Next Senior Men's Team Manager - Runners and Riders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drummerboy2

I agree with the above post. Whelan in particular was an excellent defensive midfielder, who was much maligned by Irish fans.
The solution to the current situation, could be to try one of our numerous centre halfs into a defensive midfielder. Andrew Abadomebele looks very comfortable on the ball and could be the answer. Charlton done it back in the day with McGrath

---

I agree - either Collins or Omobamidele could be used in that midfield role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSAD

It can make a difference I agree, a "huge" difference I'm not so sure. At the end of the day the most important part of you're defence is you're CB's and you're GK.

---

I'm afraid I can't agree with this - the role of the midfield is crucial is defending - the midfielders have to be able to cut out through passes and have to be able to track back with attackers and get into position. No matter how good you GK and back four are, they will be torn asunder if the midfield do not engage with their defensive responsibilities (as @Supreme feet outlined).

To win a game you have to score more than the opposition - it is way easier to win 1-0 than to win 4-3 - if you can't defend properly then you are not going to win too many games. That was the fault with Kenny - he wanted the team to play pretty football but he couldn't organise the defending to stop leaking goals (O'Shea is no different). That is why Hughton is a good option - he starts with not conceding and builds from there (and to clarify - this does not mean that he is a defensive coach - he is not - but he does understand the need to be able to defend and minimise the goals you concede).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

10 or more years ago I was saying there wasn't much wrong with our team that a good midfield wouldn't make right. Nothing has changed!

---

A non-crocked full/wing-back or two maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Your*

---

You’re right as usual and as ever. But why target CSAD? Some posters here mutilate the language on a daily basis. The practice of legalising foul words and terminology by substituting an asterisk is also rife. Meanwhile, simple and benign name-calling is called out. Maybe it’s time to revisit your style manual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Your*

---

What an utterly pointless contribution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant

I agree - either Collins or Omobamidele could be used in that midfield role.


I'm afraid I can't agree with this - the role of the midfield is crucial is defending - the midfielders have to be able to cut out through passes and have to be able to track back with attackers and get into position. No matter how good you GK and back four are, they will be torn asunder if the midfield do not engage with their defensive responsibilities (as @Supreme feet outlined).

To win a game you have to score more than the opposition - it is way easier to win 1-0 than to win 4-3 - if you can't defend properly then you are not going to win too many games. That was the fault with Kenny - he wanted the team to play pretty football but he couldn't organise the defending to stop leaking goals (O'Shea is no different). That is why Hughton is a good option - he starts with not conceding and builds from there (and to clarify - this does not mean that he is a defensive coach - he is not - but he does understand the need to be able to defend and minimise the goals you concede).

---

I already said it was important and it is, I just don't think it's THE most important part of a defensive set. My biggest fear is when we get counter attacked, that's where I think it really comes into play. I know people have mentioned Collins alot but I honestly wouldnt be against Omobamidele being looked at in midfield. Has the perfect build for it and is good on the ball so think he'd manage.

The actual way Kenny had us playing wasn't necessarily wrong, the issue was the tactics side of the game more than anything. It just shows how important it is to have a esteemed number 2 like Kenny had with Barry, as you could see even with Kenny in charge how things improved. I honestly maintain if we managed to keep Barry as a number 2 we would have given the NL a much better crack as even with our own deficiencies we were still competitive in all 3 games against Ukraine & Scotland that we drew/lost with O'Shea as the assistant and the goals we conceded were totally avoidable if we were well set up and we certainly wouldn't have lost in Armenia. This in turn would have possibly meant we'd at the very least had a better shot of a play off and possibly even scrapped into pot 2 and avoid the **** show of a group we got in the end. It was obvious to anyone once Barry left how things deteriorated censurably...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSAD

I already said it was important and it is, I just don't think it's THE most important part of a defensive set. My biggest fear is when we get counter attacked, that's where I think it really comes into play. I know people have mentioned Collins alot but I honestly wouldnt be against Omobamidele being looked at in midfield. Has the perfect build for it and is good on the ball so think he'd manage.

The actual way Kenny had us playing wasn't necessarily wrong, the issue was the tactics side of the game more than anything. It just shows how important it is to have a esteemed number 2 like Kenny had with Barry, as you could see even with Kenny in charge how things improved. I honestly maintain if we managed to keep Barry as a number 2 we would have given the NL a much better crack as even with our own deficiencies we were still competitive in all 3 games against Ukraine & Scotland that we drew/lost with O'Shea as the assistant and the goals we conceded were totally avoidable if we were well set up and we certainly wouldn't have lost in Armenia. This in turn would have possibly meant we'd at the very least had a better shot of a play off and possibly even scrapped into pot 2 and avoid the **** show of a group we got in the end. It was obvious to anyone once Barry left how things deteriorated censurably...

---

John O'Shea was still with the U21s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JR89

John O'Shea was still with the U21s.

---

You are correct, I read the date wrong!

Eustace was there for June's games. Not sure whether he already had been appointed Birmingham manager or was in talks with them.

Can't remember if they brought anyone in for the loss against Scotland in September. I wanna say Stephen Rice took a more hands on approach for that window as well as being the analyst/scout.

Think O'Shea was there for the November window as there was no U21 games and think he officially joined the seniors after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JR89

Eustace was there for June's games. Not sure whether he already had been appointed Birmingham manager or was in talks with them.

Can't remember if they brought anyone in for the loss against Scotland in September. I wanna say Stephen Rice took a more hands on approach for that window as well as being the analyst/scout.

Think O'Shea was there for the November window as there was no U21 games and think he officially joined the seniors after that.

