Group D - opponent watch!

[DeLorean]

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

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

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

[paul_oshea]

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

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

[KK77]

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

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

[Jovial Rambler]

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

[DeLorean]

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

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

[ArdeeBhoy]

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

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

[SwanVsDalton]

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

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

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

[DeLorean]

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

[SwanVsDalton]

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


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

[ArdeeBhoy]

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

[Stuttgart88]

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

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

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

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

I think the Italy performance is the template.

[ArdeeBhoy]

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

[paul_oshea]

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

[ArdeeBhoy]

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

[paul_oshea]

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

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

[DeLorean]

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

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

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

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

I think the Italy performance is the template.

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

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

[paul_oshea]

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

[DeLorean]

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

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

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

Danny.

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

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

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

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

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

[paul_oshea]

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

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

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

[ArdeeBhoy]

Currently we will do well to come third in this group. Anyone who thinks differently is delusional.

It's going to take a massive change in personnel and playing style to do any better. It could happen I suppose.
Though Alba/Polska could do worse too also...that's my main hope.

[Stuttgart88]

I didn't notice Keane laughing during our anthem. The camera rolled across all the squad from left to right, some singing, some not, and finished with Keane on the end of the line singing. That's what I saw.

Keane played rubbish but equally was starved of anything resembling service, a common theme. Long would have offered something different but a proper 9 like Doyle would probably have been the most effective option given the way we played.

O'Neill was very tetchy with TOD alright but I think he's entitled to get his retaliation in first given TOD's track record. Dunphy was OTT in the studio. You'd swear he thought there were attempts to muzzle free press or something. RTE have been down on management since I started watching RTE football in the late 70s.

We played poorly and won was the studio assessment. We played well in parts but with much room for improvement was O'Neill's assessment. Both are fair. O'Neill still deserves the benefit of the doubt but the studio weren't giving it to him, other than agreeing that the friendlies were meaningless.

Look, I don't have full faith that O'Neill will do the right things but making dumb substitutions at 3-1 down to Portugal isn't a fair assessment of how he reads games. King got slated for being happy with being 2-0 down. Which is it to be?

I think anyone in denial about the threat that Scotland offered to Germany is looking through green tinted glasses and smoking wacky backy. Goals change games and as long as you're only one down you always have a chance. They took theirs and came close on other occasions. Didn't we hit the bar at 1-0 in Cologne? Cologne is as much as a benchmark than Dublin and we played respectably out there. I'm not sure it's fair to say Scotland brilliant, Ireland muck on the basis of two unrelated games. Sure if Germany away was the standard, Stan is probably one of our best managers ever :)

Scotland will be tough, no doubt, but most of us had twigged that ages ago anyway. The Scotland v Ireland games ought to be cracking games, really tense high tempo derby affairs. I can't wait.

[tricky_colour]

The first assist was amazing!!

[paul_oshea]

I've got a mate getting married the Saturday in sligo/mayo. I've worked out how to get over but it's tricky especially from London. how selfish and awkward of him not thinking about me and the ireland game.he knows well I go to the away games.

I think we will play a lot different to how we normally play, against Scotland and it probably will make it a fast paced game.

[Stuttgart88]

It'll be like an English league game I reckon.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Predict a draw v.them away. But we'll lose at home...
:(

[DannyInvincible]

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

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

I think you're overplaying the Scottish performance because it reinforces your agenda of almost-total negativity when it comes to us. Germany had 70 per cent of possession to Scotland's 30 per cent, 26 shots (with 9 on target) to Scotland's 10 (with 3 on target) and 12 corners to Scotland's 1. The figures are telling. Germany were rusty, possibly suffering from a World Cup hangover, but they were nevertheless overwhelmingly dominant. It was a gutsy effort by Scotland and I admired them for it, but where's the achievement exactly? If it was us who'd been celebrating Ireland getting back even with Germany for three or four minutes, you'd be quoting Roy Keane and condemning the celebrants for their minnowism and lack of ambition.

