Were we positive enough?

After Clintons goal we had very few attempts on goal, I have just rewatched the first half and I cannot recall their keeper being tested, this is despite
him being beaten at his near post from an impossible angle (credit due to
Clinton thouogh).

All I recall from the second half (watching now) were some fairly poor free kicks.

As for their goal, we basically sat too deep and invited them to have a pot
shot, after they had scored, when we had to be more positive I recalll our only other goal attempt when Duff hit the cross bar.

So two goal attempts in the 7 minutes we were positive and little else in
the other 85 or so minutes. I wonder how we would have faired if we
had remained positive throughout?

None of their 'break' efforts came to much, but when we sat back and gave
them more time on the ball we were punished.

Actually having rewatched the match I have to conclude the the Israelies
were pretty lucky with that late strike.

.....as were we with clint's strike. Regardless of what the optimists say, that game was there for the taking and we blew it from the get go, tactics were all wrong. I recall someone saying after we scored that it was the best start possible, turns out it wasnt so good after all. We fcuked up and thats that. Lets be realistic/optimistric and go out and win our remaining games. Its well within our capabilities.

Actually it's not dissimilar to Italia 90 qualifying when we drew 0-0 in Hungary in a frustrating game we should have one. Big pressure was put on the home games but we came through memorably.

It's a pity we don't have a competitive game this week. We could really go out & kick some ass which would ease the frustration.

I just think we need our best players on the pitch though. Thankfully Carr is suspended which will force Finnan to play at RB, and Reid RHM.

As I'll say for the 3rd time, the tactics are not to blame. Maybe the choice of players were wrong but ask a sports psychologist and he'll tell you every players instinct is to protect a lead whether you are Chelsea in Barcelona or England in Portugal. It comes natural just like it comes natural for animals and humans to protect their family. Kerr said we didn't create enough going forward, I don't think he would say that if it was his choice to sit back. I don't think there's many coaches out there that will tell their players to sit on a lead at such an early stage.

And this is not the talk of players that were told to sit back:

“In saying that, we should still have killed the game off. We could have done more in the second half in terms of possession and testing their goalkeeper." - Roy


“Perhaps you could say we were a bit conservative, but then hindsight is a great thing. You think ‘do we push forward for another goal or sit tight and defend what we have?’

“Looking at it we should have tried to get another goal, and overall we are disappointed we have dropped two big points in the group.” - Given

Kerr's stated that Paddy Kenny, Dunne, Andy Reid and Graham Kavanagh will start against China, so I'd say Reid and Kav will start at home against Israel, with Finnan going right full.

I hope to God we stick a hatful past the Chinese - Spain put 3 past them at the weekend - and put the memory of Israel to rest, and more importantly learn how to take a chance.

I think the people whove written that our use of subs against Israel was strange are by and large correct.

Our strikers looked worn out by the hour mark, personally I'd have taken one of them off and brought on the Doc. I think his physical presence would have caused the Israelis all sorts of problems, he is also a great asset at set pieces (defending or attacking). Doc has his critics, and perhaps he isnt blessed with huge amounts of skills or trickery, but he is a unique option in our squad and does the simple stuff very well. Also people forget the fact he scored the most goals for us in the last lot of qualifiers. He has been in hostile situations before and passed with flying colours (remember Tiblisi away), on such a tight pitch in Tel Aviv (which negated the pace of our attackers), the Doc could have been a good option.

Similarly I would have taken Kilbane off, he was having a bad game (happens to all players sometimes) and brought on Kav. We were playing in a defensive style for much of the game, and seeing as that was the case we would have been better bringing on Kav (more defensive than Kilbane) and Doc (a guy who can hold the ball up and act as a pressure outlet for our midfield).

About Doc: it was noticable how neither Robbie nor Clinton won a ball in the air late on.

Out of interest: who was on the bench? The TV captions didn't show the subs, or maybe I just missed it in the pub.

