If you offered me Ireland to score 13 goals over the entire campaign (much less in 1-2 games), I think I would take it at this stage!!!
think about it. (11 games left)
Printable View
If you offered me Ireland to score 13 goals over the entire campaign (much less in 1-2 games), I think I would take it at this stage!!!
think about it. (11 games left)
I don't understand how people can keep saying it's not that bad, lay off Staunton, give him a chance.
Had Given not played the game of his life we could, nay SHOULD have lost that game 4-0 ...at least. in the end we actually got a decent result. Lost the most difficult match, away to Germany, and only conceeded one goal against the best team in the group, argueably.
This was achieved completely in spite of Staunton, his inexperience made all the more obvious by his sending off. His substitions were ridiculous both in timing and the players being substituted. His selected was wrong from the start by playing good players out of position to accomadate the sh*te and allowing Kilbane to make the journey at all.
Really, if you look at it, we're not argueing whether he should go but when.
I'd say sooner rather than later for everyones sake, before we remove ourselves from contention before we complete full fixture list and we slide down the rankings and end up in Groups of Death for the next decade.
Don't be ridiculous. He made one fantastic save (Klose header), he had one hit right at him (Podolski) and made one good save that would have been soft if he let it in (Klose?). 3 shots on target from Germany, 1 which any keeper on the planet would save. Hardly the game of his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by thelimerick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
yeah but when little T and T could leo benhaker, and russia get Gus Hiddinck, we get stan the man,
and rangers get that french fella,
there are always good managers knocking around, but if the FAI cant be arse to get serious about it...............:mad:
Here's one eL fan who is disillussioned by the FAI and the national team before Stan came in but the situation hasnt changed, esp. after playing Byrne against Chile, him doing well and then leaving him out of the next game when he was scoring goals for fun with Shels.Quote:
Originally Posted by joema
The last to posts are interlinked. The EL is improving, but only slowly. Without a strong league generating income and talent, the finance required for a top class manager and talent for a top class team won't be there. The teams we should be aiming ourselves at, like Portugal, Serbia, Sweden, even Holland have a competative league with teams capable of qualifying for the champions league. We don't.
That sort of experience is invaluable. The money it brings into the game is obscene. not only from TV, also from transfers of players who are put into the shop window. Despite the exploits of Derry the EL can't offer this
Whilst the move to summer football has been beneficial, the eircom league is currently missing 4 of Irelands biggest sides, in the forms of Shamrock Rovers, Glentoran, Linfield and Belfast Celtic.
A competative league with those 4 added to Cork, Shels, St. Pats, Bohs, Derry and a few others with promotion and relegation to 4 provicial leagues would provide a competative league of big sides. With the right promotion, being played in the summer it would be a unique product, in the british isles at least. With money spent on stadiums, and a few big name signings and managers, people might actually want to watch it as opposed to having nothing better to do or going out of wanting to support the local lads. Lets face it, no one watches Irish football outside Ireland.
With a decent league, the possibiity of getting a team into the group phases of the champion league or UEFA cup comes into sight, with the development in terms of talent and income that brings, which brings it right back round and benefits the national team no end
The most difficullt match is yet to come, away to the Czechs next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by thelimerick
I think we will have to review our official fixture policy of playing one of the big guns away first. In hindsight, it was madness to play the Germans away first, with a weak boss "in charge", and no morale in the squad. It worked well against the Dutch and the Croats, but has failed since then. From now on, it would make more sense to play one of the minnows first as a warm-up game for facing the big guns soon afterwards.
Facts, we played the Croats at home first. France & Portugal away would hardly be regarded as failures.
