Republic of Ireland V Scotland - Saturday, 13th June 2015 - Euro 2016 Qualifier

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

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...

---

The whole conversation has reminded me of that FEAR - LOVE scene in Donnie Darko! Like Donnie, I don't think it's that simple...

I just find this 'playing with fear' thing a bit hard to buy in to. For me, this is a term aimed at teams who are suffocated by the overwhelming pressure placed on them to succeed by the media and general public. Think Brazil 2014, Real Madrid or England at every major tournament. I just don't see that with our guys. There seems to be a happy, relaxed mood in the camp and they have showed great spirit on the pitch to dig out results, when it would have been a lot easier to give into the 'fear', had it actually existed. I think there's a difference between playing without confidence and playing with fear. We don't have many players who are genuinely confident on the ball. It stands to reason they won't want to receive it in tight quarters. I think it's overly dramatic to call this 'playing with fear' when, in most cases, it's just knowing their limitations. Yourself and Stutts seem to mean two different things anyway when talking about this dreaded fear, your version seems to be related to the pressure of qualifying while Stutts seems to be talking about the courage to get on the ball and make something happen. I'm not even sure who I'm replying to anymore. :)

The only possible exception to this is James McCarthy really. I say this because he quite clearly has the ability to do more, as in receive the ball in tight areas and I'm in full agreement with Stutts that he should be demanding possession and being generally more constructive. He is the same at club level though, so it's not just an Ireland thing. He's a fan favourite at Everton for his industry, not for his ability to control games from midfield. It's becoming a bit of a worry but I wouldn't lose hope for him. In the past year he's definitely developed more personality on the pitch, he's more aggressive and is getting involved in more heated exchanges all the time. In a strange way I think this is progress to some degree, he's making his presence felt and is definitely less timid than he once was. Now he really needs to start showing the same sort of attitude when it comes to possession of the football.

It's a hard one to figure out, is it possibly from years of performing the same important, but unexpansive, role under Martinez? He was always the guy to cover for his fellow midfielders, keep it simple and give it to somebody else to create. In the deeper role not losing possession is paramount, playing the ball to your full back or the guy two feet away is perfectly acceptable. It's only in the last couple of months that Martinez has started to use him in a more advanced role at times, or at least with a licence to venture further forward. Hopefully this will be the next stage of his development and he'll start to take more risks.


I don't think it's like-for-like comparing our current predicament to when Mick McCarthy took over. Back then, some of our greatest players of all time had retired en masse and there was very little choice but to blood new players. O'Neill has inherited a different sort of squad I think, the players that need replacing can be done from within for the most part. To take the average age of our team on Saturday (29) as a representation of where we're actually at would be a bit misleading I feel. For a start, nearly everybody bar Martin, unfortunately, would have started Westwood and Long ahead of Given and Murphy. That, in itself, would have reduced the average age considerably. Most of the players in the dangerous 30+ category are the very ones whose place in the team is questionable anyway, bar O'Shea and Hoolahan. I wouldn't have any major concerns about trying to replace the remaining two, Whelan and Walters. We have plenty of options in the current squad to cope without them.

The way I see it, the transitional period really started after the Euros, when Trap was forced to integrate the likes of Coleman, Wilson, McCarthy, Hendrick, McClean, etc. A lot of O'Neill's job was done for him in that sense, he just needed to come in, instill confidence and set them up to play in a way that would suit them best. This hasn't really happened, certainly with no consistency both in terms of performance level or the shape of the team. OwlsFan is right to point out that it is still pretty early days though, in terms of competitive fixtures.

I know you explained the context of what was meant by 'writing off campaigns' but I still can't really agree with it. We've a team of mainly PL based players, why should they, or management, be given a licence to fail? If they're not good enough they're not good enough but they shouldn't be afforded the luxury of an excuse. I know some people may have felt Roy Keane has been over the top in his attitude towards a winning mentality in the past, but it's certainly a better psychology than an acceptance of failure. Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland had hit rock bottom so maybe that was liberating for them in a sense, but I don't think we're there yet and hopefully won't get to find out. It's pretty obvious we have the bulk of our best players in the squad as it is, I don't think the scale of experimentation needed is as colossal as is being suggested, not necessarily by you. The priority should be to get the guys that we have to perform better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

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.

