Ireland V Germany(A) 11th October & Kazakhstan(H) 15th October 2013 - World Cup '14 Q

I'm really surprised with the criticism of Noel King.

For the first time in 5 years we had a manager that we could understand in interviews.
He brought back players that deserved to be in the squad: Gibson, Stokes, Reid.

His team created more chances against Germany than in the previous two games put together.
His team passed the ball on the ground instead of hoofing it.

We battered a team that we barely scraped past under Trap.
We should have scored more than three but I think we would have struggled to beat them under Trap last night.
Plus, their goal was an unstoppable screamer.

And he did all this in the space of two weeks.
He's been much more pro-active in the role than Don Givens ever was.

I think he's done well. He seemed to be up for a row with Tony O'Donoghue to be fair but I think he was probably sick of getting unwarranted stick from Dunphy et al over what was a tough interim job to step in to.

Dunphy has gone way overboard saying his criticism has never been personal. Ask Niall Quinn, Jack Charlton, Trap, Rod Liddle, even Roy Keane. He's gotten extremely personal when criticising them all. Hypocrisy

I think the people criticising King for laying into O'Donoghue/RTE are overlooking the fact that we all would have done the same were we in that position. The panel have been screaming out for somebody to put them in their place for years now. The players who have criticised them - McGeady, Hunt, McShane - have generally been those who've borne the brunt of their criticism but each can be accused of underperforming in the green shirt. King outperformed Trapattoni in both of his fixtures and had basically a free shot, considering he's not in the frame for the job, and he said exactly what he thinks. I couldn't give a flying **** about whether Tony or Gilesy's feelings were hurt as a by-product of getting what was coming to them. People in the media who are paid to criticise are often the most precious when the criticism is turned back upon them.

It's all an irrelevant circus.

Even Ronnie Whelan & RMK have more credibility than the main protagonists. Or kids arguing in a playground...

Interesting piece this from Cathal Dervan on Dunphy and his many axes to grind

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/sp...227995341.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emmet7

Interesting piece this from Cathal Dervan on Dunphy and his many axes to grind

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/sp...227995341.html

---

Cathal Dervan is probably the worst journalist in the history of the whole world.

Even thinking about the abomination that was The Title makes me shiver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Cathal Dervan is probably the worst journalist in the history of the whole world.

Even thinking about the abomination that was The Title makes me shiver.

---

Hey now. Irish Central is a very reputable website. Just look at all the millions they've invested in web design.

They have previous.

http://balls.ie/football/apparently-...-eamon-dunphy/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

For that reason I rated Stokes' performance. He's got something different, something innate and spontaneous. Good point about the yard versus the mile.

---

One thing I thought about Stokes on Tuesday night was that every time he got the ball, he looked like he might do something. He did run out of ideas when he got into the penalty area, and rarely tried to beat his man, but eventually he released McGeady to cross for the own goal with a backheel on the byline. By comparison, everytime Doyle got the ball, he never looked like he would do anything. I was genuinely shocked he stayed on the pitch for 90 minutes, although the early enforced substitution to Gibson probably played a part in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

One thing I thought about Stokes on Tuesday night was that every time he got the ball, he looked like he might do something. He did run out of ideas when he got into the penalty area, and rarely tried to beat his man, but eventually he released McGeady to cross for the own goal with a backheel on the byline. By comparison, everytime Doyle got the ball, he never looked like he would do anything. I was genuinely shocked he stayed on the pitch for 90 minutes, although the early enforced substitution to Gibson probably played a part in that.

---

Maybe kinger remembered how poor long was in the sweden game and blamed him for not getting us further in this campaign, and so he picked Doyle ahead of him :D

I too was impressed with Stokes, but I wondered how much was down to hunger and deisre to make a point so he was always looking to get on the ball. He didn't do a great deal with it to be honest and is lacking that quick turn of pace. What i really liked about him is he is very good turning inside or coming off the player, but he hasnt hte pace to actually get away so unless he shoots straight away or is very near the goal I don't see much end product with this without the pace.

