We had bagpipes before for a home game against Germany a few years back. Anthem was played with them and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Edit: Video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR7wh0dIRrg
We had bagpipes before for a home game against Germany a few years back. Anthem was played with them and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Edit: Video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR7wh0dIRrg
That is really bad luck, I don't really see how a keeper can injure himself doing next to nothing, same thingQuote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
happened with Jack Buckland for England. What is up with these keepers that they can barely walk without
injuring themselves? I had better luck with my bet but I am not allowed to comment on it. :emptiness:
I'm sorry but I'm not buying any of that without some FIFA16 stats to back it up! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
I'd love to see him try the three centre back's and wing-backs in a friendly.
Keogh O'Shea Clark
Coleman McCarthy Brady
Arter Hoolahan
Walters Long
Westwood Randolph Given
Coleman Christie Clark Keogh O'Shea Duffy Ward
McCarthy Whelan Arter Hendrick Hoolahan Brady Judge/McGeady McClean
Long Walters Keane
While I agree with you that three at the back is meant to provide more defensive stability, I'd still try and play with a goalkeeper, at least for the first half.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
With the midfield diamond it pretty much frees up the space to allow Brady and Coleman to bomb forward anyway. The only difference is that instead of having three centre backs, we have an extra midfielder to try to close off the space vacated by the attacking full back(s). I've found with teams that have used the wing back formation (three centre backs), it only works for so long. Celtic under O'Neill and Liverpool under Roy Evans both enjoyed initial success, but after a while the opposition seem to be able to pick holes in it. That said, I was eager for O'Neill to try it out with us as well, because I thought it would suit our personnel, Coleman & Brady in particular, but I think he's come up with something better in this diamond shape. It allows us to get more of our best players on to the pitch and have a bit more solidity in midfield. Where do you see the potential advantages of a 5-3-2 (3-5-2)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
I chickened out of of saying anything in case there was some blossoming Czech by the same name I wasn't aware of ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
reports this morning that jon walters needs a knee operation and will be out for 8 weeks
Was that on the radio or something? Heard the same from another guy but don't see anything online. If it's true they'd want to get cracking on it pronto to give him some hope of making France. (I'm sure they're aware of this!)
yes radio. I think it was newstalk at 8am. It suggested that it would be tight for the euros and as a minimum he may not be match fitQuote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Would be a shame if this is accurate and he didn't make it. That said, fearing the worst, who might this open the door for do you think? Pilkington? Judge? On the basis of versatility?
I think Pilkington should definitely make the squad. A winger who can score or even play striker. Long and Walters do Murphy's job better than him. I like Murphy but feel Pilkngton is more mobile and skilful.
We'll know a bit more later on I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Balls.ie
This is the link to the article (Warning: Daily Mail)
Ken Early had a crack at the comparisons as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Encouraging words from O'Neill about Hoolahan at the end also, I didn't know he was asked about it.
Only thing about playing the diamond and allowing the full-backs bomb on is that we looked a tad vulnerable on the counter on Tuesday night. That might have a lot to do with the fact that Whelan and McCarthy didn't have their best nights and 2 of the centre halves on show are unlikely to make the squad (McShane and Pearce).Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
You would hope that the lapse from Whelan won't happen again from him and that our first choice centre halves (two of O'Shea, Clark and Keogh at this point I think) won't read a situation like that as badly as McShane did for the first goal.
I think, otherwise, the diamond definitely suits us. 3-5-2 would sacrifices an extra body in midfield and any time we played the diamond during the tail-end of qualifying I thought it brought out the best in Hendrick and didn't limit Hoolahan's influence much.
If Walters isn't fit (which would be a bummer and I'm sure he'll be given every chance to prove his fitness and will be named in the squad once he can limp on for the Belarus match), then a diamond with McClean and Long up front would be pretty great. They'd be pretty relentless in their running and harrying. Would it be out of the question to suggest that they'd tire the opposition so much that Keane could come in and nick it for us?