---

Sweden, granted, Paul Green was excellent in a slightly different role and we did well. Generally speaking, on the rare occasion he's been out, we've looked functionally worse and when he's taken off in games I think we tend we have less of the ball after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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.

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?

---

No But harp do pipe-bombs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

He never seems to get left on for Norwich he is usually subbed at around 75 mins, sometime earlier.
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.

---

But aerial bombardment is not how we got that goal v Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Sweden, granted, Paul Green was excellent in a slightly different role and we did well. Generally speaking, on the rare occasion he's been out, we've looked functionally worse and when he's taken off in games I think we tend we have less of the ball after.

---

He was taken off (injured) in Germany and we had considerably more of the ball, granted it was probably more down to the circumstances than Whelan going off, but it showed it can be done without our little maestro. :p

I think we'd lost our way on Saturday long before he went off too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingdom

I'd love his opinion on them actually.

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.

---

Can we have less of this thinking outside the box, please. We're Ireland, in case you forgot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

He was taken off (injured) in Germany and we had considerably more of the ball, granted it was probably more down to the circumstances than Whelan going off, but it showed it can be done without our little maestro. :p

I think we'd lost our way on Saturday long before he went off too.

---

Well for a long time after Whelan went off we didn't have more of the ball. That came after the goal when we had an extra midfielder on. But regardless of any particular game, I feel we lose something when he's not there that we need and can't replace with the players we have. He's not just a workhorse in my opinion - he has a range of passing only Gibson betters.

How many full games does Wes play? Doesn't he most times/always get replaced when playing for his club in the championship?
Most probably he won't cut it at this level for much longer.
Even Rosicky, a really fit and superb athlete, is starting to look off the pace now at 34.

Wilson made a very bad mistake in the first half but the team were alert and recovered the situation.
The single biggest mistake in that whole game was our attitude on the pitch at the start of the 2nd half, we were dozy and looked dozy, I smelled the doziness.
That was just intolerable and totally unacceptable at this level. How did all that happen? that's the stuff of public enquiries, inquisitions, witch hunts and lynch mobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

But aerial bombardment is not how we got that goal v Germany.

---

A fresh Wes contributed to that goal.

And a boll0xed Wes contributed to the goal against Poland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

How many full games does Wes play? Doesn't he most times/always get replaced when playing for his club in the championship?
Most probably he won't cut it at this level for much longer.
Even Rosicky, a really fit and superb athlete, is starting to look off the pace now at 34.

Wilson made a very bad mistake in the first half but the team were alert and recovered the situation.
The single biggest mistake in that whole game was our attitude on the pitch at the start of the 2nd half, we were dozy and looked dozy, I smelled the doziness.
That was just intolerable and totally unacceptable at this level. How did all that happen? that's the stuff of public enquiries, inquisitions, witch hunts and lynch mobs.

---

From http://irish-abroad.appspot.com/MonthlyStats?month=14
Of the 31 games he started this season for Norwich, he completed...three. 3-1 win over Blackburn, 1-1 with Bournemouth and 1-1 with Derby. All at home.
No other player had more than 20 substitutions (Simon Cox had 20).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

The whole conversation has reminded me of that FEAR - LOVE scene in Donnie Darko! Like Donnie, I don't think it's that simple...

---

You've raised my pop culture reference there, very nice. Some good points there DeLorean, fair play. I'll try and keep this short since I've already way TL:DR'd over this whole thing and can't elaborate too much more on my point (and there's a fair amount of agree-to-disagree here). But I will dispute a couple of things, of course. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

There seems to be a happy, relaxed mood in the camp and they have showed great spirit on the pitch to dig out results, when it would have been a lot easier to give into the 'fear', had it actually existed.

---

There is a difference here - the team has great spirit and bravery. I'd say most of them would take a punch in the gut to get a result. But that's not the same as having the composure and courage to get on the ball and play it when they can.

