Group D - opponent watch!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I didn't forecaset a last minute equaliser but I did say that although on paper we should be beaten I have seen enough weird stuff happen in football to retain hope.

I wonder did you think we were simply unlucky against Austria at home, or like me, did you think we were the architects of our own downfall? Sure, there was some bad luck involved too. But look at Germany. In the last ten minutes they retreated, failed to deal with some pretty basic pressure and, quite frankly, looked a bit panicky. Even at the death I didn't see us scoring but I did think if there was another ten minutes we could. It just looked like that, just as it looked like we'd concede an equaliser to Austria. Having hit the post and missed other chances was history by the time the Austria game entered its final minutes, just as was the case on Tuesday.

---

And thats what jogi love referred to as Naive.

Stutts your previous post to this was one of your best on here, but uncertainty is not the reason for crashes, hence why many predict them, crashes are inevitable, unfortunately like new serious diseases on population control. Ticking timebombs, its just a matter of when not if, and thats because there is certainty. But i agree with what you were trying to get at.

I thought McClean was very good as well, the ground he covered and the relief he gave us, he was the only one able to create a bit of space and those perfectly weighted dangerous crosses into the 6 yard box. Could have done it a bit more often though.

I also thought Quinn was immense and wasn't sure why he was being taken off, again being that far away you dont notice the panting - but you do notice the important things like ground covered and tracking and blocking runs, I also felt he made some great interceptions/tackles. Is quinn not pretty much a regular in the Hull side now as well?

Because of german naivety and inexperience we were allowed back into the game and they sat back, they thought after 1 - 0 they were home and dry because we had done so little. They were the architects of their own downfall as suggested by Stutts and if that was against the german team last year they would have finished us off and certainly not allowed us back into the game, but we were also lucky, that was a great goal, but i would like to see us try and pull it off again.

Stutts mentioned about lucky managers, O'Neill seems to be getting this luck. Thats what is giving me confidence for qualification. That and we appear to be the one scoring last minute goals and not conceding them, so luck and whatever else goes with it, we are still scoring at the death - it wont always happen but the fact it does bodes very well.

Also if we hadn't scored as late as we did I reckon Germany would have scored again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Eh? But if the roles were reversed you'd say the same. It can't be both.

---

Course it can.

After 0 games, Gibraltar weren't relying on other results to go their way in order for them to win the group.

They've just screwed up since is all.

If any of Germany, Ireland, Poland or Scotland win all their remaining games, they will in all probability win the group.

We're relying on luck.

And laboured sarcasm...
:rolleyes:

Paul, I was in a bar beside David McWilliams, the writer and economist. I follow him on Twitter and read a tweet before the game saying we had little chance but, hey, who knows? I replied by quoting Keynes on the difference between risk and uncertainty and shared a private (economists) joke about Hyman Minsky. He replied by saying that John O'Shea was Germany's Minsky Moment - I.e., the moment the bubble bursts!

Given you know all about the endogenous reasons for crashes you'll no doubt know about Minsky. He was absolutely right but was cast aside by the profession as his views didn't sit well with market fundamentalists and efficient market hypothesis advocates. I've no doubt you agree with him. However, markets do reach unrealistic valuations because of Keynes' risk vs uncertainty. What also matters is how risk positions are financed. Too much debt leaves the system vulnerable. Simple observation by Minsky but one that the most politically influential economists of the last 50 years overlooked, purely for ideological reasons.

Sorry lads, but I won't be told by Paul I don't understand financial crashes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

And laboured sarcasm...
:rolleyes:

---

Very good. The Thanks button is broken!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Paul, I was in a bar beside David McWilliams, the writer and economist. I follow him on Twitter and read a tweet before the game saying we had little chance but, hey, who knows? I replied by quoting Keynes on the difference between risk and uncertainty and shared a private (economists) joke about Hyman Minsky. He replied by saying that John O'Shea was Germany's Minsky Moment - I.e., the moment the bubble bursts!

Given you know all about the endogenous reasons for crashes you'll no doubt know about Minsky. He was absolutely right but was cast aside by the profession as his views didn't sit well with market fundamentalists and efficient market hypothesis advocates. I've no doubt you agree with him. However, markets do reach unrealistic valuations because of Keynes' risk vs uncertainty. What also matters is how risk positions are financed. Too much debt leaves the system vulnerable. Simple observation by Minsky but one that the most politically influential economists of the last 50 years overlooked, purely for ideological reasons.

Sorry lads, but I won't be told by Paul I don't understand financial crashes!

---

But stutts youre saying its because of uncertainity or at least you were but somewhat changed that in the last post. Crashes are certain the timing is the problem, as no one can predict that. Yes Risk factors, the greeks play a part in the certainity and aversion of risk, but to say that the sub-prime and the ratios of lending in ireland to deposits is not a certainty and a ticking timebomb is plainly wrong. There are even theories out there of a 7 year cycle, just some crashes are less obvious.

I'd read hayek and myrdal before the others.

