Printable View
Had to happen sooner or later. Sounds like we were fairly rubbish from Schumi's twitter updates.
UCD: Barron, Kelly, Nangle, Boyle, E McMillan, Creevy, Reilly (McMahon), Finn, Kilduff, D McMillan (Ward), Mulhall.
Unused subs: Brennan, Leahy and Bolger.
L. O'Loughlin scored for Wexford, according to Livescore.
Bolger was actually the last unused sub.
Pretty poor performance from almost everyone. Ward put in a good shift when he came on and was our only midfielder who created chances. Even Finn had a terrible game. Tonight's game was also a perfect example that our midfield will not work the way it is. Dineen has to be in the team from now on.
Ah now, one bad loss is no more proof that it won't work than six wins in a row was proof that it would.
I raised concerns about our midfield before we even played a game. If you had seen us play I'm sure you would spot the same as me, even in the games we've dominated.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Finn and Creevey/Bolger is too attacking minded and lacks balance. Tonight was just the first time it was exposed by the opposition. We've got nobody in our midfield who can take command and control a game- a dominant central midfielder. Finn is great when he gets the ball at his feet and can more or less win games on his own at this level (eg vs Shels) but he is not a player who will run midfield- think Kinger last season or Tony Mc in his day. I'll admit I haven't seen enough Dineen to say he's a very good player but he is a defensive minded player who is strong, positionally sound and good with the ball at his feet. Perhaps Creevey and Bolger are better players than him but six attacking minded players is too much. The strength in our team is attack- no doubt about that- and as a result teams are going to hound us and pressure us like Wexford did to great success.
I'm sure there's a weakness there, but sometimes you lose more trying to patch your weaknesses than by playing to your strengths. If we win six games in seven, I'll take a bad loss every seventh game. I'm sure Russell is aware of the problem, and if it becomes more of a hindrance than it has been, he'll adjust the midfield.
You first line doesn't really make much sense. Playing one defensive midfielder will not stop us playing to our strengths. If anything it will improve them as our most potent attacking players would have more freedom. Finn had to drop deep a lot tonight because we were losing the midfield battle but he was unsuccessful as he was trying to do stuff that doesn't suit his game. With somebody like Dineen in there Finn could operate where he's at his best.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Against poor teams our weakness will not be exposed but if teams play a similar style to Wexford we will struggle to impose ourselves on the game. Also, as I said before, you have not seen our performances this season. To be honest you can't really make any sort of proper judgement (obviously) until doing so.
Seven in eight, as I like to include the Tullamore game to make the record sound better. I agree with you, though. That said, we were bad tonight - we were muscled off the ball too easily, and the passing was atrocious. The general consensus on the way out was that the defeat would be good for us. No more Arsene Wenger "unbeaten in the season" suggestions, no more "How long can this go on for?" - just concentrate on the football now.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Wexford are also better than their league position suggests as they've played Shels, Fungus and Waterford already, losing narrowly to each; they were probably due a win (and deserved it too; not a bad team, though they'd struggle at Premier Division level)
Wexford Yourhs won a few games already. Maybe their first win under Mick Wallace (MB). Who has travelled to the Italian Penisula three times in a short time. He brought back good fortune and good luck each time.
Still, like in Bari I wish him well. (Not, he falls into a wishing well, that would be dreadful)
Can a person overdose on Olive Oil? It's only a question.