Printable View
The voices in Paul's head said MO'N said it, therefore it happened :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Those who read Danny's post are aware that Delaney would have been considered for selection by MO'N if he had changed his stance, i.e. be content with traipsing around with the squad without a guarantee.
It's in the nature of folk songs to have different interpretations, would this pass muster?
"As I was traipsing over
the Cork and Kerry mountains
I met with ..."
Except Delaney claims that didn't happen.
*Tumbleweeds*
You know we have had problems with managers making erroneous claims about players commitment in the past - Trapattoni/Stephen Kelly.
Not saying that's the case this time, it likely isn't. Just peculiar how Delaney's defense is completely ignored.
I'm not ignoring it at all. I heard it and I think it's superficially fair but also smells of a carefully worded political answer.
Well, although different scenarios, maybe the westwood inclusion/exclusion will aid in decihpering that one. If westwood isn't included then it might give more respectibility to Delaneys claim. That's what I thought he alluded to, and hence my post earlier. But of course again, its purposely vague to be non-commital to an answer and covering backsides - or could be at least construed that way.
If Delaney is to be believed then O'Neill has made mistakes and should have been showing signs of encouragement.
Ha, I had some of that written and then went back through the thread to retrieve some further info, so if it seemed a bit convoluted or lumped together, maybe that's why.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Just to correct/clarify what I'd written in the first sentence in case it misled/confused you, O'Neill never said Delaney wouldn't get a game. Rather, he told him that he couldn't guarantee him a game. I think that's a completely fair thing to say to any player. No player should be guaranteed a starting spot.
O'Neill stated: "[Delaney] said that he was of an age where he did not want to travel around with the team and really not be involved with the side. I said, 'I cannot guarantee you that'."
And: "I do not think that Damien, from his own viewpoint, would definitely come back to play if he was not guaranteed playing in the side and I cannot guarantee anybody a place in the side."
O'Neill is unhappy about Westwood dropping out of squads, but in fairness Westwood has missed games for his club too.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
The comments of both are reconcilable, as far as I'm concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
Delaney claims he didn't explicitly demand a place and I wouldn't doubt him. Indeed, he claims he's never demanded a starting place in his career. I believe him. He seems/sounds like a decent guy.
However, that doesn't necessarily contradict O'Neill's remarks. If we look at O'Neill's words, it's entirely possible O'Neill said to Delaney during the course of a conversation that he wouldn't be able to guarantee him anything and Delaney - rather than saying, "No, I demand that you guarantee me game-time or I'm self-imposing an exile" - just said he was fine with that and would leave it so for other players as he'd only be "traipsing around Europe" for no real reason besides occupying the bench otherwise.
That's not exactly making a demand and, indeed, he needn't have made any explicit demand for O'Neill to have interpreted it as implicitly meaning: any willingness to accept a call-up on Delaney's part might be conditional upon a guarantee for game-time.
Correct me if I've missed or overlooked anything, but I think that's most likely what has happened if we're to analyse the comments of both together and read between the lines.
^^^ I'm reminded of the scene in Scanners where yer man's head explodes.
Delaney "absolutely superb" according to Thommo on Soccer Saturday.
Edit: Replaced by Tomkins, Spurs score.
Watched that game today. He was very solid I have to say. They scored immediately after he went off for what looked like a minor injury.
It was indeed only a minor injury, but they had won a corner and the manager didn't want it taken without Delaney or another big man in the box to head it - so he subbed Delaney as he knew Delaney would have to come off to be treated for the injury and would miss the corner.
Changing at a corner is suicidal. So many times you see goals conceded at that stage of a game.
Number one rule of management is to not making a substitution while defending a set piece, but obviously Pardew's reasoning was sound. I think the majority of manager's obey that rule for the most part though?
I often wonder if that's not a bit of a cliché, like never play a ball across your own penalty box. Personally I wouldn't do it but there really should be no reason why it makes a difference. A good pro should never switch off.
It's not really about switching off though, is it? I presume it's more to do with disrupting the organisation that goes into defending a corner/free kick. I can see why it could cause a bit of confusion so better to avoid it unless necessary. The playing the ball across your own goal thing is a big more vague maybe, I'm sure there are probably times when it's the best option, possibly even the only option.
Class flick to set up Palace's equaliser against Man Utd.
Waxing lyrical about it on OTB
Call him up Trap!
Involved in a confrontation with a Palace fan and taken off at half-time.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall.
Fan who attempted to punch Delaney is arrested.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/...amien-delaney/
That's some change from his lot a year or so ago.