Goals, as ever, are still an issue. We were fairly on top against Slovakia but they scored two from play and we scored two from pentalties.
if walters injury is cartilage related, as is being reported, it shouldn't be too serious. had a similar op last year and if I really wanted to I could have been back running a week or two later. hopefully the 8 weeks is an innacurate media assumption
Yeah, the 8 weeks assertion is a lovely headline. Very convenient timeframe to rattle the confidence of a public that have placed a degree of reliance on Walters following his heroics against Bosnia. Further down the article in the Mail there's this paragraph:Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
"The FAI refused to comment on Walters’ fitness status last night but Sportsmail understands through sources in the Midlands that the rugged forward is likely to be out of action for an unspecified period."
Back in six weeks according to quotes in the Independent: http://www.independent.ie/sport/excl...-34587343.html
surprise surprise...
http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2016/...6-fears-for-w/
the cartilage "operation" is more of a procedure really. in and out in a few hours
Seriously like. What were Newstalk playing at on this? Are they not a reputable broadcaster? Entertaining some Mail scaremongering isn't the act of a reputable broadcaster.
Still, I'm sure there were a few extra rags sold this morning so all's well in the Mail.
I'll reserve final judgement until the Euros but I am happy that we have had both managers. As we all know, a manager is only as good as his last game and if we have a disastrous time in France, O'Neill will be crucified by the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
well, yeah. If it's a disaster, he'll deserve it. Did you think he'd be praised by the media following a disaster?Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
The point is that even though we've qualified and lots of nice things are being said at the moment, the three games in the Euros will determine his standing with the media. Praise no. Understanding yes, as it's another very tough group and ratings wise we should only come out with 3 points.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
I hope they paid their sources handsomely for that enlightening information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
:oQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Okay, i suppose it's too late to mention Modric
For me, I'm not that interested to compare O'Neill to Trap, but just pass comment on what O'Neill does now.Quote:
O'Neill versus Trap?
Both like solid systems and mistrust real creativity
Both like, in an ideal world, the wide positions to provide a threat
O'Neill trusts full backs to get further forward
Trap started with the ball more in the deck, finished with only hoofball
O'Neill started confused, seemed to prefer hoofball, then added more nuance and flexibility
O'Neill prefers to press without the ball, Trap preferred to stand off
Trap responded to accusations of not looking beyond core players by picking and persisting with strange choices
O'Neill, so far, seems to be serious about blooding new players at the right time even if his extended squads include some dinosaurs
ONeill got a great result at just the right time for him /us
O'Neill is still undecided, it's chronic with him and he vacillates.
Playing hoof ball against the Swiss was bizarre, what's the point of re examining that option at his late stage, when we have Judge and Hoolahan?
The performance in Hampden was just chaos against a moderately technical but organised team.
Can he be seriously considering that we will start a game with that same tactic in mind, against much better teams than Scotland, who we have to be defensively solid against and depend on counterattack?
How many even have full total confidence that we will start with Hoolahan v Sweden , in the same way that we have full total confidence he will start with Whelan and McCarthy?
As I said above, the Germany result changed everything. Poland afterwards was demoralising but both Bosnia games seemed to have earned him credits.
I'd be amazed if he hasn't learnt important lessons from thus week, an unusually enlightening pair of friendlies.
Anyway, I enjoyed this analysis:
http://www.the42.ie/diamond-formatio...89192-Mar2016/
That analysis is extremely flawed, to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
For a start, Ireland have been favouring a diamond formation since the home fixture against Scotland in June. "Experimental"?
Secondly, that includes the home leg of the Bosnia playoff, in which the writer claims that O'Neill employed a 4-2-3-1.
I could go on.
I was thinking the same. The players selected for the B&H home leg and the Slovakia game were very similar when it came to their roles. I would have thought that a diamond was in place for the B&H home leg anyway although the players selected would easily suit a 4-2-3-1, but that wasn't really how they were set up. The major difference wasn't the formation, but the approach, we didn't press as high up the pitch or with as much aggression against B&H. The intensity of the pressing may have been slightly experimental against Slovakia, or it might have been just that we had players on the pitch that are better at it, most notably Long and McClean.
