Absolutely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by IsMiseSean
The guy is a supreme bluffer, and his formations make Trap look adventurous.
Absolutely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by IsMiseSean
The guy is a supreme bluffer, and his formations make Trap look adventurous.
I kind of assumed that access to or engagement with a psychologist would be part and parcel of a modern set-up. Do the FAI not employ a psycholgist at all? I assume most top-level clubs have psychologists on their payrolls?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
He'll still get an interview. The man's CV must be printed on sheets of gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Phew!Quote:
Originally Posted by IsMiseSean
Tony Pulis. Maybe he would fancy having a go at international football.
He would be looking for big men with attitude and we could delay dreams of tiki take football.
Put Em under Pressure ! ! !
If a manager doesn't go for the "don't lose at all costs, qualify or bust" mentality, he is very soon out of a job, especially in international football. I have always been of the firm belief that you play your best team until such time as qualification is no longer possible and the best team is nearly always made up of those playing in the EPL or sometimes the Championship and not players on loan at Bury or playing for Gillingham. There is no time in international football for a manager to "build for the future" until such time as the campaign is lost. Mick made a play-off, that bought him time to make the transition and he was able to build a team around the two Keanes.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton
What is playing football "free from fear" ? The Irish team doesn't look scared to me. It's like when I am watching a poor game on TV and the commentator says "both teams are nervy". It's a euphemism for not very good. Did the Scottish team play free from fear ? I think we were better than them at Lansdowne but it wasn't to be. If so, how were they different from us with their 5 points out of 6? McGeady doesn't play with fear. Brady doesn't play with fear. Hoolahan doesn't play with fear and all three would have played if McGeady wasn't injured. The other players are not as skillful as these three but they are different types of players.
I honestly don't care who or how we play, provided that we get results but I certainly don't believe that playing inferior players to those in occupancy will do anything for the results short or long term. Trap showed that organisation and discipline and guts can get you the results away from home. More than that is needed at home, which unfortunately he never seemed to grasp, but MON realises that and hence the changed formation for the recent game against the Scots but once again we failed to win at home. Fear ? I don't think so. Lack of a quality striker ? Probably and I think that this will haunt us for many years as soon as the great man hangs up his boots unless another gem is uncovered.
tiki take football, I love it :D
While your doing your messing we'll take the points.
Ralf Rangnick ; Thomas Schaaf; Mirko Slomka; Christian Streich; Thomas Tuchel; Lucien Favre; Ron Jans; Gert Verbeek; Laszlo Boloni; Michel Preud'homme;
I'd jizz myself if any of those were Appointed (Tuchel can be discounted as he's the new Dortmund manager). They wouldn't cost what we've paid the last 2 sets of managers either.
Owlsfan we do play without confidence when in the unknown, its called lack of experience, maturity, and it can breed a lack of self confidence. When we went ahead, as we always do, we really seem to sit back and panic. What we need is someone in midfield to just pass the ball around a bit, get on it, command the ball off people and just hold onto it for a while, even if its 5 mins of passing back and forth, do it. We also need that player to make a good hard tackle when we don't have the ball, and that will drive others on. But certainly we dont have that, but we also certainly dont seem to know what to do when we are in the "unknown".
I think the players do play with fear. Fear of losing the ball cheaply. Both CBs and both McCarthy and Hendrick are capable of passing the ball, and all three of our CMs on Saturday are well capable showing for the ball. None of them really did. These are just basics of the game.
OF, go to that video clip contained in the the42.ie article I linked earlier about James mcCarthy. Giles and Whelan debunking the notion that teams need a holding midfielder, and comparing Schweinsteiger to Mascherano. It's brilliant and I agreed with every word. Please, watch it!
Not all our players are afraid of the ball. Hoolahan positively craves it. Our CMs don't do enough yet at club level they are happy on the ball, play positive passes, carry the ball, head up, drive forward with it. Our CBs don't carry the ball before releasing. They play a safe pass to Whelan who'll play a safe pass to someone else who'll play a safe pass. You can't get between an opponent's defensive lines this way.
I'm anticipating a response along the lines that if you give the ball away cheaply you risk conceding. But these players are good enough to play "accretive" passes and to show for the return ball. They don't do it. Because they lack the confidence / courage. This goes all the way back to the Jack-era accepted wisdom. "You can't pick Liam Brady because he might give the ball away" type nonsense. It's the very basic essence of football. Let your midfielders use the ball. They are the specialists at it. Steven Reid used to do it on the rare occasions we saw him. Andy Reid used to love the ball. Wes does. Others hide from it. I used to "snooker" myself to avoid receiving the ball. Some of our better players do too.
