Are we really THAT bad?

I live in Japan and work with other foreigners here. With the World Cup on, there have been some comments about the weaker teams not being as good as some European teams who didnt qualify. Ireland are frequently mentioned as an example of this kind of team, and I used to agree with that opinion, even though I cant watch the Irish games over here, so I didnt see any of the qualifying games.

But having just watched Switzerland against France, I might have to review my position. Switzerland, who finished ahead of us (not by much, I know) were just TERRIBLE. No tactics save the long ball, no midfield at all, the left back Magnin is just a joke, the list goes on.

Now I know it was against France, against whom any team would be happy with a draw, so I didnt expect too much from the Swiss in terms of attacking football, but that was awful.

Are Ireland really worse than that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Are Ireland really worse than that?

---

Ah.......yep.

We've played Switzerland 4 times in the last few years. How many have we won?

There's your answer.

The last time we've beaten a decent team in a competition was almost 5 years ago (Holland Sept 2001).

We have the players to be one of the top 16 countries in the world, imo, but it just never seems to go right on the pitch due to a number of different reasons.

They're a funny team Switzerland. In the qualifiers for both of the last two tournaments I was really impressed by them. And not just against us. But then in the tournaments themselves they really looked ordinary. I wonder if they get a bit stage struck.

We may not have faired well against the likes of the Swiss in the qualifiers but we're better than some of the dross that qualify from outside of Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmandmythdledge

We have the players to be one of the top 16 countries in the world, imo, but it just never seems to go right on the pitch due to a number of different reasons.

---

Are you talking about England or Ireland?!

I`ve no idea where the players you are talking about are. Our squad is full of mediocrity.

We`d have a shout at a glorious nil all against many of the World Cup teams, on our day, but likewise I reckon some of the African sides could hammer us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmandmythdledge

We have the players to be one of the top 16 countries in the world, imo, but it just never seems to go right on the pitch due to a number of different reasons.

---

MUG . NO

Were not great, but a lot of international football is about form and tactics. You dont need to have world class players in every position to do fairly well. You need one or two world class players (which we just about have - Given is world class and Robbie Keane and Duff are world class around 50% of the time). You also need good organisation and self belief. This nearly always comes from the manager, we didn't have this under Kerr who was out of his depth.

Under Jack Charlton we had a manager who was able to organise the team very well and give the players a degree of faith in themselves. In the late 80s and early 90s we were one of the top European teams. We had good players but (with the exception of McGrath, maybe at a push Aldridge) none of them were world class. The bulk of our players were like John Sheridan, Cascarino and Niall Quinn, good players but not spectular. But with an organised team and self belief they were able to help us compete at the top level.

I'd argue in the late 1990s Roy Keane gave us that organisation and belief. When he played (1994, qualification for 2002) we generally did well, when he was absent we didn't. I didnt like Keane's personality but at the end of the day you have to acknowledge, when he played, he was a born leader.

I like Brian Kerr, but under him we were sloppy at keeping a lead, lacked organisation (we wasted umpteen set pieces in every match in the last campaign). And we just didnt have the confidence to play well in competitive matches.

At the moment the jury is out on Staunton, we will only really be able to judge him after weve played a few matches. If he can give us sufficient organisation and belief then we will have a good chance and we can more than match the likes of Japan, Australia, Croatia, Serbia, Greece, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, the Czechs and yes, even the bleeding Swiss - all of whom have been sucessfull in the last few years. At the moment we're not quite there yet though.

I disagree with the lad that said that Ireland would get beaten by some of the African teams. I'm not impressed with any of the African teams in the WC so far and I reckon we'd beat any of them handily on neutral ground.

In a way I feel cheated. I have never felt so down about the team and have supported them since 88 (2 young before then)
You have to be honest about are chances for 2008.....the czechs blitzed the yanks and will stream role us, A early away massacre in germany will set the standard for the Worst campaign ever.
Slovakia draw will be the best result we get.
Draw in Wales is a cert also.
A few more retirements enroute of after a poor run.
And the likes of mc geady. Ireland and joey o ' brien all non runners....we would have the same kind of team as Northern Ireland (non premiership class)
No more quality english born guys want to play for us as a result of our pathetic results.
Kitson ,Nolan , lennon, Cahill etc guys who we badly need (im sure they are more but i cant think of who )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vega007

I disagree with the lad that said that Ireland would get beaten by some of the African teams. I'm not impressed with any of the African teams in the WC so far and I reckon we'd beat any of them handily on neutral ground.

---

I'd disagree with that, I'd say Ivory Coast and Ghana would/could take us. They are teams that have power as well as pace and did well even though they lost in their respective games. Going on our last qualifying campaign when we were nothing more than ordinary and one paced then I'd say those 2 were better teams than us at the moment.

I'm sick of Switzerland in football terms and I'm not too impressed with their people either but in their defence, they must be thinking, "if we get a draw with France and win our remaining two games, then we're home and dry." Not losing your opening game is very important.

With regard to Ireland, I don't think the current management team and squad are good enough to qualify for any major tournament. I can't see us going to Euro 2008.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmandmythdledge

We have the players to be one of the top 16 countries in the world, imo, but it just never seems to go right on the pitch due to a number of different reasons.

---

I fully agree. But we also have a mickey mouse international setup that can only attract poor managers making it very hard for our better players to shine and overcome better organised, better managed teams with a more professional setup such as Switzerland.

It's always been the same and always will be I fear. Only Ireland could fail to qualify for a World Cup with a team containing several of the best players in Europe at the time as happenned in 82 (Lawrenson, Stapleton, Brady, O'Leary, Moran, Whelan, Daly and Heighway).