I think the latter, DeLorean, and I commented on it here:
http://tacticstruck2.com/2016/03/29/...ond-formation/
Good to know there are others out there that notice these nuances; makes me feel a little less like I'm wasting my time.
I thought the same thing when I read it. Ireland haven't used the diamond exclusively but it's been in place since that Scotland game. Also saying we stuck with the 4-4-2 against Spain at the Euros I think is wrong - thought Cox was in a five-man midfield that day, and it was one of the reasons we looked so bad.
Correct.
Cox played as a ten that day and was a complete fish out of water.
Much like Keith Fahey when he was asked to play as an anchorman and mark Ozil once upon a time!
Ye should speak up if ye feel bull**** is being written lads.
Pretty sure McGeady was played in that position in a friendly once under Trapattoni, and it accomplished nothing.
Ha ha! It certainly wasn't to spare anybody looking bad, you can't get away with much around here! Think I read it last thing at night and pretty much forgot about it. I'm sure it was written in good faith as opposed to a spoofing exercise. Formations can be interchangeable and not necessarily defined for ninety minutes, but I do agree with your take on it. One thing is for sure, the formation itself on Tuesday wasn't experimental.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanOB
McCarthy played there against Uruguay once. Think it was in Thomond.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
O Neill to be fair has shown a willingness to experiment and give players such as Hayes and O Kane a chance to impress, He also shows a capacity to learn from his mistakes which is refreshing. The only disappointments from the 2 most recent friendlies was (a) not giving Judge a second chance and(b) not giving Pilkington more game time as a Striker in 2nd game. Overall the Positives far outweigh the negatives.
There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with 99% of the article which focuses on the effectiveness of the diamond as it pertained to the friendly and the pros and cons of using it again. I found it interesting and informative and pretty accurate. To put emphasis on a couple of minor inaccuracies about when it started or previous experiments, which are really just footnotes to the article, is not really to do justice to the analysis itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanOB
The decision to go with a diamond formation certainly did raise some eyebrows both on here and in the media when it was announced so he is not the only "journalist/analyst" guilty of some of the critique in your post.
If the underlying narrative that supposedly justifies the piece is wrong, then any claim of 99% accuracy doesn't pass muster for me.
On a granular level, the analysis/word count ratio is pretty low. And blaming Christie for being out of position for Stoch's second half chance is just patently wrong. That's the position a full-back in a diamond takes up in the attacking phase; if the attack breaks down and a counter is instigated, it's up to the right-sided shuttler, holder or right-sided centre-back to cover. Such covering is what Ireland did poorly for both goals; McShane for the first, McCarthy for the second.
If indeed it did raise eyebrows - which I'm unconvinced of - being just as wrong as everyone else is not a positive. Some take the time to get it right before they attempt to speak with authority.
As I said, I found it informative, interesting and pretty accurate.
Do you think there's a credibility question though when the writer didn't seem to understand that we've not only used that system before, but that it's become our preferred formation? The whole article was based around the so called 'experiment'. There were obviously some relevant points in there, it was a pretty long piece, but overall you'd have to question his actual understanding of what was taking place. His whole analysis is based on the pros and cons of this 'new' system.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
As I said, the fact that it was experimental was mentioned once. He doesn't use the word new. In fact, in the article, he used the words "revert to a diamond formation" which of course means "to go back" to something. Indeed, if I'm being a ***** about this, the very word experimental does not mean "new", it could easily just be interpreted as a departure from some other perceived norm. Many, many posters and pundits have referred to us playing a variation of a five man midfield formation in recent times.
Even not giving him the benefit of the doubt by way of the above, it doesn't really matter. The substance of the article was around the pros and cons of a diamond formation. As an article it stands alone on that basis. No credibility issues at all on that count.