Scotland are riding a wave at the minute. Their result on Sunday was a lot better than we did against the same opposition recently - that's true - and Stutts is correct in highlighting that, although Scotland lost on Sunday night, if they play that way against the other teams in this group, they'll be a lot more dangerous (and able to pick up points) than we'll be, unless we make changes, but it remains to be seen if they will actually pick up the potential banana-skin points they frequently drop. When we lost 1-6 to Germany, we'd lost the psychological battle before the game even kicked off. We were totally lacking any spirit or motivation. It was as if Trap's conservatism and defeatism had sucked all impetus out of us. Confidence will be higher when we play Germany in October with six points in the bag. The players won't be allowed to go into the game assuming their inferiority if Roy has anything to do with it.


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

Robbie was isolated; not much else he could have done. He looked hungry when he came on against Oman and got on the ball.

And he wasn't laughing and joking during our anthem. He had a laugh with John O'Shea before it commenced because O'Shea was looking up and around the stadium for the tricolour so he'd know which direction to face. He couldn't spot one so, evidently worried that they'd all look like a line of confused fools, he asked Robbie for a bit of advice on what they should do. Robbie reassured him and promptly nodded down towards the massive tricolour on the pitch right in front of them that had somehow been eluding poor John all along. It was a funny moment and they had a laugh about it before respectfully standing to attention once the anthem started. No big deal.


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

Fair point. Although I'd made mine in response to Stutts highlighting that we play like cute hoors, keeping things tight and trying to nick a winner against teams like Germany, instead of giving it a proper go. Scotland gave it a go but still lost. Both approaches have their advantages and drawbacks when playing against top-tier opposition, but there's no beyond-doubt certainty that one approach is better than the other. The fact that numerous managers still employ both approaches to varying degrees of success is evidence of this. The conservative approach has also worked for us at times, most notably when we held Russia to a draw in Moscow. I wasn't necessarily predicting the future course our present group will take by pointing out that Scotland still lost by playing a positive, forceful game against Germany.

[paul_oshea]

Danny I'm pretty sure he meant roy keane.

[ArdeeBhoy]

One slight problem, just can't see the current group getting much from any approach v.Germany. 'Damage-limitation' is our best hope.

Which is why it doesn't really matter who plays v.Gib. & Germany.
Certainly any 'fringe' players. Give them the carrot of a debut v. Gib. and minutes v.Germany...

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I think you're overplaying the Scottish performance because it reinforces your agenda of almost-total negativity when it comes to us. Germany had 70 per cent of possession to Scotland's 30 per cent, 26 shots (with 9 on target) to Scotland's 10 (with 3 on target) and 12 corners to Scotland's 1. The figures are telling. Germany were rusty, possibly suffering from a World Cup hangover, but they were nevertheless overwhelmingly dominant. It was a gutsy effort by Scotland and I admired them for it, but where's the achievement exactly? If it was us who'd been celebrating Ireland getting back even with Germany for three or four minutes, you'd be quoting Roy Keane and condemning the celebrants for their minnowism and lack of ambition.

Scotland are riding a wave at the minute. Their result on Sunday was a lot better than we did against the same opposition recently - that's true - and Stutts is correct in highlighting that, although Scotland lost on Sunday night, if they play that way against the other teams in this group, they'll be a lot more dangerous (and able to pick up points) than we'll be, unless we make changes, but it remains to be seen if they will actually pick up the potential banana-skin points they frequently drop. When we lost 1-6 to Germany, we'd lost the psychological battle before the game even kicked off. We were totally lacking any spirit or motivation. It was as if Trap's conservatism and defeatism had sucked all impetus out of us. Confidence will be higher when we play Germany in October with six points in the bag. The players won't be allowed to go into the game assuming their inferiority if Roy has anything to do with it.