I do wonder how Long didn't get anytime. But i'm coming round to Stutts hypothesis, that Long is best on the wing on the counter for us and holding the ball up on the break. I'm not sure he has anything else.

Doyle needs to learn to play the ball on the ground in any new system. I think most people are agreed the days of hoofing the ball up to Doyle or Long and hoping Keane gets on the end of that ball are over and good riddance.

We saw in the last year or two of Traps reign how techically poor our players are with the ball on the ground. They need to learn how to play with the ball on the ground. The Belgians are the model to follow. Went from no hopers to world beaters in 10 years by changing the entire philosophy of their game from u8 all the way up to senior.

Let's hope the long ball to target man approach is done and dusted. If people like Doyle can't control, pass, and hold possession, he shouldn't be in the team. The same goes for everyone else. Having said that they should be given gametime to learn a new way of playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Stutts hypothesis, that Long is best on the wing on the counter for us and holding the ball up on the break. I'm not sure he has anything else.

---

I don't think that though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

The formation won't be 4-4-2 under any circumstances. There's a reason Ruud Dokter is involved in the selection process. He is to make it absolutely clear that there is a system common to all the teams through the age grades - 4-2-3-1 for the unininiated - and the new manager will be expected to follow that blueprint. King tried to pretend before the match that he wasn't set on a particular system yet, but anybody who's paid attention to the underage teams since Wim Koevermans came on board would have seen right through it. 4-4-2 just isn't fit for purpose in modern football and I suspect that's the key reason why Martin O'Neill hasn't been chosen.

---

I'd be very surprised if any manager worth his salt would be dictated to about what formation to play. It would help if the managers they approach buy into that formation/philosophy from the start but a manager needs the tactical nous and flexibility to adapt to the circumstances in front of him. Take each game (opposition) on it's own merits. 4-4-2 did not suit Ireland with the Trap in charge because we had Glenn Whelan and Green/Andrews in the engine room. They didn't have the mobility or skill to cope against teams who had numerical superiority. A prime Roy Keane and Kinsella on the other hand might have fared better, that is why the formation you play does depend on the players at your disposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

4-4-2 just isn't fit for purpose in modern football and I suspect that's the key reason why Martin O'Neill hasn't been chosen.

---

Why would MON necessarily play 4-4-2? He played 5-3-2 (3-5-2) for a long time at Celtic.

The game on Friday reminded me of home game V Andorra for 2002 qualification. About 3 minutes in. They took the lead, we were all over them - same result

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xj-oLckKX0

Did you do that to depress us even more?

Its even more annoying to listen to it when living over in this(England) country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Did you do that to depress us even more?

Its even more annoying to listen to it when living over in this(England) country.

---

?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixer82

The game on Friday reminded me of home game V Andorra for 2002 qualification. About 3 minutes in. They took the lead, we were all over them - same result

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xj-oLckKX0

---

The skills on Gary Doherty. Why don't I remember that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixer82

?????

---

After that game we had something to look forward to.

It's laughable Dunphy calling for the return of Mick McCarthy. If McCarthy does return, Dunphy will be among the first to start slinging mud at him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

After that game we had something to look forward to.

---

Ah right I get ya.

But to put it in context, nobody was giving out yards about Mick and his tactics that night and it was a pretty similar game to the Ireland Kazakhstan on Friday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Apologies for the plug, but balls.ie asked me to write an article on King v RTE, so here it is

http://balls.ie/football/dunphy-rant/

---

Really enjoyed this piece. Nice one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Really enjoyed this piece. Nice one.

---

Yeah +1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Cathal Dervan is probably the worst journalist in the history of the whole world.

Even thinking about the abomination that was The Title makes me shiver.

---

Yeah. Dunphy is a clown, but Dervan is equally an idiot of the highest order. The two of them deserve to be tied together and left somewhere.

Dunphy & Dervan, they define the '2 sides to the same coin' phrase.

Won't anyone please think of Roy Curtis...

I wonder what Dunphy would have thought of Everton's 4231 at the weekend with Lukaku flanked by Mirallas and Leon Osman. Mirallas is a central forward and Osman normally a regular midfielder.