Hayek was in the pay of big business along with his buddy Friedman. Publicly they would complain about monopoly power yet privately they did what they could to ensure monopolists captured the state. He is so full of holes, exaggerations and contradictions it's amazing. His view of the world is a fantasist's view of the world, nothing that resembles real life. Keynes and Minsky absolutely nailed the cause of financial crises. There is a fair degree of truth in Hayek's views of "mal-investment" but none of it is inconsistent with Keynes and Minsky anyway. Hayek's views on economics were predicated on protecting the rich from inflation. His mate Friedman was General Pinochet's economic advisor. Hayek was the inspiration behind Reagan and Thatcher. 'Nuff said.

I don't think you understand Keynes and Minsky! Pretty hard to argue. Together their views explain absolutely 100pc the sub-prime blow up and the Irish property bubble. There is some of Hayek in there too, but it's incomplete.

I just read your post above again. You haven't understood my points at all, and you have misrepresented what I said to some extent too, albeit unintentially I reckon.

My argument was that it is a certainty just because you don’t calculate like risk factors doesn’t mean its not a certainty! I thought that was clear!

Anyway we can take this offline stutts for whatsapp ;) I just saw your email with your link which I shall read. I have a good email from the actuaries of Uk and Ireland soc, where they go into detail about ratios and lending, savings v investment and how the Irish banks and Central bank had totally skewed this. It explains it all in detail and that for anyone with this knowledge in hand, made glaring mistakes - but it was most definitely a certainty ;). Wrong information in good hands v Right information in Bad hands...

The luck factor would describe a defender's deflection, one that he could do little about, turning a wayward ball into his own net.
Luck had nothing to do with our equaliser. We earned that goal through good football. Just because it was late, does not make it lucky.
We were only a goal down and even at that, it took a perfect shot to make that goal.
After going ahead, Germany were worn out by the effort, their other tough game previous and the experienced hands were not there to kill the game off for them.
As long as it stayed 1 nil, we had a real chance to create an equaliser from any attack.

To claim we were lucky is denying the validity of a large chunk of what makes certain games, gripping to the final whistle.

Funnily enough, the harder we tried to score, the luckier we got... To paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson: shallow men believe in luck; strong men believe in cause and effect. :)

I wasn't denying that there wasn't any skill, in fact I think there was lots of skill involved, and it was a quality goal, but I think the luck element comes in that we pulled it all off and with such perfect accuracy for each individual bit of skill, for had we not, it wouldn't have been a goal. It's not like something they would have been practicsing every day in training and as said not something that they would be able to repeat again and again. The luck is the fact that out of 10 chances at that, you were only likely to score 1 from 10, when everything came off perfect, we were lucky in that it all came off perfect.

Its not luck like the hoolahan deflected/rebound/off the crossbar Gibraltar goal :)

Also meant to add to the top post, that the saves forde made bar the one where he spread himself very well are all saves I'd expect a keeper to make. Kroos' goal was right in the corner and I don't think many(or even any) kieeper would save it, but forde could have boiled the kettle and made the tea, stamped the envelope and delivered it by the time he got down for the goal. He is so slow and cumbersome getting down low and fast at a stretch. I think this was a problem with the sweden goal, and I think we will have 1 more in this campaign also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

it was a quality goal, but I think the luck element comes in that we pulled it all off and with such perfect accuracy for each individual bit of skill, for had we not, it wouldn't have been a goal.

---

we didn't though. Hoolahans cross was poor. Hendricks intervention turned it into something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I wasn't denying that there wasn't any skill, in fact I think there was lots of skill involved, and it was a quality goal, but I think the luck element comes in that we pulled it all off and with such perfect accuracy for each individual bit of skill, for had we not, it wouldn't have been a goal. It's not like something they would have been practicsing every day in training and as said not something that they would be able to repeat again and again. The luck is the fact that out of 10 chances at that, you were only likely to score 1 from 10, when everything came off perfect, we were lucky in that it all came off perfect.

---

It didn't all come off perfect though. Hoolahan over-hit his cross and Hendrick did brilliantly to salvage it. And they're footballers; they practice playing football every day of their lives so they can engineer and deal with situations of a similar nature to this. It was a goal created by our own strengths (and weaknesses); not by some volatile or flighty notion of luck.

The thing is though, if his cross hadn't gone where it was we more than likely wouldnt have anyone to get on the end of it he was well outside the box, down close to the touchline near the 18 yard line mark and it was behind everyone, even if he hadn't overhit it! Mcgeady taking the ball into the corner, dragging the two players into him, who were stupid enough to double team and leave Hoolahan free, but ya Hendrick turned it into something, so did Mcgeady, so did hoolahan and O'Sheas finish was sublime.

So, basically, what you're saying is that it's down to pure luck that players like McGeady, Hendrick and O'Shea perfectly pulled off the skills they have spent years practising?

Oshea has spent years practising scoring from the outside of his right boot into the far corner for years? I would have thought he would have been practising clearing the ball the opposite direction!

Yes, Paul, that's exactly what I meant.

In fairness, Paul is probably right in what he is saying. The only difficulty I would have with it is that you could probably apply it to every goal ever scored, in one way or another.

Ya it could also be argued that the ball over the top by hoolahan had luck because the fact it was so bad a ball and to the back it pulled out the other central defender which gave oshea space to run into and time to get in front of hummels.

I know what you are saying but lots of well worked goals wouldnt fit in that, we have seen kroos score goals like that before, and we have seen them score goals where they missed the one that Kingdom described so well, mazing runs all over the place and then a through ball in behind wilson and ward.