"Carlsberg don't do trains, but if they did..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
"Carlsberg don't do trains, but if they did..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Not really. He watched Lawrence train on Monday with no apparent injury. He also understood Trapattoni as saying he needed to talk to Lawrence before naming the team for Slovakia. If Lawrence's injuries were such to keep him out of the match day squad for Slovakia, he probably wouldn't have travelled to Slovakia and most likely wouldn't have trained on the Monday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sullivinho
Tony O'D is just giving his perception of the events. Whether he is right or wrong, I think there is a rational line of thought behind his suggestion that Lawrence was dropped.
you have to admit saying "Lawrence was not injured" and then listing two injuries he does have is a bit oddQuote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
I agree. Trap is allowed to make value judgments. He chose Gibson for the bench who takes good set pieces. He had Keogh as a forward option allowing Long to move wide right. Foley can play wide right (not sure if he was on the bench though). Picking your bench for the contingency that our lead penalty taker might lose his nerve is daft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jicked
There are probably good reasons to have LL on the bench if he's fit. However, everyone's complaining about Trap not making changes, now when he makes them people complain.
Some talk in the papers this morning (coming from Trap?) about the possibilities of playing someone like McCarthy in front of CM and behind a striker.
That would be a change but it's a change which has the potential for the least effect. Just how is the ball going to travel up that far? Not via Andrews or Whelan.
Changes, not necessarily good changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
If he made no changes at all, our bench would still include Liam Miller, Alex Bruce, etcQuote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
It seems to me that the journalists are complaining that he's not making the changes that they want.
Well thats probably a fair point tets. The thing is i think its not just the journalists though, there are a lot more fans on the same wavelength.
like the saying goes, journalists are just fans with keyboards.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
On the point about change, you just don't change for change's sake. You should first identify a good reason to change and see what the options are to change. There is a method.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Re players, apart from McCarthy (who was already a solid squad candidate) most of the others are just coming through or just making a case for themselves.
The second question, is there enough reason and options to change the formation?
I have no real issues with what Trap had done up to now. I do have some silly belief system that if Trap so identifies that we need to change, he will find the players to make the change work as well as having the personality/character/knowledge to make it work.
yep he was about to come on for McGeady when the ref prematurely blew the final whistleQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Injured in the sense that he couldn't play. He questions if the "injuries" fed to him by the FAI & Co. were sufficient to stop Lawrence from playing. He thinks not hence the assertion "Lawrence was not injured".Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
I don't see anything odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Lawrence was a doubt after the Russian game. Trap stated that he expected him to recover and he was brought to Slovakia, however he failed a fitness test. He was deemed not fit enough to play.
What irks me is this notion that a player is undroppable, or that (as is seen perhaps in the case above) if a player is dropped it results in a civil war amongst the squad or between the player and manager. If LL was dropped, so what? Did Fahey do a good job? He sure did. In my opinion Trap made the right call.
I think it's sensationalist for the sake of it, and totally unnecessary. I also read the Times interview with Lawro, and his enthusiasm to be involved, and his gratitude, shine through.
Also from reading how (self admittedly) himself and Pulis calmly and politely dealt with his situation at Stoke where he surprisingly went from mainstay to fringe player very suddenly, it doesn't suggest that he is the type of personality or character to throw a hissy just because he's dropped after an evaluation by the manager.
Actually it's sh*t stirring by Tony O'D, nothing more.
how many of these players are a loss to us given their current form? noneQuote:
Originally Posted by DeNiro
trap has called up more players than any other recent Irish manager did at the same stage of their reigns. do people forget where we have come from over the last 2 odd years since stan?
Good article from Malone. No problem with him whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irish Times
I meant in terms of the post from O'Donoghue, not in terms of the team selection. He made a statement, and then immediately contradicted it.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Sam, you don't have any dignity, no point pretending otherwise. And funny, I would have thought the manager selling the player despite previous comments about honesty, integrety and work ethic, would be more of a blow than an International manager rueing the amount of injuries a player has had?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irish Times
I cannot, under any circumstances, understand how the "treatment" of Steven Reid, can be used against Trap? The bloke has been constantly crocked for us. In the first few games of Trap's reign, he was the real deal, but since he's been banjoed. The majesty of the link up play between himself and Whelan and the rest of the team against Georgia, but particularily the rain sodden game against Norway was a joy to behold, and it's those memories that make the pitiful performances of late even harder to take.
There were two occasions when he was not selected that I can make out from an hours searching the net.
The World cup play off squad, where he'd played the week before in a league cup game against a side 2 leagues below them, but hadn't made the team the immediate match prior to the matches (v Chelsea), and secondly before the friendly vs Brazil in the Emirates, where he also was just back from injury and hadn't any proper game time. In the first instance, it just would not have made sense to play Steven, as there was as good a chance that he'd break down again (and POS, there is evidence that you constantly refer to of that happening :)), while in the second instance, was there a need for the fella to be playing for us that day? Not necessarily, and given the hassle newcastle caused for the English FA over Owen and getting injured on duty, again the right decision can be arguably be said to have been made.
