Darron Gibson

[Charlie Darwin]

You still haven't answered the question of where he is going to find this pass you speak of.

[SkStu]

Because its the most ridiculous question ever posed on a message board. Who does Hoolohan pass to Charlie?

[paul_oshea]

i would say wes hoolohan.darron isnt one for relief. intereting at least there
ia some reasoning why he was pickee at rm against sweden

[Charlie Darwin]

Because its the most ridiculous question ever posed on a message board. Who does Hoolohan pass to Charlie?
Judging by the clip that was posted earlier, he passes to the centre half. But that's sort of the point I'm making - Hoolahan is in the team now but he will have players like Coleman, Wilson and McCarthy to pass to. I have defended Ward in the past, but if you'd thrown Hoolahan into the team against Spain he'd have had fewer options to pass to. I'm 100% not defending Trap here - he made the wrong decisions on who to start and played players who were less able to pass the ball and make angles - but once he selected those players he'd have been putting Gibson into a lose-lose situation if he introduced him. I agree the Spain debacle was a result of his poor selection choices, but once he had picked those players, introducing Gibson would have had little to no effect.

[ArdeeBhoy]

To be fair RMK or similar, at the height of their powers would have made feck all difference v.that Spanish team...

[Charlie Darwin]

To be fair RMK or similar, at the height of their powers would have made feck all difference v.that Spanish team...
That shouldn't absolve Trap of responsibility. I think we'd have fared better if Gibson had started in a balanced midfield. My point is that with ten minutes to go and the proverbial horse bolted, he was of no more use than Paul Green.

[DannyInvincible]

Wouldn't that be irrelevant though if the real reason Trap chose Green over Gibson was to prove a petty point to Gibson over actually making a genuine utility call? Assuming what Irwin/the source is/are claiming is true, that is...

Was Gibson quoted as being "upset" - slightly different from being "unhappy" - after the Euros, or am I mistaken? If so, wouldn't upset be a slightly unusual response for a player who hadn't actually played in any of our defeats?

[Charlie Darwin]

I am critical of Trap in a lot of ways, but I truly believe he doesn't overlook players for petty reasons. He may be stubborn when pushed by the media, but I really don't think there was any media campaign for Gibson to play in the Euros. And, like Geysir has said, Trap has called up Gibson since in spite of his refusal to join up. A man who holds a grudge would have cut him loose on the first refusal. McClean openly criticised Trap's selections and still got picked.

[geysir]

Wouldn't that be irrelevant though if the real reason Trap chose Green over Gibson was to prove a petty point to Gibson over actually making a genuine utility call? Assuming what Irwin/the source is/are claiming is true, that is...

Was Gibson quoted as being "upset" - slightly different from being "unhappy" - after the Euros, or am I mistaken? If so, wouldn't upset be a slightly unusual response for a player who hadn't actually played in any of our defeats?
It would appear that the reasons for Gibson getting 'upset' enough to go into international exile, are being revised and embellished via rumours in a similar way to when rumours were spread about the way Stephen Ireland was supposedly treated 'roughly' by squad members.

[Stuttgart88]

Neither?
I think having a midfielder willing to take the ball in any circumstances sets the whole tone for everyone in the team. It was just so blatantly obvious at Wembley that Whelan's lack of composure under even very little pressure sent the jitters throughout the whole team. Much is written here about lack of technique, kick and rush culture etc etc but I think we're better than that and just one player like Hoolahan or Gibson, but ideally two, will make everyone else more composed. It follows then that we would be less inclined to cede all initiative and seek to play without the ball in circumstances like the Austria game's last 20 minutes.

[paul_oshea]

Ya stutts I pointed out that moment when Whelan jumped on the ground to get to the ball to make the pass back to O'Shea in the first half against England. We had played some nice short, fast passes in tight spaces, then somehow Whelan found himself piggy in the middle, and under a little bit of pressure nearly gave the ball away, instead of keeping the short fast passing game going, simply because he isn't able play that kind of game.

[Irwin3]

It would appear that the reasons for Gibson getting 'upset' enough to go into international exile, are being revised and embellished via rumours in a similar way to when rumours were spread about the way Stephen Ireland was supposedly treated 'roughly' by squad members.