Robbie was isolated; not much else he could have done. He looked hungry when he came on against Oman and got on the ball.

And he wasn't laughing and joking during our anthem. He had a laugh with John O'Shea before it commenced because O'Shea was looking up and around the stadium for the tricolour so he'd know which direction to face. He couldn't spot one so, evidently worried that they'd all look like a line of confused fools, he asked Robbie for a bit of advice on what they should do. Robbie reassured him and promptly nodded down towards the massive tricolour on the pitch right in front of them that had somehow been eluding poor John all along. It was a funny moment and they had a laugh about it before respectfully standing to attention once the anthem started. No big deal.



Fair point. Although I'd made mine in response to Stutts highlighting that we play like cute hoors, keeping things tight and trying to nick a winner against teams like Germany, instead of giving it a proper go. Scotland gave it a go but still lost. Both approaches have their advantages and drawbacks when playing against top-tier opposition, but there's no beyond-doubt certainty that one approach is better than the other. The fact that numerous managers still employ both approaches to varying degrees of success is evidence of this. The conservative approach has also worked for us at times, most notably when we held Russia to a draw in Moscow. I wasn't necessarily predicting the future course our present group will take by pointing out that Scotland still lost by playing a positive, forceful game against Germany.

First of all I was not referring to Robbie Keane. I was referring to Roy Keane. Although since you mention it, yes, Robbie Keane was predictably a passenger for the entire game but that's par for the course these days. Another manager not brave enough to accommodate Wes Hoolahan and Shane Long, another 90th minute winner to paper over the cracks.

The World Cup winners defeated Scotland 2-1 in Dortmund. The Scots were in the match over the entire 90 minutes. The Germans spanked us 6-1 in Dublin and walked over us in what was effectively a no pressure friendly for us in Cologne.

You're right. The figures are telling. Where is the achievement? The achievement is being competitive with - not getting spanked by - teams like France, Spain and Germany. Something I've being on about when the draw for this Qualifying group was made. Something that could be crucial in that, while Germany are likely to take first place, they, Scotland and Poland are all more capable of taking points off each other than we are. Granted, we are more likely to grind out wins against Georgia than Scotland are.

And the statistics. So you've decided they're actually of importance to you now? Germany played through us and carved open our defence with a lot more regularity than they did Scotland. They had as many genuine goalscoring chances against us in Dublin and Cologne than Dortmund several days ago - and they dropped back into second gear after about 60 minutes of the Dublin game (whereas Scotland looked good value for a point during the last third of their game).

I don't know how you think it reflects better on us that Germany scored almost half of their chances against us yet could only score 2 out of 26 against Scotland? Not to even mention the many German half chances and the decent chances that Scotland themselves had.

And how come Germany suffered a World Cup hangover against Scotland but didn't suffer a Euros hangover against us?

Listen. The Scotland games are 50-50. Either team could win but a spade is a spade, they are a better team in every way when they play teams like Germany.

McGeady's two goals don't change the fact that if we play like we did against Georgia we are going to get a hiding against Germany - unless MON makes some big decisions I don't think he is capable or brave enough to make.

[Charlie Darwin]

McGeady's two goals don't change the fact that if we play like we did against Georgia we are going to get a hiding against Germany - unless MON makes some big decisions I don't think he is capable or brave enough to make.
But that's not true. If we play like that against Germany, we might get a hiding or we might get lucky like the Scots and hold out long enough to maybe nick a goal in the last minute.

I don't see how playing Long and Hoolahan is a "brave" decision either. Playing a striker who spends more time out by the corner flag than anywhere near the goal would be the conservative option by most standards. We had four men around the box for both of our goals on Sunday, which is hardly playing it safe. Playing an out-and-out finisher like Keane is far from conservative.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Hmm, make TWOK right on this one, in the main.

The only variable is the hope we can play better (v.better opposition). That said, the Germans definitely can!