Doesn't Dunphy claim to be a La Liga aficionado? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I wonder what Dunphy would have thought of Everton's 4231 at the weekend with Lukaku flanked by Mirallas and Leon Osman. Mirallas is a central forward and Osman normally a regular midfielder.

---

Interesting, I would have considered Mirallas more of an attacking midfielder or winger but Wikipedia just calls him a forward also.

I wouldn't take my description of him as gospel. I've only ever seen him play for Everton under Moyes where he played more centrally on the few occasions I saw him.

He was played as a striker but he was moved there by Moyes. He's a winger by nature.

He was a striker at Lille and for Belgium, a right winger at St Etienne, a left winger at Olympiacos and now a right winger at Everton.
He's a modern attacker who can play many roles, something Dunphy, Giles etc will have to adapt their ways of thinking to. Cruyff started it years ago.
(Mirallas stats btw, 76 Starts FW, 60 Starts RM, 40 Starts LM, 92 Substitute)(300 odd appearances)

Doyle by contrast, has only played RM or LM 11 times since he moved to England(300 odd apearances). He was regularly used there for Cork City though. And Stokes has started wide on 12 occasions(200 odd appearances)
I'd say criticism of using Stokes and Doyle wide was justified, but Noel Kings prerogative.

Good info, Joe.

Barcelona are the main protagonists of total football in the modern age. No real positions, anyone can play anywhere. Dany Alves used to be a winger, Fabrigas plays as an attacker or conventional midfielder.
If you're good enough you should be able to play virtually anywhere on the field, 10 defenders when required, 10 attackers also when required. Barcelona have it down to a fine art, particularly the 6 second rule of winning the ball back, which starts with the forward players closing down defenders. People often don't notice the amount of work Messi, Iniesta, etc do chasing down the ball when they lose it. It's an essential part of their game, just as important as attacking. I think the 4-2-3-1 system might help with this, certainly the wide players play more advanced, pressuring the full backs. Its all right having creative wingers, but they also need to learn how to close down, pressure and tackle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe_denilson

He was a striker at Lille and for Belgium, a right winger at St Etienne, a left winger at Olympiacos and now a right winger at Everton.
He's a modern attacker who can play many roles, something Dunphy, Giles etc will have to adapt their ways of thinking to. Cruyff started it years ago.
(Mirallas stats btw, 76 Starts FW, 60 Starts RM, 40 Starts LM, 92 Substitute)(300 odd appearances)

Doyle by contrast, has only played RM or LM 11 times since he moved to England(300 odd apearances). He was regularly used there for Cork City though. And Stokes has started wide on 12 occasions(200 odd appearances)
I'd say criticism of using Stokes and Doyle wide was justified, but Noel Kings prerogative.

---

Stokes is at his best as a link player and anybody who has watched Stokes play for Celtic should appreciate that quality to his play, getting on the ball and threading the pass to the out and out striker.
The fact that he can also score plenty of goals himself is a bonus. He regularly plays in from the left side, he was expected to support Keane, not too far wide and not too deep. he's not at his best as a wide midfield player. But no matter where Stokes is played, he will give his all, it's not a square peg role for him.
Apart from that, the situation was never lost and was rectified somewhat by the substitution and the 3rd goal came.
It's another discussion if Stokes was effective on the night, that's where there will always be criticism when something obviously doesn't work as well as could be expected, but anybody could, with a little effort, appreciate what King was trying to achieve and that's where the rte panel collectively sunk below zero, right from beginning to the end of their critiques.

On another matter, it's one thing to play players in their best position but it's a bad sign for us when our players have to be pigeonholed into their favoured narrow roles/specific functions, in order to be effective enough to make the team potent.

Mirallas was quoted in today's papers as saying he prefers his wider position under Martinez than his central role under Moyes!