These reasons have been rumoured since last June. Gibson apparently confronted Trap after the Spain game (and had to be convinced to remain with the squad, apparently by Alan Kelly and John O'Shea) and Trap at some stage made a disparaging reference to his weight. Noone is revising anything here.

[DannyInvincible]

"Revisionism" is often a term used disparagingly, but if new facts come to light, surely it is only logical to revise one's view accordingly. That's a different form of revision from re-interpreting, or twisting, what we already know.

Of course, that would be to assume that what Irwin is saying is true. I only became aware that Trap may have humiliated Gibson in front of the squad and poked fun at his "weight" within the past few days. It may or may not be true. If it is true, it's poor form from Trap and perhaps justifies a greater level of sympathy for Gibson's stance. Not that it would necessarily mean that Gibson has been mature about matters after all and all along, but it would perhaps help us better understand his reasoning and difficulty with pulling on the jersey. I'd find it difficult to respect and follow the instructions of someone who not only I felt didn't respect me in return, but who had actually insulted me in front of my peers. I'd like to think I'd be able to overlook it in order to play for my country, but then I'm not Darron Gibson nor have I been insulted by Trap.

[Irwin3]

http://www.ybig.ie/forum/darron-gibson_topic17027_post1005401.html#1005401

Posted by the friend of a friend in August.

"Gibby went to the euros off the back of a great run for everton. No doubt he was hopeful of nicking one of the midfield spots or at the very least getting gametime as a midfield replacement as Paul green was the only other contender and he was a championship player with no club who wasn't in the original squad.

In the build up to the tournament gibby make a few comments on the training pitch about the amount of running they are doing and the outdated training methods. For the duration he is then used as a prop in training and ignored by trap and it becomes clear before a ball is kicked that he is not in traps plans

The team dissappointed v croatia and Glenn whelan is brutal but he gets no game time. We are annialated by Spain and our midfield is run of its feet. Trap takes whelan off and brings on a player who has no club and has never played in the top flight of English football. gibby has words with trap in front of squad and is told he is fat

After being battered in 2 games, trap doesn't change the team and sends whelan out again against Italy. Again whelan is terrible but does trap even give Gibson 15 minutes to even acknowledge that he has been in the training camp for 5 weeks, no he doesn't. Again Gibson has words with trap after the Italy game.

Used like a sparring partner in training, never considered for selection, ignored by the manager, told he is fat, has Paul green brought on instead of him, whelan unjustifiably plays in Italy game, departs after 4 weeks with no game time. Yet he was playing regularly for a top 8 EPL team and came into the tournament in good form. He had every right to be ****ed off

This is why I said I was surprised when he was called up for Serbia and that he didn't want to play for trap but wouldn't turn his back on his country"

[Irwin3]

Paul Rowan 24th of June, 2012:

".....Last week we felt that Trapattoni deserved the benefit of the doubt, but since then the reservations have grown stronger. Neither Ireland's fans, nor players who broke ranks during that time, only the manager sought to wash his hands of responsibility for Ireland matching the worst ever showing of any team at the Euros and highlighted further failures of the players instead.

Having said that the players were playing with 'fear' and the 'jersey was too heavy' he then identified a lack of leadership and after the Italy game was saying; "if I tell the truth it would seem that I want to humiliate people". Not a single Irish player managed to raise his game for the Euros and some of them underperformed, which was the most disappointing aspect for those who didn't lose sight of the fact that Ireland were in an extremely tough group and were likely to lose all three matches.

Trapattoni also had an extremely poor tournament and his efforts to preserve his own reputation at the expense of others has lowered him in the eyes of the players. Richard Dunne is believed to have been unhappy with the way the campaign was run and had exchanges after the Italy game with Trapattoni. Senior players advised him to go holiday with his family rather than make any rash decisions about his Ireland future. There was unhappiness about the hotel in the middle of the resort town of Sopot - revelling Irish fans actually kept some of the players awake the night before the Spain game - but the players didn't want to be seen to be whingeing. However, what made them most unhappy was the long camp and the fact that they considered themselves overworked after a long season.

Darron Gibson, form instance, reported to Dublin two days after he played the last Premier League game of the season for Everton on May 13. It's belived he asked Trapattoni if he could report the following Sunday along with the rest of the Premier League players - for one thing he had been invited along with Robbie Keane and others to Glenn Whelan's wedding on the Saturday - but was told in no uncertain terms to show up as instructed. Gibson didn't see a moment of action in the Euros and asked the manager the night of the Spain game if he had a problem with him.