[Charlie Darwin]

The Germans will be better when we face them, of course. If we have the right players on the pitch though, we can frustrate them and ride our luck, like Scotland did, and hope Muller misses a few open goals again.

[DannyInvincible]

TOWK; you're disagreeing or arguing with a lot of "points" I haven't actually made. I've not said it reflects better on us. Our performance against Germany was grim; Scotland's performance was gutsy and spirited, but they were still beaten. I'm just urging for some fair level-headedness and arguing against getting carried away with negativity after one game each. We dominated our game and deservedly won; Scotland lost theirs and did so deservedly, as expected. Things went right to plan in terms of the results, so we shouldn't be too hard on ourselves. When have we had it any better than slogging it out and just about scraping away victories in eastern Europe (if we're fortunate)? There's no reason to assume just yet that Scotland will run away with the mini-league for second place, leaving us in their wake. Of course, I acknowledge that we must improve. Anyone can see that the game we played against Georgia won't pay off time and time again.

When have I ever dismissed stats as having a role to play in the analysis of a game's competitiveness?

When we lost to Germany 1-6, they were already three games into the group. They'd started off with a home win over the Faroe Islands and then dispensed of Austria away. They hadn't won the Euros either. The hangover effect is often said to impact negatively upon teams coming back down to reality after a major high. I've not said such a phenomenon definitely exists, but Germany were a bit rusty in front of goal against Scotland in comparison to their ruthlessness in Brazil.

[paul_oshea]

How come no one else copped on he meant Roy Keane? thats why ye need to listen to me about Grealish I interpret it the way it was meant :P

[paul_oshea]

One thing I learnt from the world cup and from our hidings is that we are capable of matching teams that are capable of matching better teams that we are not capable of matching :)

Thats why I think we will do ok against Scotland and Poland but would imagine Scotland would do better against Germany and Poland for example. That gives me some hope at least.

But why is this? I put it down mainly to how we are setup, and how we play but mostly how shakey we are defensively. We seem incapable of doing the basic things right and the chances we give away are a lot more clear cut and nervy than other teams of our "level" - granted scotland failed to clear on 3 occassions for Germanys second goal.


We dominated our game and deservedly won;

Did we though? Sammy was on saying after that a draw would have been a fair result, and I would have to say I agree. We had 1 shot on goal in the 2nd half, we had lots of possession but did nothing with it. Having lots of possession is never a reason to deservedly win a game.

[Stuttgart88]

The amount of self loathing is staggering. We played poorly and snuck a win. Great, as long as O'Neill recognises there's room for improvement. He has said he does so let's see what happens.

Bosnia, a technically accomplished team we all admired in the WC, lost at home to Cyprus. What does that mean? Not much in the overall scheme of things.

I have been watching football long enough to know that A beating B comfortably and B beating C does not mean A then beats C comfortably. Do you think the whole of Chile is slating their manager for losing 1-0 to Brazil when Brazil went on to lose 7-1 shortly after? I doubt it. Does it show that when Germany get more than a goal in front they are capable of putting teams to the sword like they did with us? Yes. Does it prove that when Germany go in front they're then infallible? No, says Ghana and maybe also Scotland.

I'd prefer we had a bit of the Scots' swagger right now but we don't. I'm not beating myself up over it though. Rome wasnt built in a day.

I'm not sure what the telly showing MON in consultation with Walford rather than Keane means. One might deduce that Walford runs the show and that Keane is an overpaid passenger who puts the cones out. Another might deduce that Keane's input into training and on match day and in the dressing room is valuable and appreciated by the players.

Who knows?

I'd tend to agree with AB that in all likelihood even 3rd is a big ask. This is a tough group. But I think we all know this group is capable of better. Scotland and Poland would be comparable enough to Sweden and Austria. All 4 games against those two were tight and decided at the margins. We need to make those margins be in our favour this time.