In the last ten minutes, it doesn't take much courage to lump it long. It takes real courage to play with cohesive, fearlessness for the previous 80 and keep the pressure on opponents when they're got em cornered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

I think there's a difference between playing without confidence and playing with fear. We don't have many players who are genuinely confident on the ball. It stands to reason they won't want to receive it in tight quarters. I think it's overly dramatic to call this 'playing with fear' when, in most cases, it's just knowing their limitations. Yourself and Stutts seem to mean two different things anyway when talking about this dreaded fear, your version seems to be related to the pressure of qualifying while Stutts seems to be talking about the courage to get on the ball and make something happen. I'm not even sure who I'm replying to anymore. :)

---

In fairness, I've written quite a bit about courage to get on the ball across my posts, particularly talking about McCarthy, Coleman and McGeady to varying degrees.

These are the players who can play make a difference, but they're choking consistently in big occasions. But I think it goes beyond individuals because this has been a chronic failing of our play for some years. Which is why I've talked about our fear to get on the ball and play as a corollary of the pressure our team appears to be under campaign after campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

The only possible exception to this is James McCarthy really.

---

There's a few others for me, but for sure he'd be one of the main ones. It sounds like I think he can be more expressive than you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

I don't think it's like-for-like comparing our current predicament to when Mick McCarthy took over. Back then, some of our greatest players of all time had retired en masse and there was very little choice but to blood new players.

---

Of course, it's not like-for-like but I think it's an interesting example of where we could go when there's an acceptance that qualifcation is an unrealistic goal - or at least not the be all and end all.

We need long-term thinking to overcome what I see as game-to-game underachievement.

You make good points about O'Neill's squad - no disputing that, his squad is as good as it gets personnel wise. So we need to do more to maximise what we can do, to get them playing better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

I know you explained the context of what was meant by 'writing off campaigns' but I still can't really agree with it. We've a team of mainly PL based players, why should they, or management, be given a licence to fail? If they're not good enough they're not good enough but they shouldn't be afforded the luxury of an excuse. I know some people may have felt Roy Keane has been over the top in his attitude towards a winning mentality in the past, but it's certainly a better psychology than an acceptance of failure. Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland had hit rock bottom so maybe that was liberating for them in a sense, but I don't think we're there yet and hopefully won't get to find out. It's pretty obvious we have the bulk of our best players in the squad as it is, I don't think the scale of experimentation needed is as colossal as is being suggested, not necessarily by you. The priority should be to get the guys that we have to perform better.

---

A licence to fail is an extreme - and to be honest, a fairly skewed label. If the goal is to improve the overall fortunes of the national team - its psyche, its confidence, its boldness - then it could only be seen as a failure if that doesn't come off long-term.

It's realistic, not defeatist, to say we're not going to make Russia. We're fourth seeds. Fourth seeds almost never make World Cups. I hope we give it a lash - and I would expect not to be let down in terms of commitment and application. But I would trade off an unsuccessful campaign for a 90 minutes or two in which we overpowered and outplayed decent opposition. Realistically, we've hardly ever done that over the last decade.

I'm not saying we're going to start dominating teams regularly after a couple of campaigns in the doldrums. I'm just saying that we're a team who chronically can't win, who look unconfident and jittery on the ball and revert to route one type in an emergency and a less-pressured campaign could help rectify that long-term.

Maybe that sounds defeatist to you, but I just don't see it that way. None of that accepts defeat. It just potentially trades it off for somegrowth as a team. How does that go against a winning mentality?

To be fair, our current mentality isn't winning any matches anyway.

For me, I think you can strike a balance between trying to win every game (which of course you would be) but also trying to developing some pattern of play which you can take forward into future campaigns. If we lay the groundwork, stop shirking the ball and develop that style, then we will win matches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olé Olé

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.

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 will admit I have not been the biggest fan of Whelan in the past but my views have changed considerably in the past and I now see his name
on the team sheet as a sign of strength rather then weakness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAFC_rdfl

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.

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

---

It all depends on whcih Germany turn up on the day, ie the invincible one or the dodgy one and against whom they turn up against.