I do not believe that it should be used as a sideswipe at Trap, Steve retired from international football for good reasons. That said, if he stays fit, and wants to come back, then he deserves to be recalled. He's that good.
Just another point on the clamour for players in the press and on here. There was an outcry that Finnan wasn't recalled prior to the games v France. He admitted he wasn't fit, despite playing for Pmouth, and I don't think he was seen very much after those games. He's been crocked too.
Andy Reid is the legitimate grievence that critics can use against Trap. But then again he has had serious bouts of injury for a good portion of the last campaign and this. On ability he deserves to be in the squad without a question.
I wonder behind hte scenes has trap been monitoring reids progress and gametime. he is playing right back from west brom still isn't he? Would trap be making overtures behind the scenes? I hope so....assuming reid is progressing well that is.
O'Donoghue said Lawrence was hurt but not injured. I don't think O'Donoghue contradicted himself in that respect. However he stated emphatically that Lawrence was fit to play, but was dropped from the team and the bench by Trap. That reads as total Cork bull.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
The emphatic way on RTE Tuesday, that Brady shot down any hope of Andy Reid returning to the squad, suggest that bridge has been broken beyond repair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
It would appear that it is not just about fitness, ability and playing style.
Yup saw that myself and I immediately thought the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
No, centre midfield but he hasn't started a game in the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Go on then, offer something constructive. What would Paul O'Shea do? I've worn my heart on my sleeve here repeatedly over the years. I don't know what Paul O'Shea stands for, other than things aren't as good as you'd like.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Funny thing is, Steven Reid gave up international football (wholly justifiably, for a change) for one last crack at a club career that never had any continuity since leaving Millwall. Now he's a non-starter for WBA maybe international football would offer him the involvement he needs. Still, the message of the last few weeks has been that lack of match sharpness from regular football (Robbie, Shay, Dunne (to an extent), Whelan, Kilbane...) is very much to the detriment of Ireland's results. I thought it might actually work to our favour 6 weeks ago but I was totally wrong. Therefore Reid can't be the answer, though maybe Wilson & McCarthy are.
And as I said on the Ciaran Clark thread, just think about the loss of Joey O'Brien, David Meyler and Chris McCann, and Tets added Rowlands. Also add Andrews and that's 5 very serious CM options not available, and to that you can even add Steven Reid and Stephen Ireland. Seriously freaky stuff.
Paul O'Shea wouldn't have lost Dorica on the corner on Tuesday, that's for sure.
was he not used as a right back last year for theM?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Them?Quote:
was he not used as a right back last year for theM?!
or
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/them.jpg
He was, yeah, but di Matteo brought in 4 or 5 defenders over the summer. He's midfield back-up now.
Well, the main worry i had was no plan b, and that trap wasn't including enough players of an attacking style in the squad for the eventuality and I say eventuality because it was going to happen, and it did, that we went down a couple of goals, we were chasing the game, and what could we do other than revert to type of hoof it up, kick and hope. Its one thing to say right lets play this way, but the way we play and given the fact that a lot of our players weren't match sharp/match fit/concentration levels weren't up to it, trap should have prepared better,as the old saying goes fail to prepare, prepare to fail. On this occasion it has never been more apt. Everybody was optimistic going into these games, yet the reality was we only had 1 player playing regularly in the top half of the premiership. The others were either coming back from injury or were bit part players with premiership clubs who were not at the races(im purposely excluding champ players here). So someone with the experience in management of Trap, as he likes to remind us and those here used to say at every questioning of trap and his tactics, he surely should have been aware that we would struggle at least in 1 of the games. What did he do? Nothing until it was too late in teh Russia game, and by slovakia he made the necessary changes, forced I might add through injury of others. Trap did not make changes based on what we all said after Russia, he made them because he HAD to. Would he have done so otherwise?
The rest has been gone over again and again(i.e. who to include, what formation we should have used, changing tactics quicker/formation - again all comes down to having a plan b or being prepared, in the scenario where things might not actually go your way), but i think its been fairly clear over the last 9 days or so, where I was coming from.
Hindsight is a great thing and its easy to say that we should have done this and that, however some were saying that trap should have been doing this all along. We might now be in a far better position if he had.
cheers CD, ok wheres tets when you need him, how many minutes has he played this season?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
full 90 for 2 carling cup games (inc a win vs Man City) then he's come off the bench for the last 15 mins or so in 4 of their 7 games, been an unused sub in the other 3
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/players...d=5081&cc=5739
From http://irish-abroad.appspot.com/Play...1&seasonID=140Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
(assuming a 90 minute game)
introduced VS Sunderland on 82 minutes = 8 minutes
completed game VS Orient = 90 minutes
introduced VS Tottenham on 73 minutes = 13 minutes
completed game VS Man City = 90 minutes
introduced VS Birmingham on 76 minutes = 14 minutes
introduced VS Arsenal on 71 minutes = 19 minutes
Total minutes = 234 minutes played thus far this season
Paul, what is Trap's plan B to be? You say he needed a plan B because only one player plays in the top half of the EPL. No plan B including other personnel was likely to work in that case. The kick & hoof we resorted to as plan B yielded 2 goals! There were attacking players in the squad: Long, Keogh, Fahey, Gibson. They all featured in the two games. Treacy was unavailable, and we all know Duff & Hunt were too.
