Martin O'Neill and Roy Keane

[Charlie Darwin]

Good article. And he's right!! Paul Green played very well that night against Sweden. I always felt he got a bit of a raw deal from fans. I remember him being our man of the match in an early O'Neill friendly against Bulgaria(?) too. There have been much worse players to pull on the green jersey. Also felt Darron Gibson was out of order for, perhaps inadvertently, singling him out in Euro 2012.
Algeria I think. His debut?

[Fixer82]

Algeria I think. His debut?

No, sure he was at Euro 2012 when Trap was manager. His debut was in a friendly in the RDS just before the World Cup that Henry ensured we didn't qualify for

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Pretty sure Green made his debut against Algeria and scored. Think we played Paraguay in the other game of a double header before the 2010 World Cup.

Personally thought he looked average enough in the game, goal aside.

Sweden is probably one of the only games where Green looked serviceable imo.

[tetsujin1979]

Green's debut was against Paraguay, his first start was against Algeria. Nearly knocked himself unconscious with the goal too.

[DeLorean]

Might be best not trying to explain this one Marty :love:

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13516190_1454897157869141_3569884376105002156_n.jp g?oh=035e3d6f72ef84e8e1c10323e9adeacd&oe=58093739

[DeLorean]

Martin O’Neill thinks critics are missing the point (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/soccer/martin-oneill-thinks-critics-are-missing-the-point-419742.html)


And FAI are looking into arranging a friendly for November.

[DeLorean]

New deals agreed (http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2016/0923/818647-ireland-squad-v-georgia-moldova/)

[DeLorean]

This might not go down too well with some of the purists on here :)

Clough's principles still hold key to success - but it's not all about attacking, says O'Neill (http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/cloughs-principles-still-hold-key-to-success-but-its-not-all-about-attacking-says-oneill-35096131.html)

[geysir]

This might not go down too well with some of the purists on here :)

Clough's principles still hold key to success - but it's not all about attacking, says O'Neill (http://Clough's principles still hold key to success - but it's not all about attacking, says O'Neill)

Indeed it doesn't go down well. When I click on a link, I like it to open into the relevant page.
Yet another example of very sloppy standards infecting this discussion board.
Somehow you managed to annihilate the link with your paste action.:)

[DeLorean]

Oops... fixed.

[OwlsFan]

Not a happy bunny with these guys. I thought selecting Brady in the hole when we had Hoolahan was a wrong call and they did nothing about it after one of the most turgid first halves I have witnessed for a long time. Surely Brady's strength is crossing not slide rule passes and dominating possession. Only substitutions made were forced upon them. Bringing on O'Shea to hold on to a 1-0 against Georgia was only going to invite more pressure which duly materialised. I waited for and was duly rewarded with the usual press conference by O'Neill talking up the opposition. Also is there an issue with Arter which possibly they are not handling too well ?

I am of course happy with the result and that's all that matters at the end of the day but are we really witnessing Trap II the sequel ?

[Stuttgart88]

Well said Owls Fan.

[DeLorean]

I hadn't been that deflated since Glasgow, but at least things improved a bit after that game. I was slightly encouraged by O'Neill's interview, in that he did realise himself that it was awful. Okay, he talked the opposition up a little but also accepted our own failings and didn't just point to the result as he had done in Serbia. We somehow have four points when we really should have zero.

[Kingdom]

I hadn't been that deflated since Glasgow, but at least things improved a bit after that game. I was slightly encouraged by O'Neill's interview, in that he did realise himself that it was awful. Okay, he talked the opposition up a little but also accepted our own failings and didn't just point to the result as he had done in Serbia. We somehow have four points when we really should have zero.

I know what you're saying, and I agree with it. But if I said to you that we should really have 6 instead of four, I don't think I'd be wrong either. A different mindset of a manager would have won in Belgrade. At this level, with a squad of players long exposed to the routine of international football, to get the start we got in Belgrade and capitulated before showing extreme testicular fortitude, is not good enough.

The buck stops with the manager. Part of me hoped last year he'd leave for pastures new, and even an enjoyable Euro's hasn't changed that. If anything, the Belgian performance probably compounded it.