The Italy game in Poznan has thrown up a new problem which will focus plenty of attention on Gibson. Some commentators along with Trapattoni pointed up an improvement in the performance level, but whatever it was escaped this particular observer. The mistakes at the back have been a standout feature, but even more glaring has been Ireland's lack of any goalscoring threat in all three games.

UEFA statistics credit Ireland with two shots on target against Italy, but it's difficult to remember either and Keith Andrew's petulant blasting of the ball into the crowd after he had been dismissed was one of the times Ireland got closest to scoring. He is automatically banned for Ireland's opening World Cup qualifying game against Kazakhstan in September but UEFA will probably be minded to put a few more on top of that after reading the referee's report. Gibson will be needed more than ever, but is believed to be considering his future under Trapattoni. The player himself is maintaining an unhappy silence. "I have nothing to say about that," he remarked when asked about his international future.

Important people continue to back Trapattoni in his dealings with Gibson and everybody else. Denis O'Brien, who pays half Trapattoni's wages, says he is delighted with his investment, scotching any thoughts that he might consider a different manager. The FAI too won't get rid of Trapattoni, unless the crowd in Dublin turns on the manager a it did in the case of Mick McCarthy and Steve Staunton. In that case, he would probably go quite quickly, so a good start to the qualifying campaign is vital if Trapattoni is to stay on board."

[DeLorean]

In the build up to the tournament gibby make a few comments on the training pitch about the amount of running they are doing and the outdated training methods. For the duration he is then used as a prop in training and ignored by trap and it becomes clear before a ball is kicked that he is not in traps plans

gibby has words with trap in front of squad and is told he is fat

Again Gibson has words with trap after the Italy game.


I have even less sympathy for him now, if that's true. Something I didn't realise was possible.

[Closed Account 2]

I'd have picked Andrews ahead of Gibson last summer. Andrews had done well at WBA, he'd played 14 games in half a season there which, even though he missed a few matches at the end of the season, is enough to be considered a first team player - pro rata it and you're looking at 30 odd games out of 38. Gibson had played 12 premier league games in the season before Euro2012, one for Man Utd, 11 for Everton, so Andrews (with 14) had actually been involved in more PL games than Gibson, and that ingores the 20 Championship games Andrews played for Ipswich at the start of 2011-12 season. In those 14 PL games he'd scored 2 goals and at Ipswich he'd scored 9 in 20 - eleven league goals for a midfielder in one season is a good return (even if some of them were against Championship sides), contrast that with Gibson who scored 1 goal in 2011-12 (he's actually only scored 2 in the last 4 or so years).

Andrew's had been a key part of the team that got Ireland to the Euros (remember he scored the first goal in Tallinn, which came when it was still 11 vs 11) so the onus was on other players to prove they were more worthy of a place in the starting 11 than him. I don't think Gibson did that, and the decision to pick Andrews was justified as he was probably our best player at the Euros (although there wasn't a lot of competition) and didn't he get the FAI player of the year award last year?

I would probably have picked Gibson ahead of Whelan, especially after the Croatia game when it seemed obvious that Whelan's legs had gone. But I still think Gibson has handled this very badly, sometimes managers don't pick what appear to be the best players for a variety of reasons (team continuity, formation reasons, players playing more regularly at clubs, perhaps even personal preference), but it probably would have been better to stay in the squad and wait for things to develop. Last summer Andrews was over 30 and Whelan was nearing 30, it was obvious that there would be retirements and if Gibson had kept his council he would almost certainly be in with a great chance of starting most games for Ireland. As it is he got into a strop and exiled himself in a seemingly very puerile way. He's a good player, and I'd be happy to see him back in the national team set-up but only if his attitude improves. If he still thinks he has a devine right to start every match then I'd rather stick with other players. The whole thing smacks of ideas above his station, he's a player not a memeber of the coaching team. Even then he's Darron Gibson - this isn't the second coming of Redondo or Zidane, he might be better than some of our other midfielders but it's not like he's world class and it's a totally clear cut decision.