Most criticism is correctly aimed at central midfield. I won't argue for Trap's omission of Andy Reid, though match fitness was questionable last week. McCarthy excepted, we can't just magic up a bunch of quality midfielders. Though I would pick McCarthy myself, being an ever present at Wigan isn't a compelling argument to pick anyone. I like Wilson too. I'm sure Trap would have looked at each in May if they had come over for training.
You might well make me agree with you, but you'll have to present a better argument. As I say I'm 60/40 in Trap's favour. I'm bitterly disappointed that we have shown no variation in shape and little variation in tactics which is what I expected when he took over. However, with so many players injured or not match fit, or having barely established themselves at their clubs, I've got to cut the guy a bit of slack. I think we did enough to win on Tuesday and a fit Robbie would probably have rendered this discussion irrelevant.
Yes, agreed, though of the players named was any of them a realistic option last week? Wilson maybe - Trap was very positive about him in The Examiner (below). In fact that article just copperfastens the view that we are missing shed loads of players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
http://www.examiner.ie/sport/soccer/...th-133512.html
Another article saying he might be flexible, but he remains very cautious arguing we must treat the Celtic cup matches seriously.
I dunno - I'm torn. For all his conservatism, which I do find frustrating, very frustrating, we were missing players or fielding players short of fitness. The sheer number of players affected can only have been detrimental and in fairness the newbies acquitted themselves very well. If McCarthy, Wilson & Ward had all turned up in May then maybe the jigsaw would be nearer completion, but they didn't. We can say Trap is conservative, but I can't think of many Irish (or other) managers who fielded a rookie in an important qualifier without looking at him in practice first.
I can see the merit in a 5 man midfield to give greater numbers but dropping one of Doyle & Keane is a bold move - or would have been in hindsight. Valuable player that he is, the "rule" that Keane is undroppable may no longer hold.
If we went 4-5-1 then you'd have to have Doyle as your focal point. The lone man needs to be able to hold the ball up, be strong, win headers and link the play. It's hard on Keane but if it's for the good of the team then he'll have to grin and bear it.
4-5-1 doesn't have to be negative if the two wide players get forward and support. The third central midfielder can also support when in possession of the football. I'm not a huge fan of the formation but if more and more teams are using it then we need to adapt. If we are getting outnumbered in midfield then it's surely common sense to make a change and match them up? I think Di Matteo at WBA has done this on a couple of occasions this season at half time after 4-4-2 resulted in them seeing very little of the football. It made a difference as well and they went on to dominate the second half.
From reading the links provided, it appears Trappatoni is opening up to personnel and tactical change. Something I personally wouldn't have expected from him, especially in the middle of a qualifying campaign. I have to be sceptical to some degree though - is he beginning to panic at the thought that this £2m a year gravy train might come to an end this time next year?
His notion of a five man midfield is interesting. He has obviously been entertaining the idea of playing someone behind the main striker since he took over, but maybe now his hand is being forced a bit. I wonder has Robbie Keane become droppable in Trap's mind? Doyle has more form and playing time, so it would be crazy to drop him if Keane's situation continued at Spurs.
The Norway game is becoming an evermore interesting fixture. As I said in another post, I would leave Keane in London for it. If he comes over and scores another goal, what difference does it make. We all know he could probably score against Norway. Sacrificing him to give Long/Stokes/Walters game time would be way more beneficial. Maybe two from Long/Stokes/Doyle/Walters as a forward combination for the first half with a McCarthy + one of above for the second. I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about Walters, I've seen him a few times, he's robust and plays up front. That's about it. He's no saviour. I think we overvalue the Premier League like that, he's only been playing in it about 6 weeks. Realisitcally how much could he have improved since he was at Ipswich?
I don't think so. Sure he could make more than that in club management and still delegate most of the work to Marco. I think he's just realised like the rest of us that we may not have the players for 442 anymore than we do for 451 and that we may have been slightly flattered in the last campaign as Italy, France and Bulgaria all play a slow, technical game as opposed to a quick technical one.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeNiro
I always wondered what happened to his notion of Robbie being the Irish "Totti" - I assume that was another casualty of Steven Reid's departure and our lack of a similarly athletic box to box runner.Quote:
His notion of a five man midfield is interesting. He has obviously been entertaining the idea of playing someone behind the main striker since he took over, but maybe now his hand is being forced a bit. I wonder has Robbie Keane become droppable in Trap's mind? Doyle has more form and playing time, so it would be crazy to drop him if Keane's situation continued at Spurs.
I take your point. But would a manager as experienced as Trappatoni not realise that we would need to play a team technical football at a quicker pace. The draw was made in February. We've had friendlies against Brazil, Paraguay, Algeria and Argentina, did he play a 4-5-1 in any of those? At least Brazil and Argentina play a quick paced game and we lost both of these. Surely a penny must have dropped?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin