RTE Panel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

cant view that in the uk unfortunately.

---

plastic paddy.....;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

What makes you say that? I only ask because I heard him mention Lawrenson's goal last night, when discussing the last competitive meeting i.e. a non friendly.

---

I am count the Celtic Cup as a competition

Fair enough, but I don't think they were.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-30666897.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

cant view that in the uk unfortunately.

---

Install Hola if you use Google Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/d...fbnlmeio?hl=en

I can watch RTÉ live no problem, and in HD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duggie

plastic paddy.....;)

---

Not just plastic, but technically inept, with little imagination and lacking a positive problem solving attitude,probably overwhelmed by a heavy layer of "can't do that" negativity.

I have said it once and I'll say it again. Dunphy is the front man: the buffoon who takes all the stick. Dunphy said this, Dunphy said that, but the real silent assassin is Giles who you will find seldom disagrees with anything Dunphy says. I am just back from the game and have yet to watch the recording but I will lay you odds that it wasn't much different. The honeymoon period lasted until the selection for the Georgia game. Even shorter than most Irish managers. Everyone since Eoin Hand has been battered mercilessly by the Panel but hopefully Darragh will stand up to them.

Plus ca change for them. Plus ca change for me.

Those who were at the game will seldom experience such delirium again. Even RTE can't take that away from us.

Dunphy was certainly getting the digs in at Glen Whelan when he could. He kept going on before the match how it's crazy etc etc that he was in for Hoolahan until Brady pointed out a few minutes later that it wasn't really the case. He said it was more so Walters or McClean he was out for to which Dunphy looking at Darragh said yes Liam is perfectly right. Mother of god!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

I have said it once and I'll say it again. Dunphy is the front man: the buffoon who takes all the stick. Dunphy said this, Dunphy said that, but the real silent assassin is Giles who you will find seldom disagrees with anything Dunphy says.

---

Even though I agree with that to an extent, I think Giles' views are generally based on what he sees with no ulterior motives or needless hyperbole. If anything, I think Giles gets unfairly painted with the same brush as Dunphy, at times, like this week when the RTÉ panel generally took a slating. Giles on his own wouldn't have drawn that kind of criticism because his views were fairly balanced. After all, the majority of us were pretty disappointed with the team selection and our inability to retain possession, particularly in the first half. I reckon Giles doesn't often disagree with Dunphy for a couple of reasons, the first being that it's a wrecklessly exaggerated version of what he believes himself and, secondly, he doesn't want to draw him on him. It's probably not worth getting lowered to his level live on air and Johnny isn't really cut out for that kind of confrontation the way Brady, for example, is. Even Brady usually holds back unless it's a bashing of somebody or something close to his own heart e.g. Wenger, Arsenal, Trap, etc.

Giles is well behind the times when it comes to various formations and tactics in the modern game, but then so are a lot of decent managers.

I can't remember who said it during the World Cup (Bonnieshells?), but someone on here noted that Giles is very good at reading a game in front of him and making good points about it, and there might be no better pundit with RTE at doing that. But I think he, with Brady and Dunphy, clearly have an astonishing ignorance of the modern game in a larger sense - names, formations, good teams, bad teams, recent history. You listen to Brian Kerr during a game and compare him to any of them, and the difference, in terms of overall knowledge of the game at its present state, is blindingly obvious.

This is an excellent piece by Keith Duggan, in so many ways.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/socc...-war-1.1968007

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

This is an excellent piece by Keith Duggan, in so many ways.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/socc...-war-1.1968007

---

Yeah, it's a fine piece of writing. The problem is, that's the back page of the Irish Times. And in the majority, the people who Dunphy panders to, "the man on the street" will only care what him and his ilk say in the Star, the Mirror, or possibly the Indo.

It's imperative that people like Duggan, Mackey and some of the more authentic journalists on The Score keep doing the hard work they do, proper analysing, because some of the guff that comes from the plebs is just horrific to read/listen. The other option of course is to turn off the analysis, put down the paper, and people judge what they see with their own eyes, for themselves. But that would probably take up 90 mins that could be spent drinking or placing bets.

The other thing of course is, that it's rare to come across journalists who get the licence to right that type of article. I've found it next to impossible in mainstream print media to get good insights into tactics etc that have happened during a match. Because it's so rare, when you see some journalists doing it, or referring to it, you wonder do they actually do their own homework, or do they read up on it from elsewhere and repackage. In my opinion there are at least a couple of relatively famous journo's who have in the past taken things from message boards and passed them off as their own, which is fine, but in the end the deception becomes obvious as they change hat for whatever reason. That's where the likes of The Score's analysis you linked to the other day was so good, as they have the option of throwing in a video or picture to qualify their assertion. I asked Fennessy does he visit here, because he genuinely seems to enjoy the pieces he writes, and he'd like this site too.