[DeLorean]

Bar TOWK's usual freak out and AB's relentless sense of realism, dare not to dream if you will, I really don't see much evidence of this self loathing. There was plenty to be disappointed with on Sunday, definitely more to be worried and despondent about than enthusiastic, when you exclude the utterly satisfactory result. We were looking for signs of a change of approach and there was very little. We were extremely poor and I don't think we deserved any more than the draw we looked likely to get. The result was brilliant but the performance of management was anything but. If we had drawn or lost, with a stronger emphasis on retaining and using the ball in a constructive way, then I'm sure most reasonable-minded people would have accepted that Rome is definitely not built in a day, or even ten months! Would I have preferred that?.... of course not. The most important thing will always be the result and we got that.

I don't think results from around Europe have any relevance either. Nobody is disputing the fact that we got a good result in a difficult match or that international football should be a walk in the park. I guess we were just hoping for more obvious evidence of a change in philosophy. Like you say, hopefully that will come in time but, for now, we can only go on what we have seen... as a certain Mr. Giles might say.

[paul_oshea]

It's not self loathing, its that stutts didnt predict it and therefore usual back-slapping and thanking of eachtothers posts didnt happen.

Its only self-loating when its me and TOWK disagreeing with how everyone else reads/sees it.

I agree with that post pretty much in the entirety.

[paul_oshea]

The result to me had everything about kazakh away under Traps last campaign just with more possession, even a hint of the Armenia one, and I don't think that campaign had any of the difficulty attached that this one has. Slovakia aren't as good as Scotland and Poland are far more consistent than Armenia, who are good for a shock result now and then. And Russia are nowhere near Germany. Macedonia are about similar to Georgia but got tanked by them at home the other night whereas Georgia didnt a few years ago. No real need to bring that again I suppose.

[Stuttgart88]

It's not self loathing, its that stutts didnt predict it and therefore usual back-slapping and thanking of eachtothers posts didnt happen.

Its only self-loating when its me and TOWK disagreeing with how everyone else reads/sees it.

I agree with that post pretty much in the entirety.crikey, will you ever ditch this "me and TOWK against the world" nonsense. I thank posts I agree with and don't thank posts I don't. I don't thank yours that often because they are often poorly thought out, self-congratulatory, and dare I say it, narky digs at people.

I don't like TOWK's abrasive style and proclamations of being some wild contrarian visionary up against a lynch mob. Much of what he says is very true, but the needless sophism and exaggeration gets on my wick. I don't think anyone here disagrees with him in his assessment of the match or other issues, it's the degree of outrage and the degree of adulation heaped at Scotland that's being queried. All you appreciate is the perceived contrarianism, not the content.

And what did I not predict exactly? I have no idea what you're on about. I fail to predict lots of things but not one single bit of the Georgia performance surprised me.

I'd say Scotland / Poland is pretty comparable to Sweden / Austria, and harder than our peers in previous Trap campaigns. But we weren't that far off Sweden and Austria. Clark brain fart, a moment of Long genius off the post, a Long header straight at the keeper from 8 yards, dumb substitutions and a deflected injury time goal - yet we still drew 2-2 with Austria. On another night we'd have snuck a narrow home win over Sweden, or at least drawn. Long inexplicably not squaring the ball to Keane stands out, as does his wild effort in Stockholm. Isaacson could have been sent off, and so on.

Being competitive against thse sides is never the issue and I doubt it'll be an issue under O'Neill. The key is to make those marginal gains in place of those marginal mistakes. Trap never did.

I'm not hugely confident O'Neill has it in his locker to make that critical difference but I can still remember his early days at Celtic when they eeked out hard results until they found their mojo. There are lots of lessons from history in his favour, others not in his favour. Let's wait and see.