[Irwin3]

I'd have picked Andrews ahead of Gibson last summer. Andrews had done well at WBA, he'd played 14 games in half a season there which, even though he missed a few matches at the end of the season, is enough to be considered a first team player - pro rata it and you're looking at 30 odd games out of 38. Gibson had played 12 premier league games in the season before Euro2012, one for Man Utd, 11 for Everton, so Andrews (with 14) had actually been involved in more PL games than Gibson, and that ingores the 20 Championship games Andrews played for Ipswich at the start of 2011-12 season. In those 14 PL games he'd scored 2 goals and at Ipswich he'd scored 9 in 20 - eleven league goals for a midfielder in one season is a good return (even if some of them were against Championship sides), contrast that with Gibson who scored 1 goal in 2011-12 (he's actually only scored 2 in the last 4 or so years).

Andrew's had been a key part of the team that got Ireland to the Euros (remember he scored the first goal in Tallinn, which came when it was still 11 vs 11) so the onus was on other players to prove they were more worthy of a place in the starting 11 than him. I don't think Gibson did that, and the decision to pick Andrews was justified as he was probably our best player at the Euros (although there wasn't a lot of competition) and didn't he get the FAI player of the year award last year?

I would probably have picked Gibson ahead of Whelan, especially after the Croatia game when it seemed obvious that Whelan's legs had gone. But I still think Gibson has handled this very badly, sometimes managers don't pick what appear to be the best players for a variety of reasons (team continuity, formation reasons, players playing more regularly at clubs, perhaps even personal preference), but it probably would have been better to stay in the squad and wait for things to develop. Last summer Andrews was over 30 and Whelan was nearing 30, it was obvious that there would be retirements and if Gibson had kept his council he would almost certainly be in with a great chance of starting most games for Ireland. As it is he got into a strop and exiled himself in a seemingly very puerile way. He's a good player, and I'd be happy to see him back in the national team set-up but only if his attitude improves. If he still thinks he has a devine right to start every match then I'd rather stick with other players. The whole thing smacks of ideas above his station, he's a player not a memeber of the coaching team. Even then he's Darron Gibson - this isn't the second coming of Redondo or Zidane, he might be better than some of our other midfielders but it's not like he's world class and it's a totally clear cut decision.

Nowhere has he given any indication that this is the case. In fact he was even bigging up Whelan and Andrews after the euros saying how they deserved to start.

[Fixer82]

I can understand Gibson's grievance.
Under Mick McCarthy I always got the impression that the players, no matter who they were, wanted to perform for Mick and figured they had a shot once they worked hard (even if they didn't) but if you're away on a 5 week camp and it's obvious you are there for no good reason no matter how well you are performing that has got to be very very frustrating.

A good man-manager, even if he had no intention of playing Gibson in the Euros, would be able to deal with this and keep the player onside for the future. All players have egos, they have to be confident in themselves and their abilities.
A good manager will build a team mentality from a group of individuals and keep them together.

Trapattoni has not really managed this in my opinion and is way too backward in changing things that clearly do not work (4-4-2, Glenn Whelan etc.)

For example, Hoolahan was class against Georgia, the creative cool-headed midfielder that buys us the time on the ball we so desperately need.
He will not start against the Faroes

[Irwin3]

This has been brought up before but Andrews started 8 games for West Brom, and only started 1 out of the last 5. He was a first team player but not exactly first choice. Now Andrews did do pretty well at the euros and I think he should have been starting with Gibson.

Gibson was injured. He has started every game for Everton bar 1 game rested and 2-3 games when coming back from injury. Gibson has scored 12 goals in his 100 appearances for Man Utd and Everton over the last 5 seasons. Not prolific but those are the real numbers.

[Charlie Darwin]

I think having a midfielder willing to take the ball in any circumstances sets the whole tone for everyone in the team. It was just so blatantly obvious at Wembley that Whelan's lack of composure under even very little pressure sent the jitters throughout the whole team. Much is written here about lack of technique, kick and rush culture etc etc but I think we're better than that and just one player like Hoolahan or Gibson, but ideally two, will make everyone else more composed. It follows then that we would be less inclined to cede all initiative and seek to play without the ball in circumstances like the Austria game's last 20 minutes.
This "one player will make a difference" attitude tends to spring up from time to time. We've had Gibson in the team before and he hasn't made an ounce of difference. What we need, and what we needed in the Euros, was a number of personnel changes which would have enabled us to play with a bit of composure in possession. We're finally, slowly, getting there with the introduction of Coleman, Wilson, McCarthy, possibly Hoolahan and Clark.

