Pats 1-1 UCD

Good performance from the team, nobody had a bad game. Still can't believe that Hynes didn't score at the end but that's football. It was a great game, end to end stuff. I thought we were slightly better for the most part but then Pats had a good bit of pressure towards the end and finally made Quigley make a few saves, including one which I don't know how he kept out.

The ref was shocking- also missed Kirby's handball for the goal which changed the game.:rolleyes: Still a point on the board with 4 points looking likely from our next two games.

Also ****ing ****ed off as I was walking towards William Hill to put a fiver on 1-1 but changed my mind.:rolleyes:

I'll take that.

Don't think it was a handball for their goal - Setanta made it out to be, but Kenna's tackled bounced up and hit Kirby on the arm, which was by his side, so it looked fairly accidental in fairness.

Think we both should have had a penalty, but a draw was fair.

Will do a report tomorrow after watching the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Don't think it was a handball for their goal - Setanta made it out to be, but Kenna's tackled bounced up and hit Kirby on the arm, which was by his side, so it looked fairly accidental in fairness.

---

No it was a definite handball. Kirby's arm was out from his body- all of a sudden it' right by his side exactly where the ball was. He struggled to keep a straight face when saying it was ball to hand in his interview. Can't blame the ref for missing it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Think we both should have had a penalty, but a draw was fair.

---

Don't think either were penalties after seeing the Pats one in injury time on Setanta this morning. Pats was a dive and ours was very innocuous looking.

Very good performance last night by all. I was surprised by Pete's selection when I heard it but credit where credit is due - the key nto the formation was Finn's link up play and I thought he was super.

Sammo had a very good game and was helped by the slot that Finn took up. The 2 centre halves were, as usual, top drawer - thought McNally shaded it over Kenna last night although Kenna's tackle when faced with a 2 on 2 in the second half was world class.

Banks - like save from Quigs at the end was top drawer.

A few other observations -0 what do we think of Tony Mc in centre mid ? A few timely interceptions but not convinced - I know this is sacrilege but does he warrant a place if and when McFaul comes back ?

Apart from one give away I thought King did enough to keep his place.

All in all good performance and a cracking game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

Don't think either were penalties after seeing the Pats one in injury time on Setanta this morning. Pats was a dive and ours was very innocuous looking.

---

sorry lads but i have to disagree with anyone who says we deserved that point and especially ronan saying we were the better team, pats were far superior to us and when watching it on the telly and seeing replays its easier to tell. we were made defend for long spells and darren Quigley pulled off at least three very good saves in particular the point blank header at the end, had that gone in i would have said although pats were not great in the final third they would have deserved the win.
i dont mean to sound so negative but had they not been on their travels they could have done to us last night what odense did to them last week

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

A few other observations -0 what do we think of Tony Mc in centre mid ? A few timely interceptions but not convinced - I know this is sacrilege but does he warrant a place if and when McFaul comes back ?

---

The bottom line is that a McFaul-Finn partnership doesn't work, plenty of flash but no bang. Need a physical presence to go alongside one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Very good performance last night by all. I was surprised by Pete's selection when I heard it but credit where credit is due - the key nto the formation was Finn's link up play and I thought he was super.

Sammo had a very good game and was helped by the slot that Finn took up.

A few other observations -0 what do we think of Tony Mc in centre mid ? A few timely interceptions but not convinced - I know this is sacrilege but does he warrant a place if and when McFaul comes back ?

---

Finn and Sammo were class when they played together last season and were again last night. For me it's our best partnership upfront.

Tony Mc isn't at the races this season. No point picking him because he's been around for so long and used to be good. McFaul and Finn are our two best players in the middle, with King not that far behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdonian Stu

The bottom line is that a McFaul-Finn partnership doesn't work, plenty of flash but no bang. Need a physical presence to go alongside one of them.

---

You obviously missed the Rovers game- both were class playing together. McFaul has a physical presence too, don't know what you've been watching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gargamel

sorry lads but i have to disagree with anyone who says we deserved that point and especially ronan saying we were the better team, pats were far superior to us and when watching it on the telly and seeing replays its easier to tell. we were made defend for long spells and darren Quigley pulled off at least three very good saves in particular the point blank header at the end, had that gone in i would have said although pats were not great in the final third they would have deserved the win.
i dont mean to sound so negative but had they not been on their travels they could have done to us last night what odense did to them last week

---

I thought UCD definitely deserved a point. I was watching it on Setanta too and I felt UCD set up their team far better than Pat's, played a disciplined game and always looked dangerous on the break. Pat's had no threat down the wings and only created about the same number of clear opportunities as UCD.

