USA Friendly 11/18/14

There was nothing damage limitation about the game in Germany either. Whelan on the right was a bit weird but he had one of his best games there and we at least looked to retain the ball and use it well when we had it. Germany dominated the game but that's because they're Germany and were at home. The reason it wasn't a freewheeling attacking performance is because they have much better players than us, not because we were set up negatively, whereas the USA definitely did just set up to absorb the pressure Germany occasionally put on them.

Isn't the way for a country like us to set up to try and beat Germany, almost by definition, to set up to defend well and sneak some chances on the counter or from set pieces?

I think King set us up to do as well as we realistically could have.

Trap used Keith Fahey as a defensive midfielder. That was silly. So too was just sitting off them without putting pressure on the ball. That tactic got found out by most opponents around 2009/10. It worked for a while but passed its sell by date.

Also, Germany's finishing was impeccable that day. How many were from 20 yards or more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

No. Ireland played decent purposeful football in the first twenty or so minutes againt Germany at home. I remember being mildly impressed of how Trap was approaching the game. Then it all went to pieces.

---

We always started games well under Trapattoni because we were passing the ball and venturing forward with purpose. Every single time we would capitulate after 15 minutes and retreat into our shells.

How many times did we go in front under Trapattoni, mobilise, play like we are desperately protecting a 1 goal lead - with about 25 minutes on the clock - and then invariably concede an equaliser and throw away points needlessly?

People go on about the achievement of even getting to the Playoffs in 09/10 campaign but those Bulgaria games were gimmes and the way we dropped points against them was maddening.

That's a point I made quite frequently when I was more pro- Trap than I eventually became. Yes we spent large parts of games defending, but we did have a great habit of scoring early under Trap. We did it lots of times.

Agree re- both Bulgaria games. Not gimmes, but more purpose and self-confidence and we should have won.

I think there was a difference between how we started against Germany, Russia in Dublin and a couple of other games, than our usual strong opening 5 minutes. It wasn't just route one, there was more patience and more precision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

We always started games well under Trapattoni because we were passing the ball and venturing forward with purpose. Every single time we would capitulate after 15 minutes and retreat into our shells.

How many times did we go in front under Trapattoni, mobilise, play like we are desperately protecting a 1 goal lead - with about 25 minutes on the clock - and then invariably concede an equaliser and throw away points needlessly?

People go on about the achievement of even getting to the Playoffs in 09/10 campaign but those Bulgaria games were gimmes and the way we dropped points against them was maddening.

---

I wonder why we do this though, is it simply us running out of steam, ie starting too fast and using up too much energy early on?

This is a pretty fatal tactic guaranteed to go wrong same say sprinting the first 300 metres of marathon.

The best tactic is to pace yourselves until what is maybe the last quarter of the game then you can recover in the
dressing room rather than on the pitch.

That I think is more important than anything else to get right, more important than player selection or formation
or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

I think there was a difference between how we started against Germany, Russia in Dublin and a couple of other games, than our usual strong opening 5 minutes. It wasn't just route one, there was more patience and more precision.

---

As I just said I think that is a fatal tactic, as an example of that I remember once at school we had to run a 800 metre
race which I really didn't fancy doing as such runs are normally a painful experience for me, hence I decide to jog round
and just run the last 300 metres, as I knew this was the longest distance you could sprint for.

Much to my surprise I actually won the race, coming from last to first in the last 300 metres!!

The best part of the race for me was passing the last runner, the captain of the football team, early in the final straight,
I could tell from his breathing he was absolutely whacked, I ran about 20-30 metres out of him to win by a distance!!

Nobody was more surprised than me, I was far from the most athletic, I just used the best tactics, they were all knackered after about 400
metres, I was knackered when the race was ran.

Tricky its pretty simple, the teams figure us out and then capitalise on our one route approach, we revert to "our plan" without the ball.

Looking back im happy we didnt qualify for SA as I would have probably come back with Aids. I think we had all the old failings in that campaign that Trap said was one of the first things he would put right, the same frailties that we never got rid of under Traps 6 years, two wins and 4 more points, going into that italy game, a win and we topped the group. Ah well hindsight and all that, history is looked back more fondly depending on whose doing the looking back.

I think the USAs biggest problem is that a world cup is every 4 years and they dont have much to play for in between. So its interest will pique but i doubt will sustain. Interesting to see how the Confederations goes in a couple of years.