I distinctly remember Trap, early in his tenure, telling Dunne to carry the ball from defence 10 more metres before releasing. That didn't last long though, before long ball became more of our default style under Trap.
That's what I call playing with fear. A lack of willingness to do what a professional CB or professional CM ought to do as a very fundamental part of their position. We absolutely play with fear, no question.
So, where OF thinks we're simply short a goalscorer I'd argue (like I have for years) that we really lack a proper confident, assertive, accretive central midfielder. Everything else is good enough, more or less. A Giles, Keane or Souness would transform this team. Whelan too maybe. We need a main man in the middle. We don't have one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
You're just showing off. What about Paul Jewell?
I'm certain that was a p1ss take that you just fell for hook line and sinker.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Yes Stutts, we don't have one, that is the issue, you have argued yourself into a corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
But we are also short of a goalscorer. Robbie Keane was a goalscorer supreme who made up for deficiencies elsewhere in the team.
It's probably too easy to draw these contrasts/comparisons with NI but how have they managed to make David Healy and Kyle Lafferty look like international predators whilst MON whinges about not having another Robbie?
I don't have the answer to that and I won't pretend I do either. Fair play to Murphy etc. but I thought we were crying out for McClean and Long's direct running to be combined with Hoolahan's guile. That's why I'm still baffled by MON's selection. I haven't overcome that yet to be able to consider the bigger picture in a clear frame of mind.
Ah jesus Danny will you stopQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Philippe Troussier. that joke never gets old:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
Decent points OF - certainly having a manager under the gun doesn't encourage long-termism, and that comes right from the financial pressure the FAI are under to qualify. But a long-term attitude to building the right attitude into our international football team is crucial. If we qualify for Russia along the way great, but we have to set out sights higher and allow a manager to make that transition.
Mick had that transitional period, and I think he would've had it even if he didn't make a play-off (which he very nearly didn't, with Lithunia breathing down our necks).
I disagree - when players are scared to get on the ball in advanced areas, to go for one-twos, to really keep the pressure on a team when we're building momentum, then I think it shows fear. And our players are all guilty of failures in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
McGeady, for instance, will happily stand put his foot on the ball, try and dance past a couple of players and swing a cross in. But sometimes he's equally guilty of slowing the ball up, instead of bursting into space when a possible counter is on - of really backing his pace and skill.
If we look at players like Coleman and McCarthy, they're not reaching the heights we need them to consistently. The point's been made in other posts (and Stutts made a good one about specifcally a centre mid) but the difference in international football is often just one quality player taking a game by the scruff. Bale, Ibrahimovic, Alaba, Lewandowski, even Shaun Maloney.
Granted, these are often attackers, but Coleman and McCarthy have that matchwinning, rally-the-troops potential and we're not getting it unlocked. I think that's down to pressure and fear.
When the quality's not there, it's not there. It's a fair cop.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
But Scotland and Poland (even with Lewandowski) are doing more with their meagre resources than we are. If they can play with some measure of composure and expressiveness, why can't we?
I don't think it's a coincidence that these teams have faced far darker days recently than we have, and that their team's have been released of some measure of expecation. They rebuilt from the bottom and regained their confidence. They lost a measure of their fear.
This post is increasingly sounding like a pitch for a new Christopher Nolan Batman movie, and if that's the case the Trapattoni's The Riddler and Martin O'Neill is getting a bit Dr Hugo Strange on it...
Looks that way!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
It's just a reflex reaction with me. My eyelid starts twitching and everything.
Is everyone saying we need that midfielder to complement Hoolahan, or replace him? Because Hoolahan is doing a decent job, and everyone is saying he should be included in our team, if we were replacing him, seeing as he is the only one who can "play ball" that's a strange one.
Thank heavens! I wasn't sure, so that's why I put him at the end of an increasingly desperate list!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by IsMiseSean
I think that's possibly something MON tried to address when he played McGeady behind the striker in Germany. Similar to how Mick tried Duff in a free role for a long time in his early tenure before eventually just sticking him up front. Problem was MON never told McGeady that was the role he had in mind for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton
Am I the only one who feels Whelan is used as a scapegoat for this Irish team?
He looked for the ball more than McCarthy in the game, had a decent shot in the first half and was left on his own to try to stop Anya and Maloney linking up for the goal when others around him seemed to fall asleep.
The Scottish midfield had nothing likt the control they had in Glasgow when Whelan was missing
Whelan's always been a scapegoat. Granted, he's had some bad games for us, but we always play worse when he's not there.