[Fixer82]

For example, Hoolahan was class against Georgia, the creative cool-headed midfielder that buys us the time on the ball we so desperately need.
He will not start against the Faroes

And now I must eat my words.
In my defence though, I'd forgotten McCarthy was suspended

[geysir]

"Revisionism" is often a term used disparagingly, but if new facts come to light, surely it is only logical to revise one's view accordingly. That's a different form of revision from re-interpreting, or twisting, what we already know.

Of course, that would be to assume that what Irwin is saying is true. I only became aware that Trap may have humiliated Gibson in front of the squad and poked fun at his "weight" within the past few days. It may or may not be true. If it is true, it's poor form from Trap and perhaps justifies a greater level of sympathy for Gibson's stance. Not that it would necessarily mean that Gibson has been mature about matters after all and all along, but it would perhaps help us better understand his reasoning and difficulty with pulling on the jersey. I'd find it difficult to respect and follow the instructions of someone who not only I felt didn't respect me in return, but who had actually insulted me in front of my peers. I'd like to think I'd be able to overlook it in order to play for my country, but then I'm not Darron Gibson nor have I been insulted by Trap.

When the new facts come to light, surely then would be a time to revise opinions.
Better than a - 'if he did do that - then I might be outraged' speculation on a one sided account which quite frankly reads as if it's lifted from the Beano.

[Irwin3]

I see no reason why the source wouldn't be being truthful. He also called Gibson's move to Everton weeks in advance and knew that he wasn't coming back before Trap and the FAI. I believe that he knows someone that knows Gibson. I doubt that he's making this aspect up at all.

It was published that Gibson confronted Trap and was ready to walk. With that in mind I can easily see the possibility that Trap insulted him after Gibson's questioning of him.

You're right in that it's a one-sided account and that is because neither side has openly discussed these matters. All we are left with is the reality that Gibson is not playing for Ireland. A sad outcome for all parties really.

[Stuttgart88]

This "one player will make a difference" attitude tends to spring up from time to time. We've had Gibson in the team before and he hasn't made an ounce of difference. I think he has actually, and I've not really noticed the "one player" argument much before. Much more prevalent has been the"we're all abunch of useless donkeys encouraged to play kick and rush from the age of 5 and England and the FAI are all sucking natural brilliance from our kids". OK, slightly exaggerated, but I would seriously have to question your judgment if you don't think having a midfielder who actually likes having the ball at a high level would "make an ounce of difference". Central midfield is the equivalent of half-backs in rugby. Slow ball is no ball at all.

[Charlie Darwin]

I think he has actually, and I've not really noticed the "one player" argument much before. Much more prevalent has been the"we're all abunch of useless donkeys encouraged to play kick and rush from the age of 5 and England and the FAI are all sucking natural brilliance from our kids". OK, slightly exaggerated, but I would seriously have to question your judgment if you don't think having a midfielder who actually likes having the ball at a high level would "make an ounce of difference". Central midfield is the equivalent of half-backs in rugby. Slow ball is no ball at all.
You're taking the rugby analogies too far. Look at the competitive games Gibson has started for Ireland - have we retained the ball to any significant extent? Or did I imagine the home game against Cyprus where they bossed the ball and their coach said we were one of the worst teams they'd played? I am a big fan of Gibson but we need more than just him to turn around the culture of this squad. I'd love to see Gibson, McCarthy and AN Other in our midfield, but playing Gibson alongside Whelan or Andrews is no panacea.

If you want evidence of the "one player" attitude, see the furore over Stephen Ireland, Andy Reid, Steven Reid, Wes Hoolahan, etc. All central midfielders and all players who would be handicapped as long as we keep playing the way we are, yet all of whom were held up as the missing link that would enable us to play a more expansive game. My point is that having one ball-playing midfielder in a conservative, defence-oriented side is not going to make a huge difference. Even Hoolahan in the first half against Georgia was overwhelmed at times.

[CraftyToePoke]

Even Hoolahan in the first half against Georgia was overwhelmed at times.

I think that's strong CD, he was more eye catching in the second half, certainly but I thought he did simple things well in the first 45, was available for the ball at the right times and kept us in decent possession with the options he selected and the tempo they set.