Sprinting for 300 mtrs after running 500 is pretty impressive if yer not athletic. I'd say you mean running fast, i always find it funny when middle distance runners or long distance say sprint to the end. They cant sprint they run fast. Sprinting is completely different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

As I just said I think that is a fatal tactic, as an example of that I remember once at school we had to run a 800 metre
race which I really didn't fancy doing as such runs are normally a painful experience for me, hence I decide to jog round
and just run the last 300 metres, as I knew this was the longest distance you could sprint for.

Much to my surprise I actually won the race, coming from last to first in the last 300 metres!!

The best part of the race for me was passing the last runner, the captain of the football team, early in the final straight,
I could tell from his breathing he was absolutely whacked, I ran about 20-30 metres out of him to win by a distance!!

Nobody was more surprised than me, I was far from the most athletic, I just used the best tactics, they were all knackered after about 400
metres, I was knackered when the race was ran.

---

Does anyone else get really disconcerted when TC and Crosby take things seriously and make coherent posts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Tricky its pretty simple, the teams figure us out and then capitalise on our one route approach, we revert to "our plan" without the ball.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Looking back im happy we didnt qualify for SA as I would have probably come back with Aids. I think we had all the old failings in that campaign that Trap said was one of the first things he would put right, the same frailties that we never got rid of under Traps 6 years, two wins and 4 more points, going into that italy game, a win and we topped the group. Ah well hindsight and all that, history is looked back more fondly depending on whose doing the looking back.

---

Surely you would have taken precautions given you were going to a country with a huge AIDS problem. Kinda silly just to start lamping it about. Though considering some of your apparent exploits in Slapper Face Jacks who knows. Any port in a storm eh Pauly?

On a serious note I think that I would have swapped the qualification in SA for Poland simply because that we scraped over the line to get to the Euros. Qualifying for SA would have been dare I say, the "real" team. Especially given that we seem to excel at poor World Cups it may have been a daycent showing.

Quote:

---

I think the USAs biggest problem is that a world cup is every 4 years and they dont have much to play for in between. So its interest will pique but i doubt will sustain. Interesting to see how the Confederations goes in a couple of years.

---

That's a very interesting comment. And I reckon entirely true. The interest in the World Cup in the USA is always there. I think with the media and social media advances over the last 4 years may show that the interest appears to have grown exponentially to how it was in 2010. But it's hard to say conclusively. I think the real test will come when the USA are playing in humdrum qualifiers and in the Gold Cup before Russia 2018.

The USA are also hosting the 100th Anniversary edition of the Copa America in 2016. So this will be a another test for the burgeoning popularity of soccer. But again it is a tournament so we will see... lest we accuse Yanks of being bandwagoners.

Quote:

---

Sprinting for 300 mtrs after running 500 is pretty impressive if yer not athletic. I'd say you mean running fast, i always find it funny when middle distance runners or long distance say sprint to the end. They cant sprint they run fast. Sprinting is completely different.

---

Ya know what he meant. Even Mad Moose and Stutts would refer to there final push as sprinting and I would trust them as authorities on running here. I'd also trust Stutts in financial matters too. :)

You mean swap Poland for SA? ya i would too, i always thought id prefer a euros over world cup cos more competitive or so i believed, but having gone to poland and given our team at the euros and where they were at, along with the contingent etc, I would have preferred SA.

However I would have swapped all of them for Brazil. I think everyone would, and nothing to do with the fact it was one of the best world cups in a long time.

Everyone seems to ignore that the Americans always have the greatest following at the world cup bar the home nation obviously. I know there are lots of americans all over the world but still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Everyone seems to ignore that the Americans always have the greatest following at the world cup bar the home nation obviously. I know there are lots of americans all over the world but still.

---

Are you sure everybody ignores that or is it just that people aren't interested in how many Americans are at things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Are you sure everybody ignores that or is it just that people aren't interested in how many Americans are at things?

---

I'd wager the latter.

