the fact they've Mick not Roy says it all for me. Wouldnt disagree to both on it, but Mick and roy sums up that ****in "organisation"
Printable View
the fact they've Mick not Roy says it all for me. Wouldnt disagree to both on it, but Mick and roy sums up that ****in "organisation"
agree that given has kept improving...but sure hes had lots of practice at newcastle...think people forget how good kiely was tho..really only missed out at the time cause either given was in possesion or was born in ireland.
has o dea played for ireland?
oh and Pat Jennings, Norman Whiteside and George Best were pretty good Irish Internationals.........(that was a freebie Ealing Green!;)
Good post about Houghton and Andy T. Razor was as influencial in the Charlton teams at his prime as Roy Keane was in the McCarthy teams (when he played or wasn't suspended).
As for Robbie Keane, BillsThoughts, tell me a more skilful striker who has played for Ireland. I know he has a lot of critics because of his hand waving etc, but he is our record scorer and a very talented footballer. Frank Stapleton was the best other centre forward I have seen for us.
Thread was called best Irish internationals....Robbie Keane is nowhere near that category. Id say even of the current crop Doyle is a better striker and given the same amount of games as Keane would probably have a better return.
Roy Keane, Paul McGrath, Shay Given, Denis Irwin..
1. McGrath
2. Keane 2. Houghton
4. Brady
Highway was one of the best, as was Lawrenson.
rubbish
football was harder in the olden days, much harder..........sure maybe the football players are more athletic and fit nowadays, but they are not stronger on the field mostly cause the modern game has nearly outlawed physical contact
have you ever seen Leeds Utd of the 70's.............jeez they were hard
what about paul mcgrath...........hard as nails
then you talk about Kilbane. bizarre:rolleyes:
Don't think that's what he meant..... I think the focus was more on 'Athletic' rather than 'Physical'...
The game has evovled. A large percentage players from the 70's, 80's and even early 90's plucked from then and placed into a game today may well win a few bone crunchers early on but would cough up their dinner after 60 minutes and would easily be muscled out of it for large portions of the game.
Just look at the height of the Germans, the Czechs, the Slovaks and the Cypriots versus the height of our players. Also look at the sheer size of the Croat team, the Aussies, the Italians and any of the African sides in the last world cup and compare it to the size of our current team, maybe Kilbane, Dunne & O'Shea excepted.
Then tell me if you still think I'm talking rubbish :)
Watching from the East Stand against the Czechs I thought that the Czech team would give Munster a run for their money in the line out!
I know football was tougher then but I was just saying that Townsend & co. were always a physical match for any opponent. Now hardly any of our players are a physical match for their opponents. Why? Because the modern successful footballer is taller & more athletic and we haven't caught up in this regard, but we have in Rugby Union.
yeah i understand what you are saying, you mean modern players are fit and good at running all day
I think football was much better in the olden days, and would like to think that paul mcgrath and franco baresi would have any of todays footballers in their pocket, cause they had tha bit extra, which you might call skill, and could read the game perfectly even if they werent ultra fit and athletic footballers
maradona was a fat basstard, and im sure he wouldnt have any problems today either
but then the czechs in my opinion are over rated, were quite weak in the world cup
No, I actually meant that they're much bigger. Leaner but definitely bigger and the good teams' players are technically good on top of this. We're a team of shortarses by and large and anyone we have who isn't doesn't have a huge amount of skill.
Duff & Keane, for example, can hold their own against anyone due to their ability, but if you have players of their height throughout the team you'll struggle. We do and we do.
Stuttgart makes a good point about the size of our team.
Can anyone explain why we have a bunch of short arses in this current team? Are all the big strong lads at school getting sent to the gaelic/rugby teams leaving the likes of S Ireland to try his hand at football? Do we need a few more lads from the Country who should be inhaling all that clean air?!
We have always been a nation known for our size and strength yet we only have a handful of players over 6 ft. 6ft isn't even tall by modern standards for a 21st Century athlete.
Giles was midget sized (still is), he had to do it all, the best bone cruncher tackler of man and ball, playmaker, enforcer.
He had to look after himself in the game and make the play with sublime passes at the same time. As well as enforcing retribution against defenders hacking the legs off the likes of Heighway.
Colin Healy showed some flashes, once upon a time, of a type of a Giles tackle.
Given
Irwin-Lawrenson-McGrath-Whelan
Houghton-Giles-Keane-Brady
Keane-Stapleton
Subs- O'Leary, Staunton,Duff, Aldridge.
I know Ronnie's not a full back but he has to be included and played brilliantly there v Scotland away and Bulgaria at home in 87 (with McGrath at right full incidently).
With the exception of Giles the above players very nearly lined out together, only 10 years separating Lawrenson and Robbie Keane.
In 2001 Roy Keane received only two votes from international managers for World Player of the Year - you guessed it - the Dutch and Portuguese managers.