So my quoting of stats was selective, but yours isn't ? What makes the stats you picked the "really important ones" ? As for "running us into the ground", rubbish. Ireland were always competitive under Brian Kerr. Yes, we finished fourth, by one point in a very, very tight group where one extra goal in any of a number of games would have made the difference. It's a thin line sometimes for managers, and sometimes good managers have a poor run of results. Brian Kerr is a bloody good manager, his previous record more than proves that. Here's another stat for you - how many previous Irish managers have ever won a trophy, of any description ? However, as I've said already, if you're happy with Staunton then good luck to you. Time will tell I suppose if his record turns out to be worse than Brian Kerrs, you might be amazed if it does, I certainly won't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Small point, but the subs were Pat Devlin's not Stan's.Quote:
Originally Posted by thelimerick
Both were made after Stan was sent off and, presumably, he had no further contact with the bench after that. Maybe they were already planned (they did arrive very soon after the sending-off), but technically at least, they were Devlin's switches, not Stan's. If you want to be conspiratorial, Devlin brought off his client who doesn't need to go into the shop window (possibly to avoid injury), while he brought on another client who hasn't had any Premiership football and for whom the exposure would be good.
The duff sub Staunton told Devlin to do as he was been sent off.
Mick Byrne was the runner between the dugout and Stan.
He communicated with Stan and then came back to the dugout with the instructions for the substitutions before they were made.
Duff looked sore, in obvious pain as he came off but hard to tell really because he often has that look on his face.
Listen lads the players have lost faith in Staunton already! It doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do, this idea that they all love him is wrong. It's was obvious from Duff's face what he thought of it. What's the bets that Duff will out of next squad with injury?
What are you saying ? A manager can't sub one of his players, who had been inffective throughout the game and who had shipped a knock (which I saw) without losing the dressing room ?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeNiro
Slight overreaction there I think.
if you think tht was a decent performance in Germany i'm afraid you are not a good judge of footballQuote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroy
no way is he getting a break...he wanted the job so he has to take the s hit as well...he also prob came out with the most stupid statement ive heard in football when he said that at the end of the campaign the result in germany would be of no significance....and he DID say that
He is a FOOL
Agree with all four of the above posts....
He isn't there to win a popularity contest ... subbing Duff was a very good move imo because ALL of the team will see that no one player is above being dropped / subbed. It is when they see a manager who clearly has favourites that players react badly. Charlton did it with Brady and O'Leary to a lesser extent ... fair play to Staunton I say.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeNiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Den Perry
I thought it was a decent performance and I believe I am a good judge of football and that was the feeling of all my friends who were at the game with me. To go to the home of the 3rd best team in the world and to lose to a flukey OG and to make them fight all the way was a decent performance. I don't know what you expect from a team made up of some pretty average players - take the game to Germany, cut them apart, play nice one touch football and dominate them ? If so, you're not a good judge of football or footballers' abilities. We competed well. The players gave 100% and if Dunne had got that header on goal in the last few seconds we would be celebrating a 1-1 draw. The Germans created more chances than us but I'd expect that but it was a vast improvement from the Dutch game. When you think our central midfield consisted of Kilbane and O'Shea, I think we did well.
Whether we like it not, he is Ireland's Manager at least for this campaign.
Having no experience (at this level) clearly isn't in his favour.
Was it a financial matter? We'll never know anyway. Personally I've always been in favour for Martin O'Neill but that's not the point. We should give Stan a chance and who knows how things will turn out... Unfortunately though, time is running and what we need are positive results.
I also find it totally unacceptable to attract British players having no ties at all with Ireland.
they are no more the 3rd best team in the world than they were the second best team in the world after the 2002 WC. or Turkey or South Korea were the top four in the world after same WC. can we stop pedalling this myth as some sort of justification for being happy with being beaten without threatening the opposition goalQuote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
If ifs and buts were pots and pans youd be a kitchen....Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
We took the game to them in the first 20 minutes. thats what we should be expecting and thats what most ireland fans do expect. there is no shame in losing a game whilst trying to win it. there is in losing a game were damage limitation seems to be the aim. one nil or ten nil if the result is never in doubt after 20 mins then I would class it as a poor performance regardless of score.