[pineapple stu]

I don't know if we "should" have lost last night necessarily. Arguably a draw was a fair result. We both hit the woodwork. They had the two best chances other than that (shot wide on the turn late in the first half, and Randolph's save at the near post shortly after); we had a goal disallowed. The goal that was scored was a bizarrely scrappy goal. So while we deserved to win on the basis of scoring a goal where they didn't, I think on the balance of play, a draw would have been the fairest result. So I think we should be on 1 point after the first two games, but here we are on 4.

[DeLorean]

I'd look at it more like we could and probably should have been 0-2 down at half time. The shot on the spin and the one where they hit crossbar and post, in particular, as well as Randolph's save just before half time. The one at his near post was going wide anyway to be fair. Would we have come back from 0-2 down? Maybe, but unlikely. We had a couple of chances in the second half but the game had taken on a different kind of context by then and McClean's goal was rightly disallowed so no arguments there. Simply put, they were clearly the better team overall I thought.

[pineapple stu]

I don't think you can say we should have been 2-0 down because they had two chances though.

We probably deserved to be 1-0 down, and then shaded the second half - scored, hit the post, had another ruled out, I presume correctly, though it was tight?

I don't know who was the better team overall. I think either way, to have been the better team of the two on the night isn't a particularly high accolade.

[DeLorean]

I know what you're saying, and I agree with it. But if I said to you that we should really have 6 instead of four, I don't think I'd be wrong either. A different mindset of a manager would have won in Belgrade.

Could have won, maybe, we'll never know. I'm not defending the way we played, how could I, but there are really no guarantees that the result would have been any better if we had only come out of our shell a bit more. Serbia would probably have welcomed us trying to play a bit. I can see why people say they were there for the taking but so were we, as we always are really against decent opposition. I think when two fairly evenly matched teams play each other the away side is always going to be fairly content with a point, especially when they equalise with a few minutes left. We were so bad that we just don't know what would have happened if the approach/performance had been different, it would have just been a completely different game all round.

I don't really think we have any grounds for assuming we'd have taken them if we'd just got the finger out, passed the ball around and went at them. We might have, or we might have went home with a moral victory for our performance and no points on the board, like Scotland in Germany that time (not that I'm comparing Serbia to Germany). One point very much gained for me, but that has been discussed to death with Paul o'Shea and co. in fairness who are firmly in agreement with you on this.

Just thinking back to the B&H away game in the fog, did we play well that night, or was everybody just happy with the positive result despite us never remotely threatening their goal before or after Brady scored? I'm not sure what my point is exactly but there seems to be a far bigger outrage with regards the Serbia game. I was and still am willing to forgive the performance in Belgrade, there were some factors in our favour but overall I think it was a very difficult early season assignment, bit of a Euro hangover, playing a side that have been waiting for this game for basically a year or more, horrible pitch, etc.

I'd be much less forgiving about the approach and performance last night, and indeed the unwillingness to try to rectify it. Following his interview and the interviews with some of the players though, I would concede that at least O'Neill didn't send the team out to play like that. It may still have been a cave man approach, but at the very least he would have expected a higher and more intensive press where we would cause them problems and, crucially I think from his point of view, win set pieces where Clark and Duffy might flourish. I don't think there's anything O'Neill could say to convince me that he was right not to start Hoolahan though, that was probably the most soul destroying thing for me. I thought we had moved on from that sort of conservatism, in the home games at least.


The buck stops with the manager. Part of me hoped last year he'd leave for pastures new, and even an enjoyable Euro's hasn't changed that. If anything, the Belgian performance probably compounded it.

I'm slow to get on his back too much. By hook or by crook he seemed to eventually find a system that suited us near the end of the last qualification campaign, basically the kind of diamond thing with an out of position McCarthy and two up front. He delivered our best result in years against Germany and followed it up with a very good playoff win and a solid Euros, Belgium game aside. I don't think it can be overstated how badly we needed that win over Germany or the restoration of some pride at the Euros after our awful campaign in Poland. It seems like a couple of steps backwards at the moment but at least he shows the willingness to adapt and change after we play poorly. We should have a more settled side by now though, it's still a bit all over the place, as it is tactically.

Typed much more than I intended there - some of it is replying to you, but most of it is general waffle, just so you know. :)

[Stuttgart88]

The only possible defence of not picking Hoolahan I can think of is his seeming inability to play 2 games in 4 days. Maybe MON thought we could spare him at home to Georgia and use him away to good effect against a weaker Moldova. Just a guess...