No aspertions on Duggan either, he's a diamond in the rough.

....and were it not for a last minute O'Shea goal we would have been talking about another missed opportunity of a defeat against a severely weakened Germany team that were without a whole first team's worth of players due to injuries, suspensions and retirements who were made to look a lot more ordinary - and they are quite ordinary in places - by Scotland and Poland.

In fairness, it was an awful performance in swathes and a couple of selection decisions (predictably) left us with a mountain to climb at times but in fairness we did get better, stopped showing them so much respect and made the right changes.

Questions have to be asked why Whelan is in the team. You hear all the platitudes about tracking runners and making challenges but I don't see it; not to the extent Gibson or Hendrick couldn't do it more competently while offering more in other regards.

Not playing Hoolahan or Reid and persevering with Whelan is some straitjacketing stuff.

There is definitely room to be optimistic but a lot of it still depends on the right decisions being made and it's up in the air if that will happen. Things could still turn out post-Stockholm when people were acting like that was a super result.

Right now this is just a rub of the green to make up for Alaba in Dublin; one point to keep the heads above the proverbial water. Scotland away will be the watershed moment, not this.

A whole first team? A bit of an exaggregation, no?

I see what you're saying but the fact is we did get a last minute goal. The result was bigger than the performance but let's not forget this is O'Neill's rd competitive match, one of which was just silly. The signs are that he is instinctively cautious but at the same time he made good substitutions, even allowing for the fact that one of them was enforced. There absolutely ks work to be done and room for improvement and Gladgow will be much more revealing.

But I think there is still a tendency towards self loathing in our ranks. So what if the goal was very late? People can't argue that the concession of late goals is our own fault but scoring late goals is luck.

Charlton got lucky in Brussels (we did nothing much to create our late equaliser), he drew 0-0 at home to Belgium, we are arguably lucky in Glasgow when the ref allowed a free to be taken from the wrong place which led to our winner, we were 1 down to Luxembourg at home and needed a late-ish goal to win 2-1. We were unlucky in Sofia I'd say and played well at home to Bulgaria. We then got a strike of luck from McKay etc. look what happened next.

So far O'Neill is at the very least no worse than that, arguably a touch better I'd say. I'd say he's no worse than Trap's good start either and he seems more progressive and flexible than Trap.

It's still "wait and see" but we're in a good place. 3 games down, no regrets and psychological momentum. Not much to dislike really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

In fairness, it was an awful performance in swathes and a couple of selection decisions (predictably) left us with a mountain to climb at times but in fairness we did get better, stopped showing them so much respect and made the right changes.

---

I can't see how anyone could call the performance 'awful' in swathes. We're world ranked in the sixties for a reason. We've been guff for two years. We're playing the world champions. Even if they are weakened, they're world champs.

That was a very good performance, and it was great in swathes.

That's not to negate criticism. There's reasons to be critical. But let's keep it real.

I think O'Neill can improve selection wise, but he got the big, game-changing calls spot on.

Let's not forget, the Germans could (and should) have scored six against Scotland and four or five against Poland. Against us, they only had a few chances. Germany were below par against us, but their attack has torn apart everyone except us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

....and were it not for a last minute O'Shea goal we would have been talking about another missed opportunity...

---

But you could just as easily be heaping undue praise upon us in certain areas by saying something along the lines of: "Were it not for a brief lapse by Stephen Quinn in closing down his man and our players affording Kroos space and time at the edge of our box, we'd never have needed to leave it so desperately late to score in order to win a valuable away point." Essentially, you're analysing something that didn't happen. What's to be gained from analysing what didn't happen? Your above scenario never transpired, so why is it any more relevant or worthy of consideration here than the infinite number of other possible scenarios that also never happened?

I could imagine and put forward multiple negative scenarios that never happened and start faux-analysing them in order to try demonstrate where I perceive there to be supposed weaknesses, but it becomes little more than a presentation of needless negativity and bias unless one is to take the game as it has occurred. The reality is that such criticisms wouldn't be legitimate because the specifically alleged weaknesses wouldn't actually have existed. You're being unfair if you have to resort to imagining scenarios in which we didn't get the positive outcome in order to level criticism.

The game wasn't "another missed opportunity" and the fact that we got the goal should be commended rather than attributed to pot luck. If you're going to be critical, at least criticise something that happened; not something that didn't happen. We did what we needed to do; we got the goal within the time limit (Germany also scored theirs within the time limit but couldn't hold out for the full 90(+4) minutes either) and that's what's significant. We made the right changes when necessary to bring the equaliser about.