In reality almost anything could happen in the 'big games', if anyone of the big 3 have a bad run in it open the door for
us provided were don't trip one the door step and fall flat on our faces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

How many full games does Wes play? Doesn't he most times/always get replaced when playing for his club in the championship?

Most probably he won't cut it at this level for much longer.

Even Rosicky, a really fit and superb athlete, is starting to look off the pace now at 34.

---

I'm clutching at straws, but I hope Wes is a Lubo Moravcik. What a player and still good at what, 35?

Rosicky is more direct, all-action. Good player but his greatest strength is his dynamism. Wes' strengths are less dependent on athleticism. What age is Xavi? 35 also?

I'd guess Wes has one more campaign. Then we can pick at 32 year old Stephen Ireland :)

I think Wessi's enthusiasm due to his lack of mileage at international level will stand to him also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

It all depends on whcih Germany turn up on the day, ie the invincible one or the dodgy one and against whom they turn up against.

In reality almost anything could happen in the 'big games', if anyone of the big 3 have a bad run in it open the door for
us provided were don't trip one the door step and fall flat on our faces.

---

Current Group D Standings:

POL 14
GER 13
SCO 11
IRE 9
GEO 3
GIB 0

Matches:
Sep 4:
GEO-SCO
GER-POL
GIB-IRE

Sep 7:
POL-GIB
IRE-GEO
SCO-GER

Oct 8:
GEO-GIB
IRE-GER
SCO-POL

Oct 11
GER-GEO
GIB-SCO
POL-IRE

My guess after the September games it will look like this:
GER 19
POL 17
IRE 15
SCO 14
GEO 3
GIB 0

GER might be satisfied with a point to qualify when they come to Dublin in Oct. So the last table could look like this:
GER 23
POL 19
SCO 18
IRE 17
GEO 3
GIB 0

That doesn't look good. It's going to come down to how we do in those two October matches. We will need at least win one of them.

Blog on Scotland game and latest Delaney FAI shenigans. Forgive any typos, no time to proof read tonight.

http://afalsefirstxi.blogspot.ie/201...ocks-down.html

Hard to argue with the basic thrust of this argument, but Maloney the most eye-catching player in midfield on Saturday? I only saw him once in the entire game.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...talking-points

3) Republic look out of date compared to Scotland

Advertisement


At the end of the 19th century “the Scottish style” meant something very specific: passing football, combination play, teamwork, as showcased for admiring crowds by the “Scotch Professors” in the first ever series of international matches against England. Ireland and Scotland’s 1-1 draw at the Aviva Stadium on Saturday was a messy game but a decent result for the Scots, who have looked throughout the campaign the more accomplished of the two teams. Shaun Maloney, James Morrison, Steven Naismith and Scott Brown may not be quite professor-level just yet. But even in a scruffy game there was confirmation in Dublin that Gordon Strachan – who is himself approaching national treasure status – has assembled a team that might not ever threaten to reach the final stages of Euro 2016 but which would at least look it was playing the same game as the best teams there.
Against Ireland Scotland passed the ball well enough, crafted some nice triangles on the flanks and generally looked most comfortable playing a technically sound pass-and-move game. Should they fail to qualify from here they will do so in the knowledge that they have at least been pushing in the right direction, whereas much of the gloom around Ireland’s current trajectory is a sense that the basic method is simply a little out of date. Maloney was the most eye-catching player in midfield on Saturday, scorer now of five goals in qualifying and a fine all-round playmaking presence. Scotland may be two or three really good players (at least one of them a high class striker) away from being a top quality team. But Maloney and his fellow ball-playing midfielders would certainly add to the gaiety of a major tournament. Even in the fury of Dublin the glimpses in this qualifying campaign of a more historically Scottish Style have been a pleasure to watch.Barney Ronay

These are the main differences between where we stand I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

A licence to fail is an extreme - and to be honest, a fairly skewed label. If the goal is to improve the overall fortunes of the national team - its psyche, its confidence, its boldness - then it could only be seen as a failure if that doesn't come off long-term.