[pineapple stu]

The lack of Hoolahan surprised me alright - especially when Brady went off injured. Hoolahan was the logical replacement, not Whelan, a holding mid (even if Hendrick ultimately took Brady's position)

But Hoolahan has previously been used more in the home games than the away games - so I don't understand why he'd now play in Moldova and not against Georgia.

I presume Brady is out injured for Sunday btw? That'll be one forced change, and maybe Hoolahan will come back in. But wouldn't be too sure.

[DeLorean]

Yeah, I think he should have played last night though as it was the tougher looking fixture. I presume he would have come on if Coleman hadn't scored when he did maybe. It's worked out okay I guess, luckily, especially with Brady absent the next day.

[John83]

The lack of Hoolahan surprised me alright - especially when Brady went off injured. Hoolahan was the logical replacement, not Whelan, a holding mid (even if Hendrick ultimately took Brady's position)
Were they experimenting with Hoolahan's age in mind? He's not going to be available beyond this campaign, given they talked him out of retiring in the summer.

[Razors left peg]

Last night was just more of the same, don't know why we are even surprised anymore.

We always play at the level of the team we are playing against, crap against crap teams and then raise our game for the bigger ones. Its been the same for years.

3 points are important and Im still confident we will qualify from this group.

[OwlsFan]

As I watched the Wales v Georgia name, I had to ponder once again why so called lesser teams can still produce players who are far more comfortable on the ball than Irish and UK players. However, put the Georgian players in the Championship or EPL and they'd be warming the bench after 3 or 4 games and then be transferred to some Russian or local team for a modest fee. Georgia outplayed Wales yesterday and looked as if they had a team of Wes Hoolahans. Wales huffed and puffed like we did against Georgia and without Bale they were very much second best.

The reason I am putting this comment in the MON/Keane thread, is that I had earlier berated MON in the thread for talking up the opposition. I was wrong. Georgia were really excellent against Wales despite going one behind early doors (as they say in football circles) and based on their performance the 3 points for us looks great although I now fear for the away leg where Austria came away with 3 points but like Georgia, they can keep the ball and can do it slightly better. It is strange though that none of their players would make it in the EPL and yet can pass a ball better than most there which tends one to believe that passing a ball is only one minor element in football. Courage, heart, determination, physicality, will to win etc are all equally important but I still have to scratch my head as to why UK based players struggle to pass a ball. If they ever get the hang of it combined with those other attributes, teams from these islands could be very difficult to beat. Dundalk are on the way to becoming one of those teams!

[tetsujin1979]

According to various reviews of Austria's win in Georgia, Austria went two up then Geogria battered them for the rest of the game, and were lucky to escape with the win

[geysir]

I wouldn't go with battered but Georgia were a match for Austria, though those 3 points for Austria means we have to beat Austria at home.
After just a few games this group has been turned on it's head and that type of scrap suits us .....and Mo'N (inserted for thread relevancy).

[paul_oshea]

According to various reviews of Austria's win in Georgia, Austria went two up then Geogria battered them for the rest of the game, and were lucky to escape with the win

The crossbar seems to be their biggest foe at the moment. Prevented an equaliser against austria in the dying minutes, against going ahead v us, against taking the lead in a dominant 20 minute spell against Wales on Sunday.

Austria have the advantage thus far with 3 points in Georgia. Still we get them at the end of the campaign when they are usually far off the pace and lose interest, a manager who could be fired by that stage hopefully. Weiss has them playing decent, believe-in-themselves football.

[DeLorean]

Very similar to the last campaign so far, seven points from nine and the group favourites have dropped five points early on. We've won the two games we'd have hoped to win like last time and drawn one where the majority would have been happy with a point when the draw was made (I think). Hopefully Vienna won't be our 'Glasgow moment', but knowing us it'll hardly be plain sailing.

[geysir]

The crossbar seems to be their biggest foe at the moment. Prevented an equaliser against austria in the dying minutes, against going ahead v us, against taking the lead in a dominant 20 minute spell against Wales on Sunday.