I thought he was more positive on Saturday than normal. I've watched the game back and he certainly in the first half was getting the ball forward and screaming for a pass to get on the ball.
To be honest, we battered Scotland. We just switched off for 30 seconds and couldn't score that second goal. Overall we played pretty well and at times played some of the best football we've played so far in this campaign.
But I do wish MON had left Hoolahan on
I know Stutts agrees with you. I've come round to appreciating him and his role more. I don't like the type of criticism he receives either; it nears the level of hateful abuse from some. That's not on. He shed tears when he scored against Italy. You can only warm to passion like that if you're a well-wisher/supporter of the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
I envisage qualification being mathematically possible going into the last week of the group. That's not to say I see us grasping it by toppling Germany and/or Poland, but we'll pick up six points in our next two games and I sense other results will at least ensure qualification is still a possibility for us then.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Not sure if it's been posted already, but here's what needs to happen if we are to miraculously qualify: http://www.balls.ie/football/what-ir...nd-draw/296878
Do Carlsberg do pipe-dreams?
You can re-watch it all you want, but it'll only ingrain the false impression that we were dominant in this game. To have truly grasped just how crap we were, you'd have needed to have been viewing from the lofty vantage point of Paul's seat. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
Let me give you a scenario Mr Crosby. Martin O'Neill steps down next Monday morning - doesn't even wait for this campaign to end. I am appointed as new manager of Ireland and I call my three longest serving players together for a meeting (on how we are going to approach the next campaign - ie the one that is going to take us to Russia 2018). I ask one question of all of you three and it's this: "How do we go further in the competition (World Cup 2018) than Brazil?" That is something you have to provide me with an answer with. Think about it. Do you say - "no way boss, it's just not going to happen" Do you say "let us put a plan in place and bring through as many players as possible" or do you say "let us change completely the way we approach the game". Or better still, do you say: "this cannot be achieved in two years - we need to put a realistic plan in place to achieve this goal, something which is realistic over seven or eight years." Now there's a mountain load of responsibility for you. WHat would you do? I would be interested to know your thoughts and other peoples' thoughtsQuote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
Forgot to say Crosby that you were one of my longest serving players and one of the three at the meetingQuote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
He never seems to get left on for Norwich he is usually subbed at around 75 mins, sometime earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
Maybe he just gets too knackered, but then towards the end of the game the managers usually go
for height as the game approaches the aerial bombardment stage.
I think Crosby would want to know whether he would be flying economy or club class.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
We need to get cfdh_edmundo in here to debate the pros and cons of these guys! Preud'homme is the only one I've even heard of and that's from his playing days. A quick Google indicates a Bundesliga/central European theme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
Are they all similar type coaches? Why would they suit us exactly?
Agree with you entirely. He is often criticized as being slow etc. but I don't think he looked cumbersome in possession. On Saturday, I thought he added to our urgency through his passing and movement and showed a willingness to press Scotland. Even from the pocket, there was one stage where he picked out Brady on the left with a delicious pass in the first half.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
I think it was unfair on Hoolahan to be taken off but I think it was unfair on Whelan to be taken off so early. I couldn't get my head around it. I thought that O'Shea, Whelan, Brady and Hoolahan were the four players most responsible for the pressure we put on Scotland in the first half. As I've stated before in this thread, I thought McCarthy was turned backwards while Whelan provided an outlet in tight positions for our defence, as usual.
I didn't see it but a mate said that on telly it looked like Whelan was fairly frustrated on being taken off. Anyone see it?
This scapegoating of Whelan is growing pretty tiresome. I thought his performance Saturday demonstrated why it's unfair but that common perception is unlikely to shift at this point.
I'd say so. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if we were 3rd in the table going into the last series of games, a point or two ahead of Scotland. But we face Poland away while they face Gibraltar.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I thought Whelan being taken off was related to his yellow card? It was late in the game, he was tiring, and already carrying a booking. Better to take him off than risk a late tackle and a red.
