Republic of Ireland V Uruguay - Tuesday, 29th March 2011 - Friendly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I see the point re: Odea but wasnt the reasoning behind Traps selection put forward that he had experience playing in CL etc and that he is 24 years of age now, that he is no longer a rookie? By rookie do you mean that he isn't of the same standard and games behind his belt as Dunne? Or a young inexperienced newbie?

---

Do most things have to spelt (spelled) out?
O'Dea is a more experienced rookie then. Age is not an accurate guideline to CH maturity.
At what age was Dunne trusted to be our CH? He was 22 or 23 at WC2002 and still Mick went with an unattached player and Stan.

Quote:

---

Either way he has been around the Irish squad and Celtic a fair time now, over 2 years with Ireland and with celtic since 2006(senior appearance i think)

---

Which is why Trap went went him in an important game over Clark.
Any young player who has not played competitively for us can be considered a rookie and more so in O'Dea's case as you pointed out, his club record of starts this season is not exactly overwhelming. .

Barring injuries very few players starting last night are going to start against Macedonia. Still going to be
Westwood
Foley, O'Shea, St Ledger, Kilbane
Duff, Whelan, Gibson, McGeady
Doyle, Keane

Foley is probably the one most at risk of losing his place. Coleman might feature at right full when he comes back in the upcoming games. Green might replace Gibson. Doyle should be back to near full fitness come Macedonia. There is also the possibility O'Hara might stop *****ing around and declare (Trap and Tardelli to meet him this week possibly). Otherwise I see the 11 I have selected starting against Macedonia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Do most things have to spelt (spelled) out?
O'Dea is a more experienced rookie then. Age is not an accurate guideline to CH maturity.
At what age was Dunne trusted to be our CH? He was 22 or 23 at WC2002 and still Mick went with an unattached player and Stan.


Which is why Trap went went him in an important game over Clark.
Any young player who has not played competitively for us can be considered a rookie and more so in O'Dea's case as you pointed out, his club record of starts this season is not exactly overwhelming. .

---

Yes it does, I have had to dumb down mine for you to understand, but it looks like I didn't go far enough. I wanted to know what you mean by the term rookie. Dunne was not trusted at that stage because he was still a messer and had severe lapses in concentration, but he showed he had the ability just required full concentration and to sort himself out. I would not say O'dea has shown the same.

Rookie has less to do with age in my opinion than experience, and as you say O'Dea hasn't got any of that really because most managers don't seem to rate him either.

O'Hara ??? :rolleyes:

JoSH has to play in the center in Dunne's absence. The players that came in didn't do enough to stake a claim for the doc's and Kilbane's places in the team. Foley must likely to start at RB, Kelly might come back into the reckoning for that position. I think Trapattoni sees Coleman as a right midfielder rather than a defender.

The only other position in the team up for grabs is Whelan's partner in the center. I think Fahey and Gibson are ahead of Green in the reckoning at this stage. McCarthy and possibly Andrews (depending on his injury situation) are the other options.

Despite Long's good form Doyle and Keane are first choice. Robbie gets the goals and I can't find fault with Doyle's performances in a green jersey - he is consistently one of our better players when he plays.

Ifk101 i was going to read your post but I just couldn't be arsed :D Only joking

I think if we take the lead in Macedonia with 20 mins or so to go to ensure we close out the game then taking keane off and putting on mccarthy might be an option. Pack the midfield i mean because without the ball I don't see us not conceding.

i think long should get the nod over doyle for the next game. Long is just as good in the air as doyle, holds the ball up just as well but crucially is a goal threat. Doyle isnt, and never really has been. as much as we all love him id like to see what a keane/long partnership could bring for a few games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar

Barring injuries very few players starting last night are going to start against Macedonia. Still going to be
Westwood
Foley, O'Shea, St Ledger, Kilbane
Duff, Whelan, Gibson, McGeady
Doyle, Keane

---

Andrews should be available for selection in June???? I think he'd have Gibson under pressure for that midfield slot given the fact its an away game. Trapp could be in "don't lose" mode.