Austria have the advantage thus far with 3 points in Georgia. Still we get them at the end of the campaign when they are usually far off the pace and lose interest, a manager who could be fired by that stage hopefully. Weiss has them playing decent, believe-in-themselves football.
Georgia usually far off the pace at the end of a campaign??
In their last major home game for Eur 2016 qual they beat Scotland and played as if their lives depended upon the result.
And in their last away game, they frightened the lard out of Germany, coming close to consigning them to the ignominy of the play offs..
Anyway, we go to Georgia with 3 games left afterwards.

But I suppose that info only strengthens your point :)

[BonnieShels]

In fairness Georgia are one of those teams that we just seem to always beat despite being up against it. The game last week and the McGeady match in the last campaign being stand outs of that.

It's like how I viewed Cyprus before Stan.

[paul_oshea]

we generally overcame cyprus a lot easier than them though, and cyrpus have improved since the start of stans time in fairness.

@Geysir i didnt mean the last game but towards the end of qualifying, they did beat scotland and got results similar against scotland at home before, maybe they are scotlands bogey team and scotland are their certs, a bit like Italy in the 6n, but generally they seem to go off the pace towards the end. Germany did as germany needed to do in that qualifying campaign, just enough. They look a different prospect this time around as Low has set them out to qualify as quickly as possible unlike their last campaign.

[geysir]

we generally overcame cyprus a lot easier than them though, and cyrpus have improved since the start of stans time in fairness.

@Geysir i didnt mean the last game but towards the end of qualifying, they did beat scotland and got results similar against scotland at home before, maybe they are scotlands bogey team and scotland are their certs, a bit like Italy in the 6n, but generally they seem to go off the pace towards the end. Germany did as germany needed to do in that qualifying campaign, just enough. They look a different prospect this time around as Low has set them out to qualify as quickly as possible unlike their last campaign.
Georgia's record in qual campaigns is reasonably consistent, they have a record of being competitive to the end and at home have taken points not just from Scotland but also from better teams than Scotland. Seeing as they look a good deal better team now than previous and we will be meeting them at their peak, the odds are that we are going to have a very tough game there. Also they should have picked up a couple of wins by then.
It's different for Georgia than say for us, if our campaign was realistically over "early doors", apathy would surely set in, like we had in those dead rubber games v Cyprus and Wales.
What's in our favour v Georgia this time is not football supremacy or realistic qual hopes but history, an incredible string of victories, we are their plague.

[BonnieShels]

we generally overcame cyprus a lot easier than them though, and cyrpus have improved since the start of stans time in fairness.

@Geysir i didnt mean the last game but towards the end of qualifying, they did beat scotland and got results similar against scotland at home before, maybe they are scotlands bogey team and scotland are their certs, a bit like Italy in the 6n, but generally they seem to go off the pace towards the end. Germany did as germany needed to do in that qualifying campaign, just enough. They look a different prospect this time around as Low has set them out to qualify as quickly as possible unlike their last campaign.

So it stands that my humble opinion of Cyprus since Stan's time would correlate with this assertion of yours then? :P


Georgia's record in qual campaigns is reasonably consistent, they have a record of being competitive to the end and at home have taken points not just from Scotland but also from better teams than Scotland. Seeing as they look a good deal better team now than previous and we will be meeting them at their peak, the odds are that we are going to have a very tough game there. Also they should have picked up a couple of wins by then.
It's different for Georgia than say for us, if our campaign was realistically over "early doors", apathy would surely set in, like we had in those dead rubber games v Cyprus and Wales.
What's in our favour v Georgia this time is not football supremacy or realistic qual hopes but history, an incredible string of victories, we are their plague.


That's a very good point to consider alright.

[DeLorean]

I only came across this now. Good work from the42.ie I think. I wouldn't have any recollection of the pre-Charlton years so I found it interesting at least.

Did Ireland actually play good football before the Jack Charlton era? (http://www.the42.ie/ireland-actually-lay-good-football-before-charlton-3022693-Oct2016/)

[OwlsFan]

Certainly it was high tempo stuff under Hand but with the ball more than not on the deck. However, under Giles it was painfully slow and the crowd didn't take to it at all, especially with centre-backs losing possession in front of goal with dire consequences on at least one occasion I can remember. I think some supporters showed their displeasure by booing. It wasn't attractive football with the methodical possession playing style which could involve many passes across defence and midfield but made little territorial ground, especially in the latter part of his management career but he did early on have the great 3-0 win over the Soviets and a 4-0 over Turkey which still live in the memory.