Why would you say he was overwhelmed ?

[Charlie Darwin]

I think that's strong CD, he was more eye catching in the second half, certainly but I thought he did simple things well in the first 45, was available for the ball at the right times and kept us in decent possession with the options he selected and the tempo they set.

Why would you say he was overwhelmed ?
Well we hardly dominated possession despite having an extra man for 70 minutes. The video of him posted in the other threa shows him passing back for most of the first half before he became more aventurous in the second. His conservative approach in the first half was largely a result of the pressure the Georgians were putting on us in midfield.

[CraftyToePoke]

Well we hardly dominated possession despite having an extra man for 70 minutes. The video of him posted in the other threa shows him passing back for most of the first half before he became more aventurous in the second. His conservative approach in the first half was largely a result of the pressure the Georgians were putting on us in midfield.

More adventurous in the second spell, certainly but I cant agree he was overwhelmed in that match at any stage. Also, if he came short for a ball off the CB and rolled it back to the CB a few times, It was nice to see a player in our midfield wanting the ball, and happy to be on the ball, and if he rolled it back to the CB half a dozen consecutive times, I'd sooner that to a 60/40 launch up the field.

[Charlie Darwin]

More adventurous in the second spell, certainly but I cant agree he was overwhelmed in that match at any stage. Also, if he came short for a ball off the CB and rolled it back to the CB a few times, It was nice to see a player in our midfield wanting the ball, and happy to be on the ball, and if he rolled it back to the CB half a dozen consecutive times, I'd sooner that to a 60/40 launch up the field.
I'm not criticising Hoolahan here. I'm saying that he was overwhelmed by the fact the Georgians were pressing him and he wasn't being presented with the options to pass the ball forward. I am in full agreement that if Whelan had the same options in the second half, he'd still have taken the conservative pass backwards. Hoolahan is a more positive player but he was only able to do so after half time because his teammates bought into the policy and made themselves available, and in many cases were still unable to make the best of it.

[paul_oshea]

Would ye all leave CD alone, picking on him because he is "different"...

I see his point here. But CD I think if we had messi in our side regardless of the rest, it would make a big difference, cos he would find space and time to create something. We don't have messi but although a lot of us harp back to the partnership of reid and whelan that did show potential for ball retention and some good slick passing. What I did notice with Reid was he was hitting a lot of long balls to the wingers though, not short passes, so CDs point does hold water. If you don't have players who are showing or capable of creating space for themselves or openings, it doesn't matter(to an extent anyway) who you have in the middle of the park.

[Stuttgart88]

Or did I imagine the home game against Cyprus where they bossed the ball and their coach said we were one of the worst teams they'd played? Are you seriously suggesting a performance of Darron Gibson's from 5 years ago is a valid comparison?

[DeLorean]

I would agree that Gibby Gibbo would be more at home minding the house as part of a 5-man midfield. Certainly looks that way for Everton even if the goals have dried up as an inevitable result.

[Stuttgart88]

Charlie, I think the calls for the likes of Reid (x2) were simply because they're better players than Trap was picking. I don't think anyone felt some kind of magic transformation would come about.

I think you're exaggerating the extent of the improvement I'd expect if Whelan was replaced.

I don't necessarily think a "huge improvement" would come about either, but I do believe there'd be enough of an improvement if Whelan was replaced by a better player, even under Trap's system and approach. Sweden away was a very good example - but about the only example one can find. Midfield functioned well, so by and large the team functioned well.

I think Hoolahan's first half showing against Georgia - and Ireland's overall - was tempered by not having an orthodox wide man on the right - either at full back or RHM.

Also, you say that Hoolahan was more effective in second half because his teammates bought into it more. That's pretty much my point though - teammates appreciate a guy who wants the ball and keeps it moving. It sets the tone and in the absence of such a player we play hoofball all the time.

[DeLorean]

Sweden away was a very good example - but about the only example one can find. Midfield functioned well, so by and large the team functioned well.

True, but it's also worth pointing out that if the majority had got their way, half of that functioning midfield would have been nowhere near the squad in the first place, i.e. Paul Green.