It would be great to see Stephen Reid back - although its wishful thinking. He was brilliant against Montenegro away in the last campaign, and it would be great to see him available to reprise that role in Macedonia.

If Doyle is injured - Long's emergence is more than welcome and he should slot in alongside Keane.

All said - right now, barring injuries, there's options. We haven't always had that luxury.

That was part of Trap's reasoning. The other part was that he was a "stopper" (and Clark by implication more of a Gary Breen) and that's what he wanted beside Dunne. That's what he got.

I'm not sure exactly what he meant by rookie, but by any definition Clark is more of one than O'Dea.

O'Dea is certainly left-footed so I'd guess he plays left-sided CB.

Geysir, if SSL was injured and Dunne available, would you move JOS into the middle and bring in a new RB, or would you leave JOS at RB and pick O'Dea? Let's say we're talking about both Russia away and Slovakia at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Ifk101 i was going to read your post but I just couldn't be arsed :D

---

That's alright paul_oshea. I would have simplified it if I thought you were going to read it. Wouldn't want that arse of yours getting a headache.

Last night was a great night if you were in the stadium, and more specifically in the Lower Lansdowne end. Great atmosphere. If they closed off the upper tier for the friendlies it would make a big difference. Can't wait to watch the full repeat this evening.

As for the game - first things first. I cannot remember seeing a faster opposing team at Lansdowne. They were a seriously quick team, quick in mind, quick in body, quick in possession. A very experienced team too, something in marked contrast to our team. They're probably the best team we've hosted in Lansdowne for quite a while too - even taking into account the lack of competitive edge. And for all that for large parts of the game we were equal to them and kept possession as good as them.
The change in formation was nice, but I think he got a couple of selections wrong, Andy Keogh being one, and Lawrence the other, in spite of a superb assist for the first goal. I find it frustrating that he didn't opt for the similar player to Duff in Keith Treacy, but picked Andy Keogh who clearly cannot play wide on either flank. It totally unbalanced the team, and I didn't think it helped Clark either. Lawrence wasn't terrible, and he has been a decent asset for Ireland since breaking through; but I feel he is now firmly behind McGeady/Duff and I'd nearly say Coleman for the right hand slot (I say this based on the type of game we should be looking from our wingers).
Yesterday I was happy Kelly was played cb to allow Clark a run on the left, that decision hasn't changed today as Clark's performance wasn't hectic and maybe that will curb some of my(our) enthusiasm to have Clark placed on a pedestal too soon. Still, I would like to see him get more game time alongside something close to a first choice centre half partnership.
That said, the back 4 was cobbled together, and there was always a likelihood that they could struggle against a top quality front line like Uruguay. Like other posters I was disappointed that Delaney flitted away in recent times, without doing too much wrong, maybe that was down to injuries, dropping down etc, but he is definitely worthy to be considered a contender - something Stephen Ward surely deserves at this stage too.
I didn't think Foley had a bad game, he is another worth persisting with. I think what is good about him getting time is that it creates the possibility of moving JOSH into the centre, something I'd be a big advocate of, provided the right back is as competent (I think Foley is). I could be going against the grain here, but I think one thing to take from the two new full backs is that both are comfortable on the ball, and both look to use the ball rather than give possession away. Eagerness and lack of experience will cause problems initially, but that's something that can be learned.
Fahey for me showed the best performance from a central midfield player since Whelan in Paris. He deserves a run there. I think himself and Whelan could work in the short term, and I definitely think himself and McCarthy could compliment each other very well in the near future. Gibson was poor. Green was himself, but not nearly as bad as I expected.
Long was excellent, and I agree totally with anyone who says that he is now firmly in for a starting role. Despite being our greatest goalscorer, for me he is in direct competition with Keane, as he's sharp enough in the box, but has the aerial threat that Robbie doesn't have. He is a real candidate now.
Westwood deserves his place now. I do care about reputations, but for a super-important position like nets, if the incumbent is showing how capable he is, and he has an attribute that we've lacked for a while - a keeper in command of his area - then he deserves to keep his place if his predecessor has been out of action for a season and injured also - it's a no-brainer.
Finally McGeady, he's first choice now, no doubts about it. Anyone who doubts that isn't judging the fella fairly.

