Printable View
Reminds me of the crap competition the US used to host every time we missed a world cup.
Can't see the point as a one off, England wouldn't want to be involved in a long term arangement (as they would think themselves above it) a 4 team Celtic tournament might work, if arranged properly.
Lets face it, its not gonna happen. Why would the players bother there arse supporting it, it would be a farce with massive pull-outs.
Last time neither 4 brits nor us qualified for something was the 1984 euros apparently.
I think we should go off to America in the summer and do a US cup type thing. Four teams, play everyone once, the winner of the group gets a spot in the final, the second and third place team would play in the semi. We'd get anywhere from three to five games, invaluable to our new manager. I'm thinking teams like us, the USA, Australia, and Bolivia. What do we have to lose? Except for points in the world ranking apparently.
I'd prefer us to host a tournament if we had the facilities available.
4 teams: Ireland A, Ireland B, Poland (for the wedge) and another good team.
Semi final / final format with a third place playoff.
Eircom League selection?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
If nothing else, it'll give the new manager a look at some players in a competitive environment, Charlton did the same thing in Iceland before the qualifiers for Euro '88.
Poland have qualified for the EUROsQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
As a general rule friendly tournaments are rubbish. Also UEFA won't allow a competing tournament to be held in europe next year.
Best thing to do is let the players have a break IMO
I'm aware Poland qaulified!
A full international and a game against our B team may suit them as part of their warm up is what I was thinking.
In genearl give the players a break is a good idea but we'll have a new guy in charge and the more chances he has of getting his ideas across the better. Still, USA 2007 - with the exception of maybe Potter & O'Halloran - was a generally daft exercise.
I think the 5 nation tournament would be a good idea. It would be more than a friendly tournament. The local rivalries would ensure that. With the progress the likes of Scotland and Northern Ireland have made I think it would be very competitive.
IIRC FIFA were considering local competitions as a solution for meaningless friendlies.
How about Ireland A, Ireland B, Ireland U23 LOI selection and Ireland U21. :p We can guage how good each team is and maybe include some of the players who do well in the other teams in the senior squad afterwards. And the winner could get a really lucrative trophy after the tournament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
People saying this competition would be of poor standard are wrong in my opinion. Scotland failed by a whisker to qualify from a group containing the World Champions, World Cup runners up and a quarter finalist. Northern Ireland did the same from a group containing a q/f and a 2nd round. England are usually good enough to qualify for anything going, the ROI regularly finish top 3 in groups and we have some decent young players coming through.
If it doesn't happen, it will be because of club power, not because it wouldn't be a good enough standard. What's the alternative? Meaningless friendlies? Might as well do it.
They're 100% right. British teams failed to qualify because they were played off the park in the big games by technically far superior teams. Playing each other won't help themQuote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
Not true. Scotland were pretty unlucky to lose to Italy at home, England were very unlucky to lose to Russia away, and Northern Ireland didn'tchoke in the big games but rather the 'little' games where they were expected to win.
No, no you dont. I sorry to be blunt, but no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
Well then nor do France, clearly, because our u-21s beat them 4-2 last week. Bear in mind this French side was captained by Kaboul Spurs' £7m signing and had first teamers at top clubs all over the pitch.
Then there's the young players in our first team squad, like Gareth Bale, who sold for £10m in the summer, and David Cotterill, £2m to Wigan. They must be awful I suppose. Bear in mind that these players are still young enough to play for the under-21s too.
Optically yes, but on closer inspection Italy were validly 2-0 up, Scotland's goal was offside and only a minute before Panucci scored he missed a total and utter sitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
I will concede that by and large they were competitive against them alright and once you're competitive a game can go either way.
England were lucky to beat Macedonia away, Scotland were steeped in Paris (if you want to pick out individual matches, even if I disagree with you summaries)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
None deserved to qualify, and all are far far behind the rest of europe in technical terms
Exactly, and this nonsense that a team 'deserved' to qualify is rubbish. The teams that qualified, deserved to qualify, the teams that didnt, didnt, simple as.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/eur...ngs/index.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Ireland4ever
Considering the disparity between the standard of the different Groups, it is a reasonable stance to consider e.g. that by finishing 3rd in the toughest Group, Scotland are a "better" team than, say Russia or the Czechs, who each qualified in 2nd place in easier Groups. Indeed, I would argue that 4th placed Ukraine aren't much worse than either of those two.
And if you look at the final tables, there are other discrepancies, such as Bulgaria gaining 25 points, but finishing 3rd, whilst Turkey and Russia both qualified in 2nd place on 24 points and ROI also managed a 3rd place on 17 points.
Germany topped their Group on 27 points, the same as Portugal, who had two games extra (8 team Group).
So whilst each of the 14 qualifiers "deserved" to do so by virtue of finishing in the top two places in their Group, that is not the same as saying that the best 14 teams in Europe qualified. Therefore, you might argue that some teams failed to qualify who were more "deserving" than one or two of those who did. And in case you're wondering who else beside Scotland I had in mind, it's Northern Ireland, of course. ;)
Actually, the two examples you choose disprove your thesis, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Scotland's performances against really tough opposition would have seen them qualify had they been drawn in at least three or four of the other Groups.
Yet they still finished in 3rd place, the same as a mediocre England, who didn't deserve to qualify by any standard. Worse still, had England managed to hold out at 2-2 for the last 20 minutes of their last game, at home to an already qualified Croatia, then they'd have qualified in 2nd on 24 points - the same as Scotland got in a far harder Group.