[geysir]

He wasnt hiding Delorean, you wouldnt have noticed his runs off the ball on TV as it wasnt being shown, but he was running about and trying spot gaps or breaks in the defensive line and then look for the pass, but more often than not he looked lost, bar the the ball for mcgeadys two goals. He was just so high up the line he was ineffective, he didn't seem suited to the role at all. That's why I go back to the other point O'Neill never made the right change, he should have brought mccarthy back, brought on hoolahan, taken off walters. Still time to make the Long substitution but that should have happened on 60 mins.
McGeady should have been pulled off for Brady, the stylish free kick specialist and good passer of the ball.
Nobody admitting that one:D

[SwanVsDalton]

I think we're talking about degrees of analysis. We're don't disagree all that much, collectively. But I do also detect a streak of self-loathing, in the sense that what to my mind is a work-in-progress is getting a serious battering in terms of analysis. There's also very little benefit of the doubt being given to the manager or players, in some quarters.

I thought we deserved to win the game on Sunday, because even though we were utterly wasteful, we were at least pressing and playing with a degree (just a degree) of misguided agency. We also never looked like losing the game, which was always a danger in the Trapattoni era. We were in total control for the last half hour and most of the first half. That's enough to push us in front for me.

Likewise, in some posts I think a very good Scottish performance is being used as a revelatory stick to beat the crap out of M'ON, the players and FAI. On another day, the score would have been 8-3 to Germany.

As such, I don't think I'm ready to subscribe to the Scottish method just quite yet. Does that mean I don't appreciate that Scotland played very well away to the world champs? That there isn't something to learn? Of course not. I just think perspective is being lost in hyperbole.

I don't feel too downhearted about our lack of creativity in the final stagaes on Sunday. We need to remember that we're still seeing a team coming to terms with a couple of dreadful years. Our composure when under pressure is paper-thin, our confidence too.

It's to be expected, but it also means that when we panic - like we did in the last half hour on Sunday - we're likely to go route one and lose our patience on the ball (we had some patience in the first half). But good results and some coaxing from the management will help change this ment-al-it-ee.

[paul_oshea]

McGeady should have been pulled off for Brady, the stylish free kick specialist and good passer of the ball.
Nobody admitting that one:D

I haven't seen much style from him over the last 2 games, bar his hair and boots. :)

Stutts would you stop going on. I'm saying that anyone I meet off this forum and you know it too has a completely different view of how people on here see it. That doesnt seem to be recnogised and the ridicule is quite funny on here, but you seem to take it personally. Crikey stop going on as if you don't really agree, because deep down you do :)


I thought we deserved to win the game on Sunday, because even though we were utterly wasteful

We weren't creative enough to be wasteful - we weren't even wasteful!

I admire your innocence on backing the manager to the hilt, whatever you did for Trap and now for Martin or maybe defending one of your own. I certainly wasn't using scotlands performance as a stick to beat Mon with. I was using Mons performance to beat him with his own stick. It's early days though Martin has plenty of time to prove himself capable and learn from these mistakes, I am certainly willing to give him the chance.

We never looked like losing the game because we kept possession in their half mostly in the last 20 or so. That's about the only positive to take from Georgia, but thats only a positive when compared to our previous games under Trap - so that intself is only a step forward not necessarily a positive in the grand scheme of things.

[DeLorean]

Not really relevant to this thread but seeing as other qualifiers have been discussed here I'll post it. Just came across this when I was trying to figure out why there were only two matches played in Wales' group last night. Of course it was obvious when I found out Israel v Belgium was the unplayed fixture. Fair play to Belgium for agreeing to reschedule seeing as they seem to have been offered a 'Mainz' type scenario. It would have been a seriously easier fixture in a neutral setting and a potential advantage on their other opponents.

The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Sports/Group-B-kicks-off-qualifying-campaign-without-Israel-374824)


Wales have Bosnia at home in their next match. After the results last night, what an opportunity that is to dent Bosnia's chances and put themselves right into the mix. Even at this early stage I would think it will give a massive indication of their chances.