On our national self-loathing and the bitterness of Dunphy et al, this article is a decent read: http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-30674961.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eamonn Sweeney

...

As the game entered its final minute, Ireland looked set to lose despite an encouraging performance before Jeff Hendrick hooked a ball back across the box and John O'Shea stabbed home a shot to give us a point which would . . .

Who knows? But that late goal and the result weren't the only reminders of the Charlton era on show last Tuesday. You also had the stirring sight of 3,000 Irish fans outsinging and outshouting the home support and being rewarded for their fervency with a gutsy performance which was properly rewarded at the death.

It was like old times. And what times they were. There's never been an Irish sporting experience of such collective and all-embracing national joyousness as the 1988 European Championships and Italia 90. In fact, there have been few non-sporting experiences which can compare in terms of boosting the sense of national well-being though I believe the Eucharistic Congress in 1932 was a bit of a blast if you like that kind of thing.

It's easy to lose sight of that after the decade of denigration our national football team has suffered. Because for the past dozen years or so it appears to have been decided that Irish soccer is officially a bad news story and can be flayed with impunity.

That's not to say the team haven't sometimes given cause for disenchantment but the scale and tenor of the criticism has far exceeded the bounds of both common sense and fair play. It all began after the 2002 World Cup finals when a team which had given a performance not far behind those of Charlton's sides at their best was absurdly berated for not winning the tournament. And it went on from there.

Brian Kerr, a good manager who missed out by narrow margins, was roundly berated and Steve Staunton lampooned as a kind of national laughing stock.

Giovanni Trapattoni, who did an excellent job before losing his way towards the end, got little credit either as his teams were derided for not matching up to some Platonic ideal of skilful attacking football never actually played by an Irish international side. The knockers even found time to retrospectively denigrate Charlton's achievements so we had to witness the lunacy of people belittling a manager who brought a country which had never in its history qualified for a major tournament to the last eight of one.

Where did all this stuff come from? Some people were obsessed with proving they'd taken the right side over Saipan when in fact this was one of those rare arguments where both sides were wrong. There were others who thought that putting the boot into soccer somehow served the interests of Gaelic games or rugby. They'd been jealous of 1990 knowing that neither the GAA, which doesn't have an international outlet, nor rugby, which will always be something of a niche sport in this country, could have been the vehicle for such magnificent collective delirium. Let's face it, there is only one real World Cup.

There was also the fact that in the Tiger era soccer seemed a bit, well y'know, working class. And if you don't believe this matters to some people, it's worth noting that when keyboard warriors who purport to be fans of other sports denigrate soccer, the snobbish comment is never far away. A game which, in this country, belongs at heart to people who neither wear a suit to the office nor own land was a bit out of step with the national zeitgeist in the great years of patio furniture and the outdoor jacuzzi.

The sheer bitter nuttiness of it all crystallised in the conversion of FAI head man John Delaney into a kind of tabloid hate figure. I have had my differences with Delaney but I've never believed he has anything other than the best interests of the game in this country at heart. Yet slagging off Delaney became the default mode of the pub bore and internet blowhard. If Delaney bought drink for fans, he was a disgrace. If he bought some for himself, he was worse. The fact that he's got it right with the appointment of the last two managers apparently doesn't matter. I heaped an odd log on that bonfire of the inanities too and am ashamed of myself for doing so.

Such was the climate of criticism that even the supporters came in for the lash. It's easy to forget too what a glorious advertisement for the country they were in the Charlton days. Especially compared to their English counterparts who could not leave the country without disgracing themselves, laying waste to town centres and maiming those who got in their way. Which should be food for thought for those prissy little snobs forever advising 'Paddy' to live up to the high standards of our neighbours next door. But, of course, won't be.

The tag 'best supporters in the world' was mockingly reminted as 'best supporters in the wuddeld,' 'wuddeld' being a crude approximation of a Dublin working-class accent. Snobbery again, you see. And when the fans, as has been their wont, did the decent thing at the European Championship finals and cheered the team on though they were losing, they were told this merely displayed their ignorance. A hapless gom of a Labour TD named ó Ríordáin chipped in to accuse fans of disrespecting the Irish flag. It was open season on Irish soccer and every crank in the country was getting his shot in.

And, best of all, when Pat Kenny got cross about criticism of the inflated fees paid by RTé to their 'stars', he countered with the comment that Marian Finucane was surely entitled to be paid as much as John O'Shea. John O'Shea, you see, being who sprung to Pat's mind as the epitome of an undeserving and overpaid ********, a guy not even good enough to hold down a permanent place in the Manchester United team even if he had played well in a Champions League final against Barcelona. If you wanted to slag someone off, an Irish soccer player was a handy butt of the joke. Yuk yuk yuk.