If they had created one chance in the game it would have been one more than us. As far as I know we are not obliged to play two extremely bad midfielders. how long has the manager to prepare for this yet he plays the same midfield pairing as his predeccesor in his last game? And using one crap performance ie the Holland game to justify another slightly less poor performance is ridiculous. BOTH games were unacceptably poor. the fact that most of the players were delighted losing one nil and seemed to think they had proved everyone wrong after the holland game is depressing and a true pointer of what standards this group of players sets itself. we may as well be andorra if not gettin hammered by bigger teams seems to be our main aim.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
The team were very low on confidence going into the Germany game after what happened against Holland ... expecting attacking flair from a group of players that are at best mediocre is fairly unrealistic. As their confidence returns the performances will get better.
you say "what happened agaisnt holland" like it was something outside the players and the managers control....
There's only one criteria that matters, a manager and team should be judged on results and performances in competitive games only.
When reviewing a record of any past manager it beats me why friendlies are sometimes included.
Totally agree geysir, all manager should be judged on competitive results only. Where did they finish in the table is the only fair way of judging the manager as it is as objective as you can get.
[QUOTE=OwlsFan;533668]What are you saying ? A manager can't sub one of his players, who had been inffective throughout the game and who had shipped a knock (which I saw) without losing the dressing room ?
You to have the dressing room in the first place in order to lose it. In such a fickle footballing world, where loyalty doesn't exist, it is possible that Newcastle Utd might say why are we bothering to send him if he's not going to be used. If he was injured fair enough but why did he sit away from the rest and not get treatment then?
They were up against vastly superior players ... how was that under their control? The Dutch came to Dublin under immense pressure themselves because of what their public perceived as being a poor world cup - that had nothing to do with any of the Irish camp either. As well as that, we had numerous injuries. Does the manager control which players are injured? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billsthoughts
My point is that the squad went into the German game extremely low on confidence. You cannot coach confidence into players; players who are low on confidence become more cautious and take fewer risks.
didnt we manage to beat them before one nil away from home the last time when we were missing a lot of first team players and they had all them vastly superior players?the attitude was the differance with both games.
that's a fairly obscure reference tbh - how many players started both matches? I think only three. The game was a friendly - that is the main similarity ... however the Dutch didn't come into that game with a point to prove to their public and to their media. They did last month.
I'm not altogether sure what you are suggesting we do anyway? Sack the manager? After one competitive match? We could borrow the idea used on the TV show Have I Got News For You - instead of having a guest presenter, we could have a guest manager. Someone different after every defeat! :rolleyes:
em one of the points i am making is that you are using one really bad performance to justify a slightly less crappy performance. which is moronic. all the fundamentals that were there in the holland game were there in the german game. no creativity and no gameplan. another point is that the manager is inexperienced and doesnt seem to know what he is doing. something that a lot of people foresaw when he was appointed. which begs the question why did he get the job? I am just pointing out facts. You are just pointing out excuses.
I'm looking at the circumstances going into the Germany game to try and explain why the team played the way they did ... not excuses, just reasons why certain things happened the way they did. It worries me when people believe that we should sack the manager after only one competitive match - and not even any old match ... it was away to Germany!! And so what if people knew he was inexperienced when he was appointed? He is the manager now and we've got to accept that. He won't get the sack this early. What sort of fall-out would there would be if he was sacked? What would the effects be on the players especially the younger, less experienced, ones? They're short on confidence as it is! Changing managers now would improve that, would it? What would the effects be for any would-be replacement manager? If Staunton was the best we could get last time round, who is going to put their name forward for a position where the previous manager was given only one competitive fixture before being sacked? No half-decent manager would risk their reputation with us if that happened. I pointed this out on a different thread but I'll say it here again - it is proven statistically that teams who chop and change managers frequently are never successful. Never. Teams who do the opposite always enjoy relatively more success. I'm not trying to make excuses to justify crap performances - I'm certainly not happy about the way the team played against Germany and against Holland. We were poor in both games. I just think that changing the manager now would only make things a lot lot worse!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Billsthoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
yeah i agree, i thought the boys did their best, and the germans looked good, esp frings controlling everything from the middle
but dont you think the tactics were a little silly..............4-5-1 would have been better suited, what did our strikers do in the game anyway