---

That's true, I meant a licence to fail short-term for the overall good, I just don't think it's necessary. We're not that far off, we're not beating our direct rivals but we are pretty close to it. It wouldn't take a massive improvement to get over the line against them and therefore over the line in terms of qualifying. Radical changes may be needed, no doubt the probably are, behind the scenes at grass roots, etc. but I think subtle changes could lead to better results with our current senior team. The pressing in the first half was excellent on Saturday but it didn't have to go hand-in-hand with a long ball game plan. If we could retain the former and either dispose or reduce the latter it would be a good start I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

It's realistic, not defeatist, to say we're not going to make Russia. We're fourth seeds. Fourth seeds almost never make World Cups.

---

You're probably right stats-wise, and maybe I'm just fooling myself, but I don't really see it that way. It depends on the group we get obviously but, as I've said above, I think we're at least very competitive against our direct rivals, basically seeds 2-4 depending on what the draw throws up, obviously I wouldn't be backing us to out-point Italy. There are huge question marks also... Will MON be a campaign wiser and maybe have stumbled across something that works by then? Will the likes of McCarthy and Hendrick kick on? Maybe a rejuvenated injury free Gibson would make a difference to our ball retention ability? Maybe Clark could free up Brady to play on the left wing? I just think we have a lot going for us if we can start really believing in ourselves and obviously management is crucial. I agree that things can't go on as they are, something will have to happen at some stage but at least MON is trying different things and a lot of the things the public were demanding. I'm willing to give it time but it could get worse before it gets better, if it gets better!

Is O'Neill's contract up at the end of this campaign anyway though? A fourth place finish wouldn't put him in the best bargaining position, if he even wants to stay on.

I have a feeling MON will step aside, his retirement fund boosted, but leaving his pals Walford and Guppy stranded. Keane will step into the breach, bringing a less direct style of football to the fray.

I hear Limerick radio (so it must be true) were talking about Keane and O'Neill being at odds with each other over the way we play. My source is impeccable, a Limerick-born bloke who lives over here and who still keeps in touch with local Limerick radio. :)

Am I the only one searcing for a silver lining and think that Roy is made for Intl football in the management sense?

Because he's less likely to fall out with everybody when he only sees them every couple of months?

If not being able to play without fear is a problem, I don't think Keane is the solution.

Depends on how you define fear!

We need a manager that stays beneath the parapit, and let's the players do the talking. The Irish media loves a sideshow, we need a management team that will not give the Irish media that sideshow.

There will always be a sideshow.

Eg. if somehow Ralf Rangnick was our next coach and we lose a game the hounds will be out saying that he has no idea what he's doing as he's continental yada yada.

We shouldn't pick our manager based on the media. We should pick the best guy for the job. Full stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

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.

---

Owen Garvan :)- ?

Ha ha. Even I don't think Garvan is the answer. But he's still not yet 30!

As you're here, did you get a chance to see that Giles / Whelan clip?

I've one for you Stutts seeing as that seems to be coming to nothing :)

In what sense are you suggesting the clip applies to us? It's a very interesting and good piece of analysis but I'm just not sure where we come into the equation. Are you pointing out that we don't have a player like Schweinsteiger or saying that our options should try to play more like the way he does?

You say you agree with every word of the analysis, but they're saying that there's no need for a designated holding midfielder at all, let alone two, yet you see Glenn Whelan as an important player for us in his current holding midfield role, as I'm sure you appreciate Mascherano is for Argentina. He was exceptionally good when they reached the final last year, every bit as important as Schweinsteiger for Germany.

Mascherano couldn't play football like Schweinsteiger even if he wanted or was allowed to, he simply hasn't got the attributes. The same could obviously be said for our guys but that's not to say McCarthy, at least, shouldn't be doing more than he is, as was covered pretty well in the 42.ie analysis. Maybe that's all you're getting at?

Giles and Ronnie Whelan were saying it's not rocket science, when one goes forward the other covers back. That's all well and good when you've got Schweinsteiger, Khedira, Kroos, etc., all very athletic players who can cover the ground as well as play. The closest we've come to anything like that in recent years was probably the combination of Meyler and Hendrick at Craven Cottage, in terms of rotating the attacking and defensive responsibilities, but I'd be fairly nervous if we were set up like that in a real game.