[SwanVsDalton]

We weren't creative enough to be wasteful - we weren't even wasteful!

Our crossing and passing in the final third, particularly in the last half hour, was dreadful. How many crosses hit the first man? Quite a few. There were plenty of instances too where decent build up positions were lost by players making bad passes or bad decisions. We don't have to be six or 16 yards out from goal to be wasteful. For me, that was the case on Sunday.


I admire your innocence on backing the manager to the hilt, whatever you did for Trap and now for Martin or maybe defending one of your own.

You've hurt my innocent feelings with that one. :(


I'm saying that anyone I meet off this forum and you know it too has a completely different view of how people on here see it.

Everyone on foot.ie thinks the same! Everyone not on foot.ie thinks the same! And only one side can be absolutely 100% correct. So simple and so beautiful. I too admire your innocence POSH. :)

[DannyInvincible]

How come no one else copped on he meant Roy Keane? thats why ye need to listen to me about Grealish I interpret it the way it was meant :P

Since TOWK was slagging a Keane off, I assumed it must have been Robbie, as usual. :p

Plus, John O'Shea and Robbie did actually share a laugh before the anthem started because John couldn't spot the massive tricolour sitting there right in front of him so he'd know which way to face. I thought TOWK was referring to that episode, although it makes sense that he'd have been talking about Roy now I re-read what he wrote as he made reference to him earning his money. :)


Did we though? Sammy was on saying after that a draw would have been a fair result, and I would have to say I agree. We had 1 shot on goal in the 2nd half, we had lots of possession but did nothing with it. Having lots of possession is never a reason to deservedly win a game.

Who's Sammy? In terms of goals scored, shots on target, possession and territorial advantage, we were ahead. I think it's fair to say we were dominant. Maybe the dominance was slight, but we were still dominant. That's not something to be scoffed at in tough conditions; nearly 30°C heat and away in eastern Europe. Even dismissing the stats and simply going with gut feeling, I never once feared they were likely to sneak a winner.

That can't be right that we had one shot on goal in the second half. Besides the goal, I distinctly remember another McGeady effort where he came in from the left and hit it with the inside of his right foot from just outside the corner of the box. It was on-target and at keeper's-head-height.

Having lots of possession isn't reason enough to deservedly win a game, sure, but converting your possession into scoring more goals than your opponent can manage certainly is. ;) We lacked creativity, yes, but the winning goal came about for the very reason that we were dominating possession in the right area of the field.

[Stuttgart88]

I just saw an edited highlights clip of Switzerland v England on SKY and it reminded me of this thread.

Switzerland missed 3 gilt edged chances at critical times in the game. England took two of their four., one of which only arose because the Swiss were pressing high for an equaliser. Goals change games. Results change perceptions of performances. Had England lost they'd have been hammered by the media and public. I think England played decently enough in two WC games, lost, but they got hammered.

Scotland could have easily been 3 down before they even came up for air. They weren't, and eventually got lauded.

Any game of football is about taking chances. In the key marginal matches over the years (Israel, Slovakia, Sweden, Austria, Bulgaria, and even some of the top seeds at home) we have had at least as many chances as we have conceded. Obviously Germany at home wasn't a marginal match!

[Stuttgart88]

Also, they just showed Niall McGinn's contribution for lafferty's winner. 88mins on the clock, McGinn's picks the ball up and drives through the middle, taking on and beating his man and, albeit after a fortuitous rebound, they created the opening.

I'm not saying we weren't pressing for the winner late on, we were, but the other O'Neill trusted his more attack minded players to play their game away from home. I'd like to see our O'Neill do the same. I hate the idea of Walters being some sort of defender/attacker/wide player hybrid, at the expense of a more dynamic attacking player. Would Michael O'Neill have left Wes on the bench?

[tetsujin1979]

Scotland could have easily been 3 down before they even came up for air. They weren't, and eventually got lauded.I'll take three points over a moral victory every day