

[gastric]

He didn't say Guardiola for Ireland, he said Bielsa

Apologies, but I feel the same sentiment about him too!

[DeLorean]

I don't remember anyone "celebrating" the 2-2 draw.

Well they were embracing each other at the end looking pretty chuffed with themselves. There was no somersaults if that's what you mean.

Let's just say it was Germany, or even England. I'm sure they would have happily taken a point from an opening game in Amsterdam also. However, if they went into a 2-0 and ended up holding on for a draw in the end I don't think they have looked very pleased afterwards, even if they were a bit relieved.

[Kingdom]

I'm not a knocker of Keane. Do the Germans consider Der Bomber to be their greatest ever player? or Klose?
What about Linekar for England? I don't believe so.

Is Robbie our greatest striker ever? Yes, without a shadow of a doubt.

[Kingdom]

Try putting any of the other Irish players you say are greater players than Robbie in his position and see how many goals they come up with. It is unique to him and he still never gets the credit he deserves . He is truly one of our greatest players ever.

That statement is more bizarre than what I said! I could easily say to you, Paul McGrath was our greatest ever player; try putting Robbie Keane in his position and see how many clean sheets we'd come off with.

If you're put out by my putting "FAR" into the statement fair enough. He's definitely in the top ten. But just off the top of my head, I'd have Brady, McGrath, Giles and his namesake ahead of him.

[SwanVsDalton]

I'm not a knocker of Keane. Do the Germans consider Der Bomber to be their greatest ever player? or Klose?
What about Linekar for England? I don't believe so.

Is Robbie our greatest striker ever? Yes, without a shadow of a doubt.

The Germans and English have considerably more options. How many players would we realistically consider for our best ever? Five, maybe.

Keane's intelligence, ability and influence stands up to any of them.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Meanwhile elsewhere, someone is till trying to flog the proverbial can of dog food. And being shot down.
http://www.wsc.co.uk/forum-index/27-football/833444-delaney-out?limit=20&start=460

[geysir]

I wonder why do some of them at (WSC) think Delaney is manipulating the appointment of McCarthy?
What does Delaney do to effect that?
something subliminal? employ extra terrestrials with mind control powers who whisper 'Mick is the man' into their (Rudd and Ray) ears.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Could be down to an aspect of 'control-freakery' by JD. Maybe he perceives MMcC.as more of a 'Yes' man?

[brine3]

I wonder why do some of them at (WSC) think Delaney is manipulating the appointment of McCarthy?
What does Delaney do to effect that?
something subliminal? employ extra terrestrials with mind control powers who whisper 'Mick is the man' into their (Rudd and Ray) ears.

You are deluded if you think that Ruud and Ray have any say in the final decision.

[brine3]

Meanwhile elsewhere, someone is till trying to flog the proverbial can of dog food. And being shot down.
http://www.wsc.co.uk/forum-index/27-football/833444-delaney-out?limit=20&start=460

That's it. I'm not posting here any more. You are freaking me out.

[Stuttgart88]

You are deluded if you think that Ruud and Ray have any say in the final decision.They won't have a say in the decision but it's their remit to suggest the shortlist.

[geysir]

You are deluded if you think that Ruud and Ray have any say in the final decision.

The premise for that part in the discussion was established with this gem and not challenged by a later reply
"This (McCarthy) is not a good move and it's typical of Delaney, who is too stupid and lazy to go out and look for someone better."

Is it a national school debate society? I suppose there are some mitigating circumstances existing.