Republic of Ireland V Netherlands 27th May 2016 & Belarus 31st May 2016 Friendlies

I'd be looking at the guys who haven't have a chance so far. People are going to be let down so it's important for the future that they all get a crack of the whip. We will need those players again next season so it doesn't seem like great idea for moral to bring them away from their families at the end of a season for a training camp, then ditch them from the squad without ever even giving them a chance. Someone may well put in a cracking performance and give Martin a problem, but like Roy Hodgson with Rashford, it's a great problem to have.

-------- Westwood --------
Christie Duffy Clark Ward
---------- Gibson ---------
----- O'Kane Brady ------
-------- McGeady --------
------ Doyle Keane ------

I'd be using the subs to move towards having the 11 who will start against Sweden on the pitch at the final whistle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

The most important players in this squad are the first 11 and 3 or 4 others but often we spend too much time figuring out the nr 15 to nr 23 squad positions.

---

Not sure about that, loosely speaking the squad is made up of two players for each position, so a starter and the best player to provide cover. It's not as simple as having our eleven best players in their positions and our three or four subs who will ideally be used. It's important to have the right cover for every eventuality so well worth the discussion and scrutiny I think.

The Netherlands were always likely to dominate possession I think, as Tricky said, our strengths lie elsewhere. Agreed though, Hoolahan is pivotal to the fluency of our attack.

I understood Geysirs point to be more that the first XI and front line subs are the most important, but arguing over the rest is marginalia. Yes, it is important to get the balance of the squad right but I think only 15 or 16 will get on the pitch, even including the luxury of "sentimental" subs like Carsley and Reid in Yokohama. I don't see that happening in Lille but we can only hope.

That's what I understood it to mean as well, but don't think it's that straight forward. Only 15 or 16 will get on the pitch, but not necessarily the 15 or 16 you would hope. With injuries, suspensions, red cards, etc. you need the best possible back up for each position. Maybe some of the debating (nicer word than arguing :)) is splitting hairs, but isn't that part of the fun.

The Dutch started to come into the game more after Whelan came off. I thought that was very noticeable. They were able to penetrate more, were able to find more space in our half and had us under greater pressure. I know we'd made three substitutions when Whelan went off, which can disrupt fluidity, but I would say Whelan's absence had a lot to do with it.

Had completely forgotten about Randolph kicking it against their attacker. Randolph's kicking has generally been very good - we have him to thank for setting Long up against Germany, after all - but that was lucky alright.

Westwood did something similar against Brighton recently to be fair, although I think Randolph might have done it in the last friendly as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Westwood did something similar against Brighton recently to be fair, although I think Randolph might have done it in the lady friendly as well.

---

Randolph plays for our women's team too?

I actually thought I edited it in time dammit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Westwood did something similar against Brighton recently to be fair, although I think Randolph might have done it in the last friendly as well.

---

Right on both counts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

That's what I understood it to mean as well, but don't think it's that straight forward. Only 15 or 16 will get on the pitch, but not necessarily the 15 or 16 you would hope. With injuries, suspensions, red cards, etc. you need the best possible back up for each position. Maybe some of the debating (nicer word than arguing :)) is splitting hairs, but isn't that part of the fun.

---

most of us split hairs, Geysir argues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

The more I look at it I think Randolph could have been braver. He seemed to spot that Duffy was in trouble early enough to cover for him, but instead of coming like a wrecking ball he seemed to freeze.

Geysir - I think it's too early to decide if Arter is first XI material or not, he did enough last night to indicate he just might be. And in terms of ball retention, he kind of had the monopoly on that, would you not think? Especially that spell of possession near the first half which he orchestrated, although I'd accept that wasn't representative of the ninety minutes. I'd agree he doesn't deserve to start against Sweden, if that's what you mean, but in general terms I think he could very easily be a starter in time.

---

Well he could hardly not spot him. He has an unmarked defender right ahead of him in acres of space, however where is the communication?

Someone has to say something Randolph for one.

Something seriously wrong with the organisation in defence.

Watched the game with a West Ham-following friend of mine, said Randolph did something similar for them too this season

Does nobody else think it was just a super cross? Our goal was badly defended from a Brady cross, theirs was similar. We wax lyrical about Brady's cross yet don't comment on how Duffy was unmarked.