You make some very good points kingdom, paricularly the one about the formation change being nice to see, but it was let down by a couple of bad selection decisions. We could have come out witht he draw I reckon had this not been the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Geysir, if SSL was injured and Dunne available, would you move JOS into the middle and bring in a new RB, or would you leave JOS at RB and pick O'Dea? Let's say we're talking about both Russia away and Slovakia at home.

---

I know you asked Geysir, but I might comment too if that's ok?
If everyone is fit, and able come Slovakia at home
I'd have
Foley ---- OShea---Dunne----LB

Brady could never play there! You're mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingdom

Green was himself, but not nearly as bad as I expected

---

Does this mean he's always better than you expect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

You make some very good points kingdom, paricularly the one about the formation change being nice to see, but it was let down by a couple of bad selection decisions. We could have come out witht he draw I reckon had this not been the case.

---

It was let down by necessary team selections. Was it more important last night to give Clark a run at Left back and have a weaker centre back partnership in order for him to get (even a chastening) experience in the position identified for him in the relatively short term? Or was it more important to have a solid 4, with little chance of further selection, and a left full (kelly) with little chance of becoming first choice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Does this mean he's always better than you expect?

---

:D Not quite! I anticipated that he'd be utter garbage. I figured I'd be screaming blue murder about him, but didn't feel he did too bad. Having Fahey as a constant option of an out ball definitely helped.

Still want to watch the full game again though, so that opinion might change by tomorrow. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingdom

It was let down by necessary team selections. Was it more important last night to give Clark a run at Left back and have a weaker centre back partnership in order for him to get (even a chastening) experience in the position identified for him in the relatively short term? Or was it more important to have a solid 4, with little chance of further selection, and a left full (kelly) with little chance of becoming first choice?

---

Nope im talking about keogh on the right wing.

I mentioned on here that for Villa, Clark was very poor in the centre against City, so although I would have liked to have seen him in the centre with Dunne, there was no way it could happen with the likes of O'Dea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingdom

:D Not quite! I anticipated that he'd be utter garbage. I figured I'd be screaming blue murder about him, but didn't feel he did too bad. Having Fahey as a constant option of an out ball definitely helped.

Still want to watch the full game again though, so that opinion might change by tomorrow. ;)

---

I think he gets undeserved abuse to be honest. He's actually very popular amongst the Derby supporters and he plays a very different midfield role for them. He's pretty much a box to box player but contributes more offensively. He is being asked to play a defensive role for us and I don't think it comes naturally, but I couldn't fault his endeavour. That said, I would much prefer to see McCarthy or Fahey in there, although I would suggest the defensive side of things might not come so naturally to them either. Andrews has played the role effectively enough for us I think. I'd take Green over Gibson in a heartbeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Nope im talking about keogh on the right wing.

I mentioned on here that for Villa, Clark was very poor in the centre against City, so although I would have liked to have seen him in the centre with Dunne, there was no way it could happen with the likes of O'Dea

---

Andy played on the left did he not? I agree with the sentiment - I'd have had McGeady and Treacy on the flanks for what it's worth. I actually think it was a big mistake not to have started Treacy last night. I think he could be very useful for us given Duffer is going to be coming to the end of his career (even taking into account the existence of Stephen Hunt)

I think Geysir's conspiracy theory wrt new formation might hold water! Trap can point to no improvement and some people will be too thick to realise that the formation didn't contain players suited to the roles they were allocated.