That said, I agree with Geysir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emmet7

Barcelona are the main protagonists of total football in the modern age. No real positions, anyone can play anywhere. Dany Alves used to be a winger, Fabrigas plays as an attacker or conventional midfielder.
If you're good enough you should be able to play virtually anywhere on the field, 10 defenders when required, 10 attackers also when required. Barcelona have it down to a fine art, particularly the 6 second rule of winning the ball back, which starts with the forward players closing down defenders. People often don't notice the amount of work Messi, Iniesta, etc do chasing down the ball when they lose it. It's an essential part of their game, just as important as attacking. I think the 4-2-3-1 system might help with this, certainly the wide players play more advanced, pressuring the full backs. Its all right having creative wingers, but they also need to learn how to close down, pressure and tackle.

---

In a very good team playing 4231 pretty much everyone except the 2 CBs, and just maybe one deeper midfielder, comes into the attacking mix. They also need to be industrious and disciplined without the ball. It must be great fun playing in a good team in that 'system'. I say system, but it's far from systematic.

So basically its like american football. You have a defense and offense.Barcelona built their defense after honing in on jack Charlton's game plan for Ireland in the 1990s - "put em under pressure" ....very interesting.

I think there is a fundamental thing missing with that theory. If you are good enough and comfortable enough on the ball then you won't need to spend half as much time trying to win it back.

So although messi/iniesta etc harass and put pressure on the oppositions defenders they don't spend half the time the opposition does doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Stokes is at his best as a link player and anybody who has watched Stokes play for Celtic should appreciate that quality to his play, getting on the ball and threading the pass to the out and out striker.
The fact that he can also score plenty of goals himself is a bonus. He regularly plays in from the left side, he was expected to support Keane, not too far wide and not too deep. he's not at his best as a wide midfield player. But no matter where Stokes is played, he will give his all, it's not a square peg role for him.
Apart from that, the situation was never lost and was rectified somewhat by the substitution and the 3rd goal came.
It's another discussion if Stokes was effective on the night, that's where there will always be criticism when something obviously doesn't work as well as could be expected, but anybody could, with a little effort, appreciate what King was trying to achieve and that's where the rte panel collectively sunk below zero, right from beginning to the end of their critiques.

On another matter, it's one thing to play players in their best position but it's a bad sign for us when our players have to be pigeonholed into their favoured narrow roles/specific functions, in order to be effective enough to make the team potent.

---

I dunno Geysir. I've not seen Celtic recently but I've watched a bit of Stokes playing wider attacking roles for Sunderland and was not impressed (plus a game for Palace it think it was). I think his supporters have to acknowledge the merrit of his detractors arguments here. If he's recently turned it around, well and good. More power to him. But fans with experience of him playing in wider deeper roles on other platforms had reason to be disenchanted with his selection at the time. I thought it worked better than expected to be honest. I was impressed with him against Kazakhstan but still I think we've more productive options in those roles. I have the feeling he would've started ahead of Pilkington as well as McGeady has Pilkington been fit too.

The squad in it's current guise with evveryone fit and available, I wouldn't make room for Stokes AND Keane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr_peepee

I dunno Geysir. I've not seen Celtic recently but I've watched a bit of Stokes playing wider attacking roles for Sunderland and was not impressed (plus a game for Palace it think it was). I think his supporters have to acknowledge the merrit of his detractors arguments here. If he's recently turned it around, well and good. More power to him. But fans with experience of him playing in wider deeper roles on other platforms had reason to be disenchanted with his selection at the time. I thought it worked better than expected to be honest. I was impressed with him against Kazakhstan but still I think we've more productive options in those roles. I have the feeling he would've started ahead of Pilkington as well as McGeady has Pilkington been fit too.

The squad in it's current guise with evveryone fit and available, I wouldn't make room for Stokes AND Keane.

---

I am only making a point that King had plenty of justification for trying what he did - Stokes on the left side.
Whether Stokes is good enough to start is another matter, right now I think he's good enough for the squad.
He's doing plenty of work for Celtic coming in from the left side tonight and won a penalty - on the left side of course :)

It's hard to tell where Stokes is playing - he's suppose to be central I think but his hairline is popping up everywhere. Samaras has lost the ball unnecessarily 100,000 times so far.