Does anybody remember England Ireland in 1990 one of the worst games ever in World Cup terms. France Switzerland was very similar to that in my view. 2 teams that no each other so well who both feel a draw is not a bad result but one who has slightly higher expectations and experience of big tournaments. The game had draw written all over it and so it turned out.

Regarding saying all we had was Alrdidge and Mc Grath and the rest were Quinn Cascarino and Sheridan is selective usage of names there.

Here is the team that Played Scotland in 1987


Bonner (Celtic) Scottish Champions I believe

Mc Grath (Man Utd)

Moran (Man Utd? Gijon)

Mc Carthy (Celtic)

Whelan (Liverpool)


Houghton (Liverpool? Oxford)

Brady (Inter Milan? Sampdoria)

Lawrenson (Liverpool)

Galvin (Spurs)


Stapleton (Man Utd? Ajax)

Alrdridge (Oxford Liverpool?)


Missing that day was Jim Beglin and Kevin Sheedy and Chris Hughton all playing at top English clubs. We later added Andy Townsend, Niall Quinn, Tony Cascarino, John Sheridan, Chris Morris, Steve Staunton to this. And after 1990 Denis Irwin and Roy Keane. We had top top players and when we played England in 1988 we had man for man as good a team as they did. Charlton added organisation and a game plan and made us hard to beat.

The available players aren't technically good enough. Even the supposedly weaker teams in the World Cup are capable of stringing passes together and keeping possession, something that we can't do.

Shows the need to develop continental style academies in this country rather than relying on a failing English system. We don't have the volume to produce the naturally gifted players to make up for the shortfalls in the system like the English do, so we need to develop this ourselves. Obviously I see this in conjunction with the eL, with the acceptance that the very top will still go abroad, but it's the only way I see of planned player development rather than the wait, see and hope tatic of the FAI of the past, present and seemingly the future.

Valid points about the team in the late 80's/early 90's. I think the myth about the quality of players available then is mainly due to the tatic's employed at the time rather than the actual quality of the team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

The available players aren't technically good enough

---

Bottom line

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

and the rest were Quinn Cascarino and Sheridan is selective usage of names there.

---

Sheridan was a brilliant midfielder. He could pass the ball better than anyone we have today. As soon as he left Wednesday they were relegated (no concidence) & whilst there they were more often than not near the top end of the division & competing in cup finals. Most Wedesday fans will tell you he was the heartbeat of the team pulling all the strings & more important than Waddle.

To write him off in terms of "selective" use of a name as a make weight is entirely wrong.

..& we can thank his goal for getting us to the WC finals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

The available players aren't technically good enough. Even the supposedly weaker teams in the World Cup are capable of stringing passes together and keeping possession, something that we can't do.

Shows the need to develop continental style academies in this country rather than relying on a failing English system. We don't have the volume to produce the naturally gifted players to make up for the shortfalls in the system like the English do, so we need to develop this ourselves. Obviously I see this in conjunction with the eL, with the acceptance that the very top will still go abroad, but it's the only way I see of planned player development rather than the wait, see and hope tatic of the FAI of the past, present and seemingly the future.

Valid points about the team in the late 80's/early 90's. I think the myth about the quality of players available then is mainly due to the tatic's employed at the time rather than the actual quality of the team.

---

Good post. Oddly enough, in WC2002 I thought we were very good at moving the ball around & retaining possession. Agree totally about the need to stop relying on the English system. Like that would ever be recognised though :(

I've watched about 85% of all the action so far. Almost every team I've seen moves the ball around well, in the way the game is supposed to be played. Beenhakker has dismissed England as being nothing but a dead-ball team. They've actually been a rare exception.

Quick point about the Swiss: they did miss 2 gilt-edged chances and although France were almost non-existent as an attacking threat they're still a very hard team to break down. In a way we were unluicky: the only thinh Henry has done in a French shirt all year was to score that belter against us.

God, I'd love to win the lottery and gather together a pool of similarly minded wealthy people and invest properly in the game in this country:) I honestly believe there's sufficient dormant interest in football and sufficient interest in all live sport as long as it's of a sufficient standard and in a sufficient quality setting.

I think Genesis II is right in many ways though arguably not going far enough in direction of total reform. IRFU & GAA have set standards that football falls well short of.

It is indeed a very worrying and depressing time in Irish football, I can see us going to international wilderness for a number of years like Scotland are now! We need a miracle to qualify for 2008.. the talent just isn't there and there really is no one going through either, expect germany and czechs to roll us over

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reality Bites

It is indeed a very worrying and depressing time in Irish football, I can see us going to international wilderness for a number of years like Scotland are now! We need a miracle to qualify for 2008.. the talent just isn't there and there really is no one going through either, expect germany and czechs to roll us over

---

There's definitely talent there already and also definitely talent coming through, so we should chill our boots a bit here.

If Costa Rica can score twice in Germany so can we.

I think we're too like the English: OTT positive when things go well, OTT negative when they go badly.

But it doesn't negate the fact that we simply must take note of and adapt to how the game is changing and how we need to gain more control over our own destiny.

Oh, and on John Shridan - quality. If only we had him in his prime now. He's exactly the type of player that thrives in the world game these days.

General observation: not only does nearly every team move the ball around well, has anyone noticed how big & athletic the modern international player is these days? Croatia & Switzerland are a team of giants. It's a bit like rugby: modern day centres & wingers are the same build as forwards were up to the 1990s. This is another aspect of the game that's changing.