I think the cross tempted Randolph out when he might have stayed put but even if he'd stayed put it was still prob a goal. The striker knew he only had to put it in the middle. He could easily have put it wider if Randoloh was on his line.

Great cross, loss of concentration by Duffy, fcuked with the keeper, probable goal against anyone. I've seen Petr Cech do what Randolph did all his career.

Their defending was atrocious for our goal. Our defending was atrocious for theirs, everything from Walters getting sucked in to Duffy's ball watching to Randolph's indecisiveness. The cross was good but very defendable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88;18727i56

Does nobody else think it was just a super cross? Our goal was badly defended from a Brady cross, theirs was similar. We wax lyrical about Brady's cross yet don't comment on how Duffy was unmarked.

I think the cross tempted Randolph out when he might have stayed put but even if he'd stayed put it was still prob a goal. The striker knew he only had to put it in the middle. He could easily have put it wider if Randoloh was on his line.

Great cross, loss of concentration by Duffy, fcuked with the keeper, probable goal against anyone. I've seen Petr Cech do what Randolph did all his career.

---

That's the nature of being a fan in a nutshell. We do over analyse goals conceded. Not a bad thing. But you always have to take it with a pinch of salt, football teams score goals. It's part of the game. Duffy made a minor mistake he'll get away with in the championship. The same mistake might even out over the course of a season in premiership. But in 3 tournament games, we'd be hoping that it doesn't happen.

But it will, and people will find someone to blame, and life will go on. C'est la vie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

Byrne and Browne didn't make the bench for the Switzerland and Slovakia games.

O'Dowda is on the bench tonight.

So it looks a bit indulgent to me.

---

Byrne went back to the under-21s for an important qualifier and Browne was injured.

I wouldn't expect a response to that one Charlie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Yeah somebody questioned whether we can afford a luxury like McGoldrick, I think the answer is a straightforward no. Not to be harping on about McGeady, but I think that McGoldrick offers considerably less than him.

Whelan was good alright, a 7/10 along with some others, not stand out good but very controlled and effective. Overall I think this had been his best campaign/spell for us, but there are still some frighteningly poor games mixed in with the better ones.

No man's land is a dangerous place for a goalkeeper, I fear the evidence is starting to stack up. And he kicked another ball straight to the striker also, who thankfully miscontrolled

---

I had forgotten about the incident where he kicked it into a player, that could have been disastrous, then there is the goal incident itself, the keeper has a role to play in ensuring the defence is as it should be. That is a big part of his job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Yeah somebody questioned whether we can afford a luxury like McGoldrick, I think the answer is a straightforward no. Not to be harping on about McGeady, but I think that McGoldrick offers considerably less than him.

Whelan was good alright, a 7/10 along with some others, not stand out good but very controlled and effective. Overall I think this had been his best campaign/spell for us, but there are still some frighteningly poor games mixed in with the better ones.

No man's land is a dangerous place for a goalkeeper, I fear the evidence is starting to stack up. And he kicked another ball straight to the striker also, who thankfully miscontrolled

---

I had forgotten about the incident where he kicked it into a player, that could have been disastrous, then there is the goal incident itself, the keeper has a role to play in ensuring the defence is as it should be. That is a big part of his job.

You could say both incidents show a lack of awareness of danger, I'd a top keeper would have made sure the goal scorer was marked, but maybe be was ball watching too, I guess he has to but he also has to be aware of other dangers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Does nobody else think it was just a super cross? Our goal was badly defended from a Brady cross, theirs was similar. We wax lyrical about Brady's cross yet don't comment on how Duffy was unmarked.

I think the cross tempted Randolph out when he might have stayed put but even if he'd stayed put it was still prob a goal. The striker knew he only had to put it in the middle. He could easily have put it wider if Randoloh was on his line.

Great cross, loss of concentration by Duffy, fcuked with the keeper, probable goal against anyone. I've seen Petr Cech do what Randolph did all his career.

---

May have been a great cross, and it was but our defence looked very disorganised, I have had a look at it again, it was a good cross but he had a huge target
to aim at a striker in acres of space.


Anyhow it was shocking, we have to do better, remember Holland failed to qualify.