[Stuttgart88]

But what's that got to do with it? I suppose it shows that the majority aren't always right, but I don't care about the majority! I just think that replacing Whelan with a better ball player will improve us - not transform us - and I want everyone here to agree or I'll get upset. :)

[Closed Account 2]

This "one player will make a difference" attitude tends to spring up from time to time. We've had Gibson in the team before and he hasn't made an ounce of difference. What we need, and what we needed in the Euros, was a number of personnel changes which would have enabled us to play with a bit of composure in possession. We're finally, slowly, getting there with the introduction of Coleman, Wilson, McCarthy, possibly Hoolahan and Clark.

I think this is the key. particularly the full backs. When I was in Poznan I remember O'Shea and Ward being the full backs and they kept shying away from the ball. When the central midfielders got the ball most of the attacking players were marked by the Croats so there usually wasnt a release ball up the pitch to Keane and Doyle, even when Keane dropped back into midfield to try and pick up the ball his marker would go with him. McGeady and Duff would try and open themselves up for a ball from the center but again they were well marshalled by Croatia. What was really telling was how timid the full backs were, they generally didn't get up the pitch but also more crucially they hid from posession even in their own half. And on the rare occasions that O'Shea or Ward got the ball they would often just aimlessly launch it upfield and the idea that they would carry the ball forward themselves was a total anathema. When Whelan and Andrews were pressed by the Croatian midfield they had very few options, Andrews is more mobile than Whelan so his agility gave him a bit more leeway, but Whelan was pressured he had no options and lacked the phisique to get himself out of touble. At least with Coleman and Wilson we have full backs who will show themselves as options to be passed to a lot more than Ward and O'Shea (as a full back).

[paul_oshea]

That's what i meant earlier, if you have players who are willing to find space and take the ball then a player like hoolohan makes a huge difference. I think that's the kernel here, we have moved away from players in positions who are afraid to take the ball from the midfield, the team has evolved and transitioned where we have good ball playing full backs and midfielders, except Whelan. The team is being held back by the inclusion of Whelan which limits or ability to play the expansive passing game we are now capable of playing with the players we have. Now more than ever, is there a justification for dropping him.

I think if we are trying to hold onto a lead, he is the player to have on, but not starting a game, he offers us nothing only less ball retention.

[DeLorean]

But what's that got to do with it? I suppose it shows that the majority aren't always right, but I don't care about the majority! I just think that replacing Whelan with a better ball player will improve us - not transform us - and I want everyone here to agree or I'll get upset. :)

Don't worry, I wasn't even a fan of Whelan in the days of his masterful motm performances against Georgia and Montenegro, so I agree completely with replacing him.

I wasn't really making a point a such, just thought it was worth mentioning seeing as the majority would have been more anti-Green than anti-Whelan before that match. I'm not sure Sweden away was a very good example if your solely talking about getting a better ball player in for Whelan. Green still offered the energy that Whelan lacks though to be fair and I think that was the major difference.

[BonnieShels]

The sensible people here remember the horror of the Russia game at home and how Whelan made Green look like the plodder. I've never had much of a problem with Green. He's limited but his job is not the sort of job that requires someone of great skill.

Having the 2 of them in the middle is suicide.

[SwanVsDalton]

The sensible people here remember the horror of the Russia game at home and how Whelan made Green look like the plodder. I've never had much of a problem with Green. He's limited but his job is not the sort of job that requires someone of great skill.

Having the 2 of them in the middle is suicide.

Not so sure about that. Green was rubbish against Russia too. Having said that he's never been as bad as has been generally suggested.


More adventurous in the second spell, certainly but I cant agree he was overwhelmed in that match at any stage. Also, if he came short for a ball off the CB and rolled it back to the CB a few times, It was nice to see a player in our midfield wanting the ball, and happy to be on the ball, and if he rolled it back to the CB half a dozen consecutive times, I'd sooner that to a 60/40 launch up the field.

Interesting thing about that is it's something Gibson did all the time. He was often accused of hiding or going missing, but in nearly every game he played (particularly in the 2012 campaign period) he was always dropping short and demanding the ball from defenders and keeper.

[BonnieShels]

Not so sure about that. Green was rubbish against Russia too. Having said that he's never been as bad as has been generally suggested.

Oh he was. But the bile and anger that was sent his way was unwarranted. It was Whelan having the horror show that he had that meant that Green as limited as he was was covering two positions in CM.

But as you say rightly, he's never been as bad as has been made out.