And yet on Tuesday night there was the very same John O'Shea making a last-minute run and thrusting himself in front of the German defence, getting in where it hurts to score a goal of huge significance.

It's so significant because the gallant 1-0 defeat in qualifying matches against quality opposition has practically become proverbial since the Charlton era; 1-0 against Romania in the 1998 World Cup qualifying, 1-0 against Yugoslavia and Croatia in the 2000 European Championships qualifying, 1-0 against France in the 2006 World Cup qualifying, 1-0 against Germany and the Czech Republic in the 2008 European qualifying, 1-0 against France at Croke Park in the first leg of the 2010 World Cup play-off, 1-0 against Austria in the 2014 World Cup qualifying. All those reminders that we weren't quite good enough. All the post-match talk about the positives we could take from the game when we all knew they counted for nothing.

This time round it didn't end 1-0. This time, as we did in 1986, we pushed on and got through the barrier. It is a sign of a team that will find a way to get the job done. The qualifying campaign promises to be both tough and thrilling.

It will undoubtedly, as the 1988 campaign did, have its ups and downs and moments when things look to have gone off the rails. But the least we owe the guys who gave it all for the green last Tuesday is to stick by them. We should all follow the lead of the terrific 3,000 who cheered them every step of the way in Gelsenkirchen.

In our hearts, we know that's the right way, the Irish way. It's time to be the best in the world again. All that bitterness and cynicism has gotten old. As old as Eamon Dunphy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

I can't see how anyone could call the performance 'awful' in swathes. We're world ranked in the sixties for a reason. We've been guff for two years. We're playing the world champions. Even if they are weakened, they're world champs.

That was a very good performance, and it was great in swathes.

That's not to negate criticism. There's reasons to be critical. But let's keep it real.

I think O'Neill can improve selection wise, but he got the big, game-changing calls spot on.

Let's not forget, the Germans could (and should) have scored six against Scotland and four or five against Poland. Against us, they only had a few chances. Germany were below par against us, but their attack has torn apart everyone except us.

---

I'm sure the Poles and Scots would say the Germans should have scored 5 or 6 against us.

It's nice to be scoring goals in the last minute instead of conceding them and it's nice to have a manager who makes productive changes like bringing on Hendrick and Hoolahan instead of Cox and Sammon but he was bailed out of a few dodgy decisions like starting Keane, starting Walters and playing McGeady where he did. There was no clear strategy against a severely weakened team playing without an out and out striker other than containment and we were woefully struggling to contain them. Players were being dragged all over the place, didn't seem to know what their jobs were, could barely string two passes together in the entire first half and the default aimless long balls are/were still there. Granted the performance improved in the second half but no mistake Germany were as awful as Ireland were good.

I'm probably being too harsh on Ireland here; I mean there were promising signs, but equally people are being rather dismissive of Scotland and Poland. I think Scotland and Poland played better football than Ireland against Germany.

How did they tear everyone apart bar us? They scored (2) against Scotland, (1) against us and (0) against Poland.

I think the RTE panel are being a bit too dreary, but I think it's revisionist not to be a little concerned about some of the football we played in that game. If we outplay and beat Scotland then you can start calling me contrarian, but until then I think it just says a lot about how low our expectations are when we play big teams that the result in this game is being lauded as a masterful achievement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

I'm sure the Poles and Scots would say the Germans should have scored 5 or 6 against us.

---

Well, first of all, I think that's kind of the point.

But, second of all, they didn't create five or six clear chances against us. There was Rudiger's header, which was a real let-off comparable to Mueller against Scotland, and there was Forde's great save from Goetze, but other than that all of their chances were speculative. Durm hitting the bar was outrageous and Kroos's goal was just outstanding. Apart from that...

On the other hand, we created O'Shea's goal and Hoolahan's poor miss, as well as Neuer's great intervention to deny Keane, so really we created as many clear opportunities as they did, whereas both Poland and Scotland's goals led a charmed life from minute 1 to minute 90. In fact, we created more in 15 minutes than Scotland did in 90.

You make it sound like the game was equal. Other than the goal, it wasn't.

No, I don't make it sound like the game was equal. I make it sound like they had a lot of the ball but they struggled to do anything meaningful with it owing to our outstanding and occasionally lucky defence, whereas we had much less of the ball but when we had to chase the game we were far more efficient and clinical than they were in their 75 minutes of dominance.