FAI Cup 2018

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbgawa

Genuine question for a Cork fan, whatever people say about the way Cork play (I think the hoofball thing is overdone but they are def not UCD) they haven't changed the way they play in the last couple of months but results have tailed off badly.
What has happened in the last couple of months to change things so markedly ? or is it just a bad run full stop

---

Everything is tied into that Rosenborg defeat. Of the Previous 12 league games we won 10 d 1 l 1 - the only defeat was the last min away loss in Dundalk. Our confidence took a serious knock there ( Rosenborg games) and for whatever reason we haven't been able to turn it around since. Our lack of pace is a massive problem. Teams can sit in front of us and deal with any threats we have. We still have quality players in the team but probably not enough over the season.

Looking in from the outside it appears that the signing of Delaney is also a big factor. Cork were built around a tight defence and that disappeared when he came in to the team. The combination of the defence falling apart and the disappointing European campaign has resulted in confidence being on the floor.

Cork are nowhere near as bad as they appear at the moment. Confidence in sport is huge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorribsideSteve

It's exactly 1990 Wimbledon. Plough Lane and all. Turgid, dire, utterly one dimensional. Trappatoni meets O'Neill minus quality players. Leading goalscorer on 12 goals. Only one tactic - lump balls at him continuously ala Walter/ Long for Ireland.

---

I think that is really harsh.

Wimbledon had some creativity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

I think that is really harsh.

Wimbledon had some creativity.

---

How rude of me, quite correct

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

well, they have gone through A LOT of names down South. :cool:

Anyway, advantage Cork, but still game on for the replay.

---

Sure, there's been over twice as many Dublin teams as Cork teams but let's just ignore that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White Horse

Looking in from the outside it appears that the signing of Delaney is also a big factor. Cork were built around a tight defence and that disappeared when he came in to the team. The combination of the defence falling apart and the disappointing European campaign has resulted in confidence being on the floor.Cork are nowhere near as bad as they appear at the moment. Confidence in sport is huge.

---

Delaney has been a huge disappointment, somewhat inexplicably.Our defence has been as issue, constantly changing and his experience was hoped to have been a settling factor. If anything, it has probably had the opposite effect.Bohs mentioned as being very young throughout commentary - which they are - with no reference to three of our back four (after Beattie went off injured) are just 21.We've struggled with clean sheets, we've struggled for a creative element in midfield, struggled with consistency and Cummins, no speed merchant, has been left far too isolated far too often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorribsideSteve

It's exactly 1990 Wimbledon. Plough Lane and all. Turgid, dire, utterly one dimensional. Trappatoni meets O'Neill minus quality players. Leading goalscorer on 12 goals. Only one tactic - lump balls at him continuously ala Walter/ Long for Ireland.

---

Harsh on Wimbledon there. They finished 8th in 1989/90 and 7th in 1990/91, ahead of a lot of 'big' clubs in both of those years. You don't do that consistently playing the type of football you described.

Amazingly enough, there's been no online poll about the decision not to red card Cleary for his wild tackle against UCD while the game was still scoreless...

That was a stone wall red card, no poll needed. Any other clubs and there'd be uproar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EatYerGreens

Harsh on Wimbledon there. They finished 8th in 1989/90 and 7th in 1990/91, ahead of a lot of 'big' clubs in both of those years. You don't do that consistently playing the type of football you described.

---

Most teams were playing football like that in those days, it was tactic de jour as much as mullets were haircut de jour. What's disappointing is, 30 years later, it's still being carried out with gusto by the likes of Cork and Ireland as if it was still 1990 and nothing had changed. The 'British Isles style' that's 3 decades out of date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorribsideSteve

Most teams were playing football like that in those days, it was tactic de jour as much as mullets were haircut de jour. What's disappointing is, 30 years later, it's still being carried out with gusto by the likes of Cork and Ireland as if it was still 1990 and nothing had changed. The 'British Isles style' that's 3 decades out of date.

---

And yet we won the double last year and have our most successful spell in history. Reality is, no one cares when we're winning. It gets painful when we're losing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White Horse

Looking in from the outside it appears that the signing of Delaney is also a big factor. Cork were built around a tight defence and that disappeared when he came in to the team. The combination of the defence falling apart and the disappointing European campaign has resulted in confidence being on the floor.

Cork are nowhere near as bad as they appear at the moment. Confidence in sport is huge.

---

I think the Delaney thing is overblown a bit. Our defense has been inconsistent all year. We'd one decent patch but before and after we've been all over, with way too many different players and combinations. Our settled defense last year played a huge part, we've struggled without that.
Beattie again went off injured last night which won't help. We started the season with roughly 7 right backs, now we've none.
But yeah, confidence is the main thing. We didn't look like we'd have scored from play if we'd played for another week last night. Cummins missed a chance he'd usually Bury. At one point this year him and Sadlier were both scoring every game. Neither looks like buying a goal in most games at the moment. Spark is gone and we're badly lacking some on field leadership.