---

O'Shea was definitely there for 2023 with Keith Andrews. For the Armenia, Ukraine (H), Scotland, Ukraine (A) is was John Eustace anyway and to be fair considering how long he was there we actually did make some progress in that time, another advantage of having an actual qualified manager involved!, as in 4 games we were a better side by the time we played Ukraine (A) than we were at the beginning v Armenia.

He left after that and I'm not sure he was replaced at least until O'Shea came in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSAD

O'Shea was definitely there for 2023 with Keith Andrews. For the Armenia, Ukraine (H), Scotland, Ukraine (A) is was John Eustace anyway and to be fair considering how long he was there we actually did make some progress in that time, another advantage of having an actual qualified manager involved!, as in 4 games we were a better side by the time we played Ukraine (A) than we were at the beginning v Armenia.

He left after that and I'm not sure he was replaced at least until O'Shea came in.

---

In those four games in June the two games we got points in you could see more of Eustace's finger prints on the team compared to Armenia away and Ukraine at home.

We played 3-4-3 for the first two games with the front three against Armenia being Parrott, Robinson, and Ogbene. Parrott was dropped for the next game with Knight coming in as the third forward who can drop back to make it three in midfield in defence like he done away to Luxembourg and the Belgium game.

After that we switched to 3-5-2 and started playing some direct balls more. First goal coming from a long ball by Kelleher after almost giving away a goal twice by playing it short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snapshot

You’re right as usual and as ever. But why target CSAD? Some posters here mutilate the language on a daily basis. The practice of legalising foul words and terminology by substituting an asterisk is also rife. Meanwhile, simple and benign name-calling is called out. Maybe it’s time to revisit your style manual.

---

You want to be allowed to call people names?

There’s a long standing rule on here to attack the w@nk, not the w@nker - or something like that. :D

Never heard it expressed quite as eloquently as that, mind! :p

The improvements under Barry for that period indicate that with the right people we can be a competitive team.

I struggle to believe that the FAI can't identify a management team that can make us competitive.

Hughton or Mick would have the nous and experience to do that imo - Mick had us competitive with a poorer team in the Swiss/Denmark group - two really decent sides and we could have qualified automatically with a bit of luck in the last minutes of the Danish game if I remember. The football wasn't great but as has been said by numerous posters, until we get the midfield to a decent level, it's hard to see how we can play good football without being picked off by any half decent side. I don't see him returning but if I was in the FAI I would be sounding him out. I know a few former internationals and they said he was great to play under. I always liked him and while I could see so much merit in what Roy Keane fought against and you could argue that Mick went with the status quo that led to Saipan, he is critiqued unfairly imo by a section of the Irish support and I wonder if that is because of Saipan.

I mean I'd like to think the FAI have enough about them to broaden the search past ex internationals and those on the "circuit" in the uk, but right now it's obvious that this is crisis stuff if O'Shea stays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

You want to be allowed to call people names?

---

Yes, Dogberry. But only in extreme cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snapshot

Yes, Dogberry. But only in extreme cases.

---

I'm surprised you know Shakespeare, might be the most intelligent thing you've ever come out with... but as for wanting name calling, well that's just strange behavior from an adult

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bungle

The improvements under Barry for that period indicate that with the right people we can be a competitive team.

I struggle to believe that the FAI can't identify a management team that can make us competitive.

Hughton or Mick would have the nous and experience to do that imo - Mick had us competitive with a poorer team in the Swiss/Denmark group - two really decent sides and we could have qualified automatically with a bit of luck in the last minutes of the Danish game if I remember. The football wasn't great but as has been said by numerous posters, until we get the midfield to a decent level, it's hard to see how we can play good football without being picked off by any half decent side. I don't see him returning but if I was in the FAI I would be sounding him out. I know a few former internationals and they said he was great to play under. I always liked him and while I could see so much merit in what Roy Keane fought against and you could argue that Mick went with the status quo that led to Saipan, he is critiqued unfairly imo by a section of the Irish support and I wonder if that is because of Saipan.

---

McCarthy was much more effective the second time around as manager - the first time he didn't have the experience. If Saipan had occurred during his second tenure I expect that he would have handled it differently and kept Keane onside - and he wouldn't have f*cked up against Spain not realising that they only had ten men on the pitch and one of them couldn't run. What it actually shows is that you need experience to be an international manager and it also helps a lot if you have experience as an international manager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSAD

O'Shea was definitely there for 2023 with Keith Andrews. For the Armenia, Ukraine (H), Scotland, Ukraine (A) is was John Eustace anyway and to be fair considering how long he was there we actually did make some progress in that time, another advantage of having an actual qualified manager involved!, as in 4 games we were a better side by the time we played Ukraine (A) than we were at the beginning v Armenia.

He left after that and I'm not sure he was replaced at least until O'Shea came in.

---

O'Shea was made assistant manager of U21s in April 2020 and joined the senior team in February 2023. John Eustace became Birmingham manager in July 2022.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant

O'Shea was made assistant manager of U21s in April 2020 and joined the senior team in February 2023. John Eustace became Birmingham manager in July 2022.

---

Yes this is all true to be fair, glad it clears things up!


So essentially while O'Shea was part of the Irish coaching staff Ireland lost 6 qualifying games from 6 (realistically we would beat Gibralter with anyone in charge) and has never managed a team as a manager in his life...and yet some clown's on RTE punditry team think he should become the manager :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolly Red Giant

McCarthy was much more effective the second time around as manager - the first time he didn't have the experience. If Saipan had occurred during his second tenure I expect that he would have handled it differently and kept Keane onside - and he wouldn't have f*cked up against Spain not realising that they only had ten men on the pitch and one of them couldn't run. What it actually shows is that you need experience to be an international manager and it also helps a lot if you have experience as an international manager.

---

How was he more effective 2nd time around? We were unwatchable