By the way, I have a confession to make. I mentioned in the "What channel is it on in the UK" thread that the Corrib Rest is an unlucky pub for me. We have not won away "there" since it became my local. At the very last minute I decided not to watch it at home (similar bad track record) or McGoverns in Kilburn (where I watched us win in Tblisi). I feel I must take some responsibility.

Rep of Ireland: Given, Carr, O'Brien, Cunningham, O'Shea, Finnan, Roy Keane, Kilbane, Duff, Robbie Keane, Morrison (Holland 85).

Subs Not Used: Kenny, Reid, Dunne, Kavanagh, Elliott, Doherty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

About Doc: it was noticable how neither Robbie nor Clinton won a ball in the air late on.

---

Yeah, the Doc is brilliant in the air. He is, perhaps, not the most skillfull player in the world, but he doesnt need to be. He a fighter, he'll win balls for us and gives 110% whenever he plays. He does chip in with vital goals now and again too. The other thing to bear in mind is his ability at defending. He's not super-fast but he's good at clearing, and his physical presence can put the opposition off. This gives us a huge bonus if were defending set pieces, as sometimes our first team can lack height particularly in rear areas.

Ideally we probably wouldnt start with the Doc, but he's a superb option to have on the bench. If the game's starting to go wrong why not throw him on to mix it up a bit ? Ideally we'd play pretty football, but if needs dictate we shouldn't fear playing more direct football. Its interesting to note that the Italians have started to take up this option and regularly have Luca Toni (an absolute giant of a player, currently with Palermo) on their bench as a direct option. The Germans used to do it with Carsten Jancker when he was in his prime too, the Czechs have a pair of giants in the form of Jan Koller and Vratislav Lockvenk and brought on the latter to great effect against the Finns on Saturday (they were 3-1 up, it went to 3-3 and then Lokvenck came on and scored the winner). None of these players are highly skillfull and technical, but they are effective and give those teams an extra option.

Israel were there for the takin on sat night and it was poor tactics and a little bad luck that cost us the win. The crossing and passing forward was non existent, why the send aimless high balls into a small front two I just dont know. As the goal proved, Irelands strength is using the wings to get to the end line and crossing low for the two strikers-twice in the whole game we did this, once for the goal another with O'Shea in the second half which Israel struggled to clear. (there was only one Irish player in the box)
I think as against the Swiss, Kerr got his tactics badly wrong, in fact if anything scoring early in both games was the problem because he just seems to decide to protect the lead from then on.
However, he has always maintained the home games will decide if we qualify or not and now especially after sat's result, they must beat 2 of the 3 visiting sides, if not well then I think Kerr will have to take the blame.
Given Irelands record at home, I can see them beating Israel and maybe the Swiss(revenge will be high on the menu in a high pressure last game), however the french will be a tough prospect. Its gonna come down to the last game but if Ireland want to qualify automatically, 13 from 15 points is needed in the remaining games.

Please, stop blaming Kerr when me, you and probably everyone else on this board have never studied sports psychology. Ok, Kerr deserves part of the blame but so do most of the players.

Does a manager manage a team or not though. I do think that our negative use of the ball was influenced heavily by the early goal, but I do think that should have gone out the window in teh 2nd half after a half time break and some words from the manager. However in the 2nd half it was worse so I do think that manager should take some of the blame in that we did not go forward enough. It is one of 2 thinngs

Either they were told to keep posession at all costs and not take risks or make forward passess.

Or they were told to go forward if they could but fail to do so.


Either scenario is not too good, Either Brian Kerr was negative the other night or he was positive and the players did not listen to him.

Saying that I think there is far too much hyperbole on this board. We are in a strong position still, However we would have been in a grest position if we had of one which with a bit more conviction etc, we should have won.

Put it this way, if every player was at their best we would have been 3-0 at half time. That just shows why people are putting unfair on Kerr's shoulders. As I said, he deserves some blame but if the players played to the best of their ability we would all be praising Kerr.