Saw what it meant to them to get that equaliser last night, hopefully that gives them a bit of a boost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White Horse

Looking in from the outside it appears that the signing of Delaney is also a big factor. Cork were built around a tight defence and that disappeared when he came in to the team. The combination of the defence falling apart and the disappointing European campaign has resulted in confidence being on the floor.

Cork are nowhere near as bad as they appear at the moment. Confidence in sport is huge.

---

I thought at the time and still do Delaney was not what Cork wanted, at the time they were crying out for a striker (still are) and they took in a soon to be 37 yo central defender. By far their best two in middle is Bennet and McLoughlin, I think Delaney almost disrupted the whole defence in terms of who played where, then again the constant chopping and changing by JC didn't help.

I think Bohs will really go for this next Monday (why won't they) the smart move would be to travel down the night before and prepare properly, most of their players are working i think though, might be hard to arrange. Bohs have an excellent recent away form though, will be very interesting to see the prices for the betting for this one, but I still expect Cork will be odds on.

Just watching the reply of that penalty on soccer republic if Leahy had his foot any lower Mccarthy would have took leahy head off they were both dangerous I would put it down as accidental no penalty

Whether it's accidental or not doesn't impact whether it's a foul though. It's arguments like that and 'he got the ball' that cause frustration. That's not what the rules say.

I actually wouldn't have given a penalty, but I see why it was given and its reasonable to argue it was careless. Which is a penalty. Accidental or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Whether it's accidental or not doesn't impact whether it's a foul though. It's arguments like that and 'he got the ball' that cause frustration. That's not what the rules say.

I actually wouldn't have given a penalty, but I see why it was given and its reasonable to argue it was careless. Which is a penalty. Accidental or not.

---

Sorry I should have been clearer it was accidental and dangerous (careless) by both players so no penalty imo.

Long time reader first time poster.

May as well start somewhere so I'll get stuck straight in on the peno debate. Not in a million years!

Shouldn't be critical for Bohs though as they are in good enough form (and Cork bad enough) to go and win in TC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Whether it's accidental or not doesn't impact whether it's a foul though. It's arguments like that and 'he got the ball' that cause frustration. That's not what the rules say.

I actually wouldn't have given a penalty, but I see why it was given and its reasonable to argue it was careless. Which is a penalty. Accidental or not.

---

Cork player following through after Leahy cleared the ball. Clearly no foul unless the rule is that the attacker has 'right of way' which is patently ridiculous (although appears to be the gist of what the buffoon Rogers told Long after FT). Anyway, irrelevant now as, once again, a game here is more about the buffoon in black than about the teams.
nice to see the 'behind the goals' official makes a difference (how many officials does it take to mess up a LOI game :rolleyes:). still all to play for

Is it possible that the ref could have given an in-direct free kick instead of a penalty?

Leahy clearly won the ball first, but then McCarthy smashed into Leahy's studs. I think it was a foul, because Leahy endangered McCarthy by having his studs up, but it was McCarthy who made contact with Leahy instead of the other way around. Isn't that an indirect free-kick??

Also, I almost never see indirect free-kicks in the box these days. bring back the in-direct free-kick I say. What a 90s throwback that would be...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Cork player following through after Leahy cleared the ball. Clearly no foul unless the rule is that the attacker has 'right of way' which is patently ridiculous (although appears to be the gist of what the buffoon Rogers told Long after FT). Anyway, irrelevant now as, once again, a game here is more about the buffoon in black than about the teams.
nice to see the 'behind the goals' official makes a difference (how many officials does it take to mess up a LOI game :rolleyes:). still all to play for

---

You can say 'clearly no foul' but 50% of people disagree with you. The fact that everyone seems to be adamant it either was 100% a penalty or 100% not a penalty is ridiculous.

Leahy went into a tackle high with his studs up. Surely anyone can accept that an official could consider that careless. Mccarthy was also a high leg, but no studs up and stayed on his feet.

As I said, I probably wouldn't have given it, but I completely understand the argument that it is a penalty and by the description of a careless challenge as per the rules its certainly a decision to be made. It's not ridiculous, it's not 'clearly' anything. If it were, the debate wouldn't still be going on.

1700 people voted in the soccer Republic vote. It was exactly 50/50. Former players are split down the middle.

It's obviously not 'clearly' anything!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosophizer

Is it possible that the ref could have given an in-direct free kick instead of a penalty?

Leahy clearly won the ball first, but then McCarthy smashed into Leahy's studs. I think it was a foul, because Leahy endangered McCarthy by having his studs up, but it was McCarthy who made contact with Leahy instead of the other way around. Isn't that an indirect free-kick??

Also, I almost never see indirect free-kicks in the box these days. bring back the in-direct free-kick I say. What a 90s throwback that would be...

---

I don't think that holds up. If it's a foul for being careless then by the rules that's a penalty.