I'm at my son's sports day. Response to follow later!

We played without a holding midfielder in Stockholm. Green and McCarthy were more like an old fashioned midfield two and they worked well.

Yes, I do appreciate the value of a player like Whelan or Mascherano but I think each takes too much out of the ball and a CB should be able to develop play from deep without playing it to a deep lying midfielder. And while Schweinsteiger is an exceptionally good footballer, the ability to carry the ball in midfield should be a given, not an exception. The Giles / Whelan clip was a general criticism of the way a modern midfield often works (Argentina's) and bemoaning the infrequency of a midfield how it should work. It's great that Mascherano is hungry for the ball, but he's hungry for the ball in his own third. What teams need are players who are also hungry for the ball in the middle and final thirds. That's what we lack, with the exception of Hoolahan.

Do England have one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

We played without a holding midfielder in Stockholm. Green and McCarthy were more like an old fashioned midfield two and they worked well.

---

Good point. It was more old school. I think the Meyler/Hendrick combination might have been slightly more dynamic in a box-to-box sense, but Green and McCarthy did work very effectively around the middle, unfortunately it wasn't really replicated in Vienna.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Yes, I do appreciate the value of a player like Whelan or Mascherano but I think each takes too much out of the ball and a CB should be able to develop play from deep without playing it to a deep lying midfielder. And while Schweinsteiger is an exceptionally good footballer, the ability to carry the ball in midfield should be a given, not an exception.

---

Okay, but neither Whelan nor Mascherano have this ability which should be a given, so where does that leave us? In Argentina's case, keeping Mascherano as an integral part of their team and making a World Cup final and, in our case, a lot of people insisting Whelan is an very important player.

Glenn Whelan can hardly be described as anything other than a holding midfielder, he's the absolute epitome of a holding midfielder, in everything he does and doesn't do. You agree with Giles and Ronnie that it's basically a myth that teams need holding midfielders, so where does that leave Glenn and why is he so important, if we don't even really need a player who performs that function only?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

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' thoughts

---

If I might appoint myself as a senior Irish international is this scenario...

Boss, there are a couple of things that come to mind. It is much harder to qualify for the World Cup that the Euros with the new qualification system. It is going to need an almighty effort and a bit of luck for us to get the Brazil as a 4th seed. It's going to be tough, but all we can do is give it our best shot.

I liked how we played in the first half against Scotland. Nobody does that any more, butl I genuinely think we can get results playing a very direct game. But for it to work it will need us to be well drilled as a team. The players who show up for friendlies need to be the same players who get picked for the big games, even if that means leaving better players on the bench.

Our basic system should be getting the ball to the forwards as quickly as possible. The only player we have who can unlock a defence with a creative pass is Wes Hoolahan. Wes is 33 now, and will be 36 by the time the next World Cup comes around. The kind of patient build up that some people want to see us play will leave us endlessly passing the ball in front of 8 or 9 men, losing it, and having to race back to defend a counter attack. I think Jon Walters showed against Scotland that there aren't to many players out there who can hold a ball up better then him

25 years ago Big Jack felt that fullbacks were becoming part of the attack for most of the sides he faced, so he asked John Aldridge to drift into wide areas and get in behind them. That had the effect of either pinning the opposition full backs inside their own half, blunting the opposition attack, or leaving John in acres of space on his own. Football has changed massively since then, but if anything fullbacks are even more adventurous these days. Shane Long has got the legs and the right instincts to do the same job as Aldo did. I think it can work as well now as it did back then.

I worry about our centre backs. Marc Wilson and JOSH both look comfortable on the ball, but neither of them is a Richard Dunne or a Mick McCarthy. I think we need to start looking for a defender like that. Ciaran Clark showed signs that he might be that player for Villa last season. Or perhaps Shane Duffy. It think they should both get their chance in upcoming games.