The term "American" is silly if you think about it. I mean its "of" America, not of all Americas. I mean Skstu is "American" since Canada is in North America. But he doesnt go around to Cow tipping contests calling himself American. Giselle Bundchen is American from being from Brazil but could ony call herself American once she married Tom Brady. Those on the farest reaches of South America are also "American." Mexicans even are American though we prefer if they don't come in. US citizens and the people as a whole should be refered to as "Staters" or something. Help me out here Stutts. By the way do you chaps know Churchill was half American and lived in NYC? PM me if you come here, I will show you where he lived. Your dander will rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crosby87

The term "American" is silly if you think about it. I mean its "of" America, not of all Americas. I mean Skstu is "American" since Canada is in North America. But he doesnt go around to Cow tipping contests calling himself American. Giselle Bundchen is American from being from Brazil but could ony call herself American once she married Tom Brady. Those on the farest reaches of South America are also "American." Mexicans even are American though we prefer if they don't come in. US citizens and the people as a whole should be refered to as "Staters" or something. Help me out here Stutts. By the way do you chaps know Churchill was half American and lived in NYC? PM me if you come here, I will show you where he lived. Your dander will rise.

---

But it's called the United States of AMERICA.

All the revisionism about the last two Germany games is complete garbage. They would have taken us to the cleaners however we played. There was nothing creditable really about either performance.
And already fear much of the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dancinpants

The USA actually remind me of past Ireland teams that qualified for the World Cup...only the US have an easier path. Then, when you get there, you punch above your weight for 3 or 4 games.

There has definitely been a huge surge in interest in the sport here...but that was for the pomp and ceremony of a World Cup. The question is - will that translate to hum drum qualifiers and to the MLS?

Worth noting that the team has strong MLS representation. And like teams such as Belgium, Sweden, Holland, Greece - they have a well supported domestic league. We don't. The USA is currently better than us and that gap is going to widen - vastly. Our coaching set up is flawed, we produce fantastic new talent annually, it seems, in the LoI - but nobody wants to go watch them. As long as that's the case local teams will flog their best young talent to half arsed League 1 teams in England for next to nothing just to get money to survive. And that then translates to the national team. Utter mediocrity from top to bottom.

Whether Irish supporter's of English teams (that "wouldn't watch that sh!t" down the road from their house) like it or not a vibrant, well supported LOI is integral to this country's national team progressing on the world stage.

---

Tbf, most US soccer fans don't have a choice re.an alternative live product given their relative geographical isolation.
Due to their domestic coverage, interest in the EPL, CL et al is growing, but a lot less viable for many to take in a live match elsewhere.

Irish players, as been covered multiple times before, suffer from the more exotic mix of players now used elsewhere which means they end up struggling to get a chance to make an impact.
Ideally yes, more young players would stay at home (doesn't really 'accommodate' those of the diaspora though), but there isn't really the interest, and more importantly the € to justify this...

And maybe this will be more the US's 'reality'?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/wor...foreign,36455/

No amount of your own negative revisionism or spin can change the FACT that we won the last two minutes against Germany at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Are you sure everybody ignores that or is it just that people aren't interested in how many Americans are at things?

---

I dont know, do you just ignore the whole point, or do i really need to qualify the statement?

MEdia outlets, posters etc, always say "soccer is on the rise in America", but they always fail to acknolwedge or include the fact that America is the best supported nation at the World cup, why ignore that part when its quite important, if a country like the USA don't have any interest in soccer or its on the rise how are they still getting the biggest attendances at the games? Of course I did factor in that there are americans all over the world but thats not the sole factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

but they always fail to acknolwedge or include the fact that America is the best supported nation at the World cup

---

surely the likes of argentina and colombia brought far more fans to Brazil than the US?
i read that a lot of tickets were sold to US addresses but they could just have easily been fans from other countries living there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crosby87

The term "American" is silly if you think about it. I mean its "of" America, not of all Americas. I mean Skstu is "American" since Canada is in North America. But he doesnt go around to Cow tipping contests calling himself American. Giselle Bundchen is American from being from Brazil but could ony call herself American once she married Tom Brady. Those on the farest reaches of South America are also "American." Mexicans even are American though we prefer if they don't come in. US citizens and the people as a whole should be refered to as "Staters" or something. Help me out here Stutts. By the way do you chaps know Churchill was half American and lived in NYC? PM me if you come here, I will show you where he lived. Your dander will rise.

---

HAHA, love it.

No you wont i pm'd you loads and you never met me that time Crobsy, don't fill the poor guys with hope only to break their hearts. Although you might have split up from your lady by the time we were finished that time in NYC...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbyrne

surely the likes of argentina and colombia brought far more fans to Brazil than the US?
i read that a lot of tickets were sold to US addresses but they could just have easily been fans from other countries living there.

---

Ya i was thinking this too, but I heard it from two different media sources, however it was during the group stages so perhaps initially they had but certainly by colombia/uruguay it was full of colombians, or maybe they were brazillians ;)