It was only when Kirby moved into the centre that Pat's looked dangerous, for all the possession up to that they were hopeless. McGuire and Frost were given nightmares all game. McGuire is a class defender, I've seen him a few times this year, live and on TV and Sammon made him work harder than any other player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

You obviously missed the Rovers game- both were class playing together. McFaul has a physical presence too, don't know what you've been watching.

---

As we've previously pointed out in the Wimbledon thread one good performance does not paint an accurate picture.

McFaul is not a physical player as has been clear throughout the season, obviously he's comparatively physical to Finn but so are you for goodness sake!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdonian Stu

As we've previously pointed out in the Wimbledon thread one good performance does not paint an accurate picture.

McFaul is not a physical player as has been clear throughout the season, obviously he's comparatively physical to Finn but so are you for goodness sake!

---

What else have we to judge on? The reason they were doing poorly at the start of the season was that Finn needed time to get used to playing in a new position. Now he is used to it and impressed when he played there with McFaul. No reason why it shouldn't be tried again.

I think it has been clear that McFaul has been a physical player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gargamel

sorry lads but i have to disagree with anyone who says we deserved that point... pats were far superior to us... had they not been on their travels they could have done to us last night what odense did to them last week

---

Can't agree with that. We were under a lot of pressure towards the end but we had more good chances in the first half definitely. We can't expect to be on top for the whole game and defended well when Pats were coming at us late on. I thought a point was fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

What else have we to judge on?

---

The other games they've played together this season which have shown that it is not an adequate partnership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

I think it has been clear that McFaul has been a physical player.

---

He's nowhere nearly as physical as Crowley or even Tony "last 60 minutes or your money back" McDonnell.

Thought Tony had one of his better games of the season actually. He's short of match fitness, but last night hinted he was getting back to form. I'd keep him in there purely as the experienced head, and the one who can actually win headers in midfield and break up opposition attacks.

That said, we are fairly spoiled in centre mid.

I wasn't crazy about his performance overall, though unusually for me I will say that I was impressed by his aerial prowess last night.

The main problem with Tony is that he hasn't shown he's capable of lasting the full 90 consistently without some sort of injury afflicting him, even if last night's one was a freak clash of heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdonian Stu

I wasn't crazy about his performance overall, though unusually for me I will say that I was impressed by his aerial prowess last night.

The main problem with Tony is that he hasn't shown he's capable of lasting the full 90 consistently without some sort of injury afflicting him, even if last night's one was a freak clash of heads.

---

He played 90 against Longford.

I suspect he's still not fully up to speed, so I'm wary of writing him off just yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdonian Stu

The other games they've played together this season which have shown that it is not an adequate partnership.

He's nowhere nearly as physical as Crowley or even Tony "last 60 minutes or your money back" McDonnell.

---

Which was when Finn was playing in an unfamiliar position, as I've already explained.

He isn't as physical as those two but is still adequate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

He's short of match fitness

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

He played 90 against Longford.

I suspect he's still not fully up to speed, so I'm wary of writing him off just yet.

---

He's started 6 games since he came back from injury, played 90 minutes in 4 of them. He still looked off the pace last night- I don't think his fitness is going to get any better, especially as he's entering the stage of his career where he is beginning to wind down and his history of injuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

He's started 6 games since he came back from injury, played 90 minutes in 4 of them. He still looked off the pace last night- I don't think his fitness is going to get any better, especially as he's entering the stage of his career where he is beginning to wind down and his history of injuries.

---

He was sharper yesterday than before, and it's not like he's 36.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

especially as he's entering the stage of his career where he is beginning to wind down and his history of injuries.

---

He's only 31, FFS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

He's only 31, FFS!

---

In all fairness to Dman, what has he said wrong? What outfield player is still approaching his peak at 31? Tony is markedly less effective than he was two years ago. That may be partly or largely down to his fitness but as Dman rightly points out it's harder and harder to regain your peak fitness at 31 and climbing when you're injury prone. I think if Tony can steer clear of injuries then he still has a lot to offer but maybe more so at the back and not in midfield.