We also need a natural left back. It is going to mean throwing someone in at the deep end, but it has to be done. At the start of next season, whoever we can find playing somewhere, be it at the bottom end of the championship, league 1, or the SPL, needs to come in to the team. The good news is that Gibraltar away and Georgia home are a great way to start. Whoever this is going to be will need a lot of help against Germany. It's a risk, but they will likely become a better player for the experience. Perhaps playing for Ireland will get them noticed by a team higher up the pyramid.

Finally. All this is probably going to go down like a fart in a spacesuit with the press. I've noticed the BBC are now having managers being interviewed by Gary Linekar on Match of the Day, and he puts the points to them that the analysts have raised during the coverage. Dunphy is going to have the knives out for you. If you do your post match interviews with the studio, rather than talking to Tony O'Donoghue, I think you could call Dunphy out on a lot of the crap he talks. But I would even consider going up the stairs to the studio and sitting down between him and Liam. It's the It's unorthadox, but it might be the best way to defend yourself.

None of this will be pretty, but if it gets results you will be forgiven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Good point. It was more old school. I think the Meyler/Hendrick combination might have been slightly more dynamic in a box-to-box sense, but Green and McCarthy did work very effectively around the middle, unfortunately it wasn't really replicated in Vienna.



Okay, but neither Whelan nor Mascherano have this ability which should be a given, so where does that leave us? In Argentina's case, keeping Mascherano as an integral part of their team and making a World Cup final and, in our case, a lot of people insisting Whelan is an very important player.

Glenn Whelan can hardly be described as anything other than a holding midfielder, he's the absolute epitome of a holding midfielder, in everything he does and doesn't do. You agree with Giles and Ronnie that it's basically a myth that teams need holding midfielders, so where does that leave Glenn and why is he so important, if we don't even really need a player who performs that function only?

---

I think if you've got a player who brings something useful to the party, let him. In that case Whelan, who has value as a holding player should be picked. The point for me is simply that we lack midfielders who get on the ball and use it well. If we had it'd make the case for a Whelan less strong.

Highlighting Mascherano showed how limited he is in his use of the ball but I think most people know his big asset is his defensive abilities. That's not to be scoffed at, but as we're currently talking about changes in the game in the soccer v rugby v GAA thread I think a trend in the game is for almost every team team to have a holding midfielder as you define it. I don't think it's necessary. I think a midfield needs a ball winner and a ball user, and ideally players who can do both. A ball winner is not necessarily a holding midfielder. Would Khedira be a holding midfielder, or a ball winning midfielder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

Do England have one?

---

wilshere always wants the ball. Henderson too, and is quite purposeful when in possession. They have others too, just most big teams have better ones!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I think if you've got a player who brings something useful to the party, let him. In that case Whelan, who has value as a holding player should be picked. The point for me is simply that we lack midfielders who get on the ball and use it well. If we had it'd make the case for a Whelan less strong.

Highlighting Mascherano showed how limited he is in his use of the ball but I think most people know his big asset is his defensive abilities. That's not to be scoffed at, but as we're currently talking about changes in the game in the soccer v rugby v GAA thread I think a trend in the game is for almost every team team to have a holding midfielder as you define it. I don't think it's necessary. I think a midfield needs a ball winner and a ball user, and ideally players who can do both. A ball winner is not necessarily a holding midfielder. Would Khedira be a holding midfielder, or a ball winning midfielder?

---

I'd definitely consider him a ball winning midfielder, he's certainly not a holding midfielder in a limited sense, similar to Anturo Vidal, although maybe slightly more defensive minded.

In summary so, you don't need a Glenn Whelan, unless you have nothing better! :)

Not that it's wrong to draw the link between a thriving youth set up and the senior national team, but an interesting contrast is Serbia: u20s just won World Cup, senior national team currently only on 1 point out of 6 games and 5 behind Albania.

I'd love to know what the chat is on their footie forums. "Our youth system is cr@p, oh wait...". Knowing Serbia they're probably blaming it on gypsies or religious minorities.

I'm guessing that Serbian U20 WC winning team will make up the bulk of their U21 team we face in the qualifying for 2017 Euro U21 Championships.