Yeah he was well ****ed off as he came of the pitch. Probably wondering what he has to do to shut up some of those criticizing him for no other reason than to be on that particular bandwagon. Getting subbed off didn't help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
Anyone think this is realistic:
NEXT 4 GAMES
Team Results Points scotland DLDW 5 poland LWDD 5 ireland WWDD 8 germany WWDW 10 georgia DLWL 4 gibraltar LLLL 0
I suppose I am putting a lot of faith in Germany who haven't shown great form so far. Above leaves the standings at the end like this:
Pos Team Current Pts Final Pts 2 Poland 14 19 1 Germany 13 23 4 Scotland 11 16 3 Republic of Ireland 9 17 5 Georgia 3 7 6 Gibraltar 0 0
Hoolahan is fine. He's a final third specialist but who can dr deep. What we need to complement (not replace) Hoolahan is a guy who can pick the ball up deep and work the ball, by carrying it, 1-2s, or by passing it to the final third. We simply lack the ability to develop play through the middle. I could take possession of the ball from a CB and pass it to a full back or wide midfielder. That's something any primitive footballer can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
I'm sure we have all played with a guy who just stands out. A guy you know wants the ball and isn't afraid to receive it. Gibson is a great receiver of the ball, in fairness. Look at the best continental midfielders, demanding the ball even when tightly marked. As Richard Sadlier brilliantly said, if we pass the ball to a guy who is marked it's considered a stitch-up in our culture. We lack that type of player.
I do think Whelan is a scapegoat. He does nothing accretive and although I agree with Giles' assertion that there's no need for a holding midfielder, he is our holding midfielder. It's McCarthy I want to see more of, setting the tempo, passing the ball forward, making himself big to receive the ball again. It's his job.
Too much Hookah I'd say went into that post.
Ah, crap, he has edited it.
Who is actually scapegoating Whelan now? McCarthy seems to be taking most of the flak from what I can see.
CD - It's simply not true to say we're always worse when Whelan's not there. For a start, it's very rare that he's not there so it's a difficult thing to measure. Were we worse in Sweden without him? No, we were considerably better than most of the games Whelan has played in. We also played very well against Italy in London without him. We were set up atrociously in Glasgow but Gibson going off could be identified as a reason for losing a goal every bit as much as Whelan's absence. Our formation and application cost us more than any absentee though. I can't even think of any other time Whelan was absent, maybe a few friendlies where we were severely understrength anyway. Actually he did miss the 1-6 against Germany, maybe he would have helped keep the score down but they practically scored from every shot they had and we were at a pretty low ebb anyway. The games he was present for in Poland would suggest he wouldn't have made any major difference I think.
Fixer - I think it's simplistic putting the difference in the two midfield performances against Scotland solely down to Whelan. For a start, we were set up completely differently, and far more effectively in Dublin. Secondly, McCarthy also missed Glasgow so one could just as easily assume it was down to him or at least a combination of both. Hendrick was used in a lot more effective way in Dublin also, and helped with the intense pressing, of which, we saw zero in Glasgow. Our whole game plan revolved around stopping them controlling the middle, we even disposed of our wingers to serve the purpose.
This sounds like I'm bashing the guy, I'm actually not, just pointing out that other variables need to be considered. I've even come around to the fact that Whelan knows his role very well and there's a certain amount of security and control when he is present. I don't necessarily think we'd be up sh!t creek without him though. I also think he has played reasonably well in the three games against Poland, England and Scotland. I would agree with you that he has done more than McCarthy recently, certainly on the ball, unfortunately I think that says more about McCarthy than Whelan though, although I remain a fan of the former.
I'd love his opinion on them actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
They've all had relative success in the Bundesliga, the Eridevisie or in Preud'homme's case a number of leagues.
By relative success I don't necessarily mean winning bucket loads of trophies, but other means of success. I've tried to limit the scope to managers who coached a team around, rather than bought a team through a sugardaddy - something that is of no use to use.
Ralf Rangnick - probably the most well-known for what he did at Hoffenheim (albeit they were bank-rolled) but he did well at Hannover and Schalke too.
Thomas Schaaf - is a manager I love. I liked his Werder Bremen teams, and they played excellent football.
Mirko Slomka - did extremely well with a functional Hannover side. Did relatively well at Schalke.
Christian Streich - has worked wonders at Freiburg, and has brought youth through to the first team.
Lucien Favre - a non-runner. He's done quite well with Gladbach, and will only gone on to better things.
Ron Jans - an interesting proposition. a bit of a header, but has done very very well at Groningen, Heerenveen and now the same at Zwolle
Gert Verbeek;
Laszlo Boloni; - too much to go into, the guy's been a success wherever he's been.
Michel Preud'homme; as with Boloni, just look him up.
I suppose what I'm looking at, is exceptional cases of a team punching above it's weight, and why it did so, in leagues with a similar type of player and style of football that we'll be playing against in a group. It's for that reason I'd be happy to discount the majority of British managers, could a lot just are not that good at all.
68 mins. Probably not as early as I had thought but I thought his influence was still needed as we pushed for the second goal. That was my feeling at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979