As ever, as regards playing styles, unless you have Messi, you're better off mixing your game. The truth is that sometimes we do try and play it out from the back but 90% of the time it goes back to the keeper for the hoof. Why ? I watched Owls v Huddersfield yesterday. Two teams in the English Championship both tried to play on the floor. The latter have a German manager and the owners hired him so that the club can play the "German way" and they're doing ok. Wednesday have a Portuguese manager who also likes to play one touch football but they also mix it rather than being one dimensional. The trouble (if one can call it that), is that the Irish players are not encouraged to pass the ball. In a handful of games they have shown they can do it and despite the stick Whelan and McCarthy get, they are both well capable of it but players have to be moving and looking for the ball rather than running away from it. It's too late to build a team around Wes now but we have players, including Arter, who can pass a ball when encouraged but if we keep winning I am not that bothered but I would like us to be able to play both styles - they are not mutually exclusive. The players just need encouragement and practice.

[geysir]

Under Hand, the goalie hoofed the ball most every time. Most every time, the "continental" side would play it out from the back. Hand really had not a clue at this level to add that bit of nous when it was needed.
The best team we ever had was wasted.

[geysir]

I only came across this now. Good work from the42.ie I think. I wouldn't have any recollection of the pre-Charlton years so I found it interesting at least.

Did Ireland actually play good football before the Jack Charlton era? (http://www.the42.ie/ireland-actually-lay-good-football-before-charlton-3022693-Oct2016/)

I don't think whoever wrote that article actually watched a whole game and took note of what transpired.
Most everytime our goalie hoofed it up front but the players could play it out from the back.
Look at the first 15 minutes of this away game v belgium 1981, the one where the (bribed) ref was the one who was supposed to have fck us up,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dwrUr0MpBfU#t=241
The players could play but there was zero effective game plan input from the manager, he even admitted this himself, no matter how good the players were they needed a better manager to guide things along.

This bit from the article in particular not just defies belief but it is just plain ignorant, Stapleton was an established international before Hand came onboard as well as being a class player
"It’s hard to say exactly why Ireland failed under Hand, though a lack of top-class player up front probably didn’t help. Ireland’s two strikers against the Soviets that day, Walsh and Robinson, were not prolific scorers at international level, managing just seven goals in 45 appearances between them. Even though a more acclaimed frontman in the form of Man United’s Frank Stapleton came into the side later on in the campaign, it was generally agreed that the squad never had any proper depth until the Charlton years."

There were 2 radically different campaigns with Hand, the second disintegrated, an excellent team under a hopeless manager.

Charton was a massive upgrade from what Eoin Hand offered but he inherited a squad good enough to qualify he just added 2 good players to it, Brady was ultimately suspended and injured.
But I regard it as banal to claim that we had to play hoofball and we couldn't play an other type of football and be successful, based on what Eoin Hand failed with.

[geysir]

That was 1981, we were a team composed of players who could play football (except Mick Martin) but with no coherent football plan and that was against a highly rated belgium team who were 2nd or 3rd in Europe then and despite having no plan we could still make them sweat.

To answer owl's contention about boring Johnny Giles.
Here's a home game v France 1977 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXhLeRWKMsY)
where the tempo was just pitch perfect, note the goalie throws it out to the full back most every time, sometime we lost it but we took on what was then one of the best teams in the world and beat them playing football. We were maybe next to bottom seed.
I also don't abide by using Charlton as justifying hoofball or justifying we can't play it technical like. What is most always forgotten about Charlton is him saying 'i want our football to be played in their half' and when that was done it was a sight to behold, to have the other team pinned back in their own half.

[Stuttgart88]

Wembley 1991

[OwlsFan]

That was 1981, we were a team composed of players who could play football (except Mick Martin) but with no coherent football plan and that was against a highly rated belgium team who were 2nd or 3rd in Europe then and despite having no plan we could still make them sweat.

To answer owl's contention about boring Johnny Giles.
Here's a home game v France 1977 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXhLeRWKMsY)
where the tempo was just pitch perfect, note the goalie throws it out to the full back most every time, sometime we lost it but we took on what was then one of the best teams in the world and beat them playing football. We were maybe next to bottom seed.
I also don't abide by using Charlton as justifying hoofball or justifying we can't play it technical like. What is most always forgotten about Charlton is him saying 'i want our football to be played in their half' and when that was done it was a sight to behold, to have the other team pinned back in their own half.

I don't deny that there were some great results under Giles but some of the play eventually became very sterile and boring and hence the boos from the crowd. It is interesting that you exclude Mick Martin from among those who could play football. I believe that it was he who gave the ball away against the Swiss in 1975 while playing a pass across the box, a game we lost 1-0 I think.

Don't forget Jack's team were also the bottom or second from bottom seed when he first came to the party. When people say we could have won dis, dat and d'udder if Charlton had played a different style, England played the passing game with, by and large, mostly better players and they won....? In a group with England, the Dutch Masters and the Soviet Union, we were a few minutes away from a Euro Semi-Final. Would we have beaten England, drawn with the Soviets and narrowly lost to the Dutch playing a different style ? I don't believe we would but agree that it is just speculation. Could we have played possession football with a back 4 of McCarty, Moran, Morris and Houghton ? We might but I would have been looking at it through my fingers :)

[OwlsFan]

Why pick a fight with Ronald Koeman ? I don't get it. It's a no win situation as the club will always prevail over the international side, as it did notably in Keane's career on many an occasion. What is to be gained by having a pop at Everton except to raise their hackles ?

[Diggs246]

Yeah agreed not helpful. Trying to patronise Everton the club which our players play at the highest level in the premier league , it just doesn't help. He pulled out of international games himself and played in the next Man U match.

[Charlie Darwin]

It was Koeman that picked the fight I'm fairly sure. MON and Keane are fully entitled to defend themselves.

Plus it gave him the chance to make the very valid point that the Irish players' injuries are probably down to the intensive training they do at Everton rather than Ireland.

[OwlsFan]

It was Koeman that picked the fight I'm fairly sure. MON and Keane are fully entitled to defend themselves.

Plus it gave him the chance to make the very valid point that the Irish players' injuries are probably down to the intensive training they do at Everton rather than Ireland.

I know that Koeman was the instigator, but sometimes, as we all know in life, it is better not to react when provoked especially in a no win situation. Is the attack on Koeman and Everton more likely to make the players more available or less available? I know the answer to that if we're talking about human nature.

[Charlie Darwin]

Well I don't think it's likely to make them less available then might as well have a pop. I like the *****ly side to MON and Keane. I'd say it plays well with the players too.

[geysir]

I think it's good that the management team are trying to get our players to 'man-up' to their clubs when it comes to the honour of representing their country. We use to have players whinging about how our facilities were not like they had at their clubs, how our players would be offered cheese sandwiches and cold pizza for fuel, how they would have to train on a bumpy pitch where the cones were out of alignment and then to cap it all, our goalies belonged to another trade union. We even use to have players bunking off in the early hours to skulk back to their master and playing for their club instead of country. All in the past now thank God.

[DeLorean]

Martin O'Neill talks to Off The Ball (http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Off_The_Ball_Highlights/167261/Martin_ONeill_speaks_to_OTB)

[OwlsFan]

I think it's good that the management team are trying to get our players to 'man-up' to their clubs when it comes to the honour of representing their country. We use to have players whinging about how our facilities were not like they had at their clubs, how our players would be offered cheese sandwiches and cold pizza for fuel, how they would have to train on a bumpy pitch where the cones were out of alignment and then to cap it all, our goalies belonged to another trade union. We even use to have players bunking off in the early hours to skulk back to their master and playing for their club instead of country. All in the past now thank God.

He played at the weekend for Everton despite not being available for us. That was a message from Koeman I reckon.

[Stuttgart88]

There was a week between games. That's a long time. I think too much is being made of this. MON was in his right to play him twice after injury, Koeman was within his to be annoyed by it. There was an exchange of opinions via the press because papers don't refuse ink as they say.

[DeLorean]

I wonder if McCarthy will even be first choice for Ireland by the time March roles around? And will he still be at Everton? Yes is probably the answer to both questions but who knows. I'd like to see him paired with Arter actually.