...which is why my heart was in my mouth!
I think the majority of the credit has to go to Hendrick, the last thing anybody (and probably Hummels) expected was for him to manage to put the ball into the danger area first time. O'Shea's finish was incredible really, working off pure instinct which was probably a help.
I would have thought Dortmund's high concession rate was probably down to their gung-ho approach but I wouldn't argue too much, as I say I've haven't seen enough of him overall.
Just assumed it was the manager's philosophy. Take Man Utd's treble winning side for example. They were pretty relentless in terms of all out attack, conceded a fair few goals but it didn't necessarily mean Jaap Stam was bad at defending. Would Thiago Silva make your list? I think he's far better than some on it.
He clearly wanted it more. He got well ahead of him, and I think had he not got on it as cleanly would or at least should have been a penatly. It was a great worked goal, I dont say the goal was lucky, but i dont think we would be able pull that type of goal again and again and I dont think Oshea would have got it as good as he did. Just remember the glaring opportunity 10 years ago in paris!
I enjoyed this analysis on thescore.ie
http://www.thescore.ie/analysis-subs...28200-Oct2014/
He confused Meyler and Hendrick at one point, but only a minor quibble.
What goals are ever scored again and again though?
We did enough to get a goal when we needed one twice in a row now, for all intents and purposes. Of course we won't always but it's a good sign especially as I think we all agree there is potential improvement in this team. So far so good, but still work to be done is how I see it.
By coincidence (or quantifiable certainty) I was sitting beside a guy I used to work with in Dublin. We joked that O'Shea owed us that goal for Paris in 2004!
I only just read liam Mackey's delightful match report. Great stuff.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/s...ue-291397.html
However, go to the footnotes by Miguel Delaney. One of his points is that Whelan is essential for his defensive organisation, and that the players all know it. I've been kind of leaning to that view, not with very high conviction!, even though I think as a fully functional midfielder its hard to see anything else in him. But underestimate his importance at your peril?
Stephen Hunt in the Indo on the day of the Georgia game said something different but not entirely dissimilar, that he's a very streetwise player, able to handle himself in tough company and always in the ref's ear.
I think Whelan will divide opinion for decades. Maybe someone like John O'Shea knows best though.
I don't know of a bigger John O'Shea critic on this board than myself. I have questioned his position in the Irish team for years now, even going back before his two blunders versus Italy at Croke Park. However I am glad to see his wonderful contribution against Germany and glad that he proved me wrong on the night. As happy as I am for O'Shea, I was just as impressed at his command of the penalty area. Time and again German attacks were thwarted by the O'Shea led defence. Haven't heard too many people speak about the new look defence, but they seem to be doing their job nicely at the present time even if the parts don't appear to be equal to the sum of parts (or however that goes).
You just mentioned we were lucky about 6 times in the one post :rolleyes:
I doubt whether McAteer or Whelan or Houghton could come close to replicating their goal, even after a 100 attempts, I doubt o'shea could come close to replicating his.
That is not luck nor does the rarity of it have any reductionist meaning, that has to do with anticipating and taking the chance when offered and instinctively doing exactly what was needed at the time, to get the ball (gloriously) into the net. That game is over and we are extremely unlikely to ever see us score a goal like that again, just like we don't see a replication of most every instinctively brilliant goal ever scored.
Thing is, though, after going a goal down, O'Neill quickly effected the change that allowed the opportunity for us to score to arise. There wouldn't have been a goal had there not been a plan B. He should be rightly commended for that.
In what sense did we "get lucky"? For all their possession, Germany never truly penetrated us. We kept them out very well. We were brave, organised and dedicated. The effort required great focus, concentration and discipline. It was nothing like the last-gasp backs-to-the-wall stuff in Moscow. We made Germany look like total duds.
Nothing lucky about it. The goal was well worked. It was majestic; a thing of pure beauty. It came as a direct result of us quickly changing our game-plan. We could have had another goal had Hoolahan placed his earlier effort a bit better!Quote:
ONeill was 1 min away from getting slaughterd in the media, but a lucky goal and he's the new messiah.
It's self-congratulation, isn't it?
I don't know if I have noticed Ward or Wilson being anyone sloppier than anyone else, (well maybe I recall an error from Wilson)
I don't particularly recall one from Ward though, mind you I am watching on a stream much of the time and it is not easy to
tell which green blob is which (unless it is Andy Reid where the blob is somewhat larger :p). I was disappointed with Wards bad pass because
it will be ammunition for his enemies.
Well I don't know if it was tiredness, it requires more energy to back off than stay still!!!!
Which beggs the question why did he back off? I am trying to mentally put myself in the same position
and ask if I would have backed off and why? I am kind of stumped for an answer.
I didn't think were looked a bad as in he Euros were were more forced into that position, it seemed more tactical and indeed we had
a lot more possession I think. certainly the result was better.
You'll have to sort that out. Why not install Hola on Google Chrome and enjoy RTÉ live in high definition?
Of course such competitions are not played over one hole. In a golf championship it is over 78 holes (or thereabouts, this is not a maths test!).
Luck only really comes into play when the sides are fairly evenly matched.
Anyhow I would maintain that there is room to putt a (lucky) beside the winners on the score card and indeed an (unlucky) on the losers score card.
Indeed it would just require a small asterisk by the name, eg *, **.
* lucky
** unlucky
Something I think it would be useful to introduce on the grounds of fairness.