[SwanVsDalton]

Oh he was. But the bile and anger that was sent his way was unwarranted. It was Whelan having the horror show that he had that meant that Green as limited as he was was covering two positions in CM.

But as you say rightly, he's never been as bad as has been made out.

Oh yeah he was the complete fall-guy, an easy target. Interesting how things have turned now - the more clued in fans would have Green over Whelan in a heartbeat.

[BonnieShels]

Oh yeah he was the complete fall-guy, an easy target. Interesting how things have turned now - the more clued in fans would have Green over Whelan in a heartbeat.

Foot.iers! :)

[paul_oshea]

NO BS, some of us were there before, I think you will remember Geysir and I pointed out for the short time he was on against Slovakia he did a good job. He was very poor against Russia, but after that game he greatly improved - he needed to even a great improvement wouldn't have meant he was still good - maybe tahts just because we are so used to seeing how bad whelan is in midfield.

[Charlie Darwin]

Are you seriously suggesting a performance of Darron Gibson's from 5 years ago is a valid comparison?
Yes. It's not like there are an awful lot of examples considering his remarkable injury record around international breaks.


Charlie, I think the calls for the likes of Reid (x2) were simply because they're better players than Trap was picking. I don't think anyone felt some kind of magic transformation would come about.
Surely you've heard the calls to "get Hoolahan in the team and we'll start playing some football" etc. They're panaceas. And Andy Reid has never at any stage been better than the players Trap was picking.


I don't necessarily think a "huge improvement" would come about either, but I do believe there'd be enough of an improvement if Whelan was replaced by a better player, even under Trap's system and approach. Sweden away was a very good example - but about the only example one can find. Midfield functioned well, so by and large the team functioned well.
I'd say we played better against Sweden because they are as scared of the ball as we are. Ditto England.


I think Hoolahan's first half showing against Georgia - and Ireland's overall - was tempered by not having an orthodox wide man on the right - either at full back or RHM.

Also, you say that Hoolahan was more effective in second half because his teammates bought into it more. That's pretty much my point though - teammates appreciate a guy who wants the ball and keeps it moving. It sets the tone and in the absence of such a player we play hoofball all the time.
I'm saying the players bought into the idea of passing it against 10 men of inferior quality, whereas until that point we were still playing the way we would against a superior side.

[Irwin3]

Yes. It's not like there are an awful lot of examples considering his remarkable injury record around international breaks.

Indeed. It's not like he's missed 8 months out of the last two seasons out through injury.

BTW, I believe I was the first to point this out when he withdrew in summer 2011 and I spotted that he had done it for 3 years in a row, so I can understand your suspicion. We have since learned that he has a calcified mass on his thigh that has been causing these injuries and was apparently going to require surgery this summer.

[Charlie Darwin]

It's not just the summer. He has missed a lot of friendly breaks, during which time other players have jumped ahead of him in the queue. If he was anybody else, Trap would have lost patience and stopped calling him up.

[Irwin3]

Yes, he's an injury prone player and it has been pointed out before that even if he didn't refuse the post euros call-ups that he would have missed a lot of them as well through being injured.

[Stuttgart88]

Sweden and England are both scared of the ball, but with Whelan missing against Sweden we played well but with Whelan present we didn't. I'd have thought that lends some support to my point rather than refuting it.

And just adding some sarcasm to your first comment about Gibson doesn't really validate your argument that Gibson of 2008is likely to be the same as Gibson of 2013. I think it just makes you look like you won't give an inch regardless of what is put before you.

I think it's quite curmudgeonly not to acknowledge in any way whatsoever that Hoolahan actually improved the way the team played in the second half by setting the tone and tempo from midfield. I think it'd be fair to say that McGeady gave him better options than Keogh and Keane made some good runs for him so that accounts for some of the overall improvement but if you think Whelan would have been just as effective I'd have to disagree.

I'm convinced that Whelan is past his sell-by date for us and his place should be allocated to a player with more comfort on the ball. A Hoolahan or a Gibson won't drastically change the way we play - Trap is welded to his approach - but it would, in my opinion, improve how we execute Trap's approach.

Just to complete my response, I think around 2008 and 2009 Andy Reid was, or was very close to being, one of our best midfielders. At one brief stage, Trap even picked Liam Miller.