Who will replace Miller in the squad.

No... I'm not for turning... The evidence is compelling sure. But I still think he's too rigid in his windows of oppertunity. I think such an emphasis on continuity in a playing pool as limited as ours is misplaced.. I feel rightly or wrongly that continuity should extend to 80-90 percent of a given sqaud, especially given trapps reluctance to use subs at the best of times. Every game for us is a cup final. We risk delaying the uncovering of a decisive player by over a year and all the competitive games there in.

I think Lee Frecklington is the answer to our midfield debate... he did score tonight in the Carling Cup after all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr_peepee

No... I'm not for turning... The evidence is compelling sure. But I still think he's too rigid in his windows of oppertunity. I think such an emphasis on continuity in a playing pool as limited as ours is misplaced.. I feel rightly or wrongly that continuity should extend to 80-90 percent of a given sqaud, especially given trapps reluctance to use subs at the best of times. Every game for us is a cup final. We risk delaying the uncovering of a decisive player by over a year and all the competitive games there in.

---

I think the main points of debate are not about Trap being rigid about squad selection.
He is demonstrably no more rigid than any other intl manager in that respect. He has checked out at close hand, most of all that is available.

The debatable issues are with the playing style in regards to our available talent.
He has proceeded with deliberate caution with each match.
He is rigid about the playing style and it follows he is rigid about players that fit in. Enough has anyway been written about that.

Our campaign is similar enough to Charltons first, good battling performances away and 2 awful home games which induced extremes of apathy about where we were going and if Charlton had any football sense in his brain at all.
He had the players to make it work eventually, I think we need Steven Reid to make it work for us.

I think Miller should be replaced by Gary Deegan....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

I think Lee Frecklington is the answer to our midfield debate... he did score tonight in the Carling Cup after all

---

Pah. The Lee we want has been knocking on the door all these years.

He has loads of experience
Has played football in two countries, one of which wasn't Scotland or England
He can score goals
He can pass a bit

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Lee Trundle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebeard

Pah. The Lee we want has been knocking on the door all these years.

He has loads of experience
Has played football in two countries, one of which wasn't Scotland or England
He can score goals
He can pass a bit

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Lee Trundle

---

nah.... hes a striker;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

nah.... hes a striker;)

---

Do you not recall several interviews where he said that he would do anything to further his- I mean, play for Ireland?:D

Miller linked with Preston in today's Indo - http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...d-1869097.html - one of their midfielders broke a leg recently, and he's seen as a cheap, available replacement

Few other details about Irish players expected to move this week in that article

Quote:

---

Do you not recall several interviews where he said that he would do anything to further his- I mean, play for Ireland?

---

The bar of desire has already been set - being ready to swim across the Irish sea to play for Ireland.

That's not commitment. That merely says he'll turn up for cosy home games.

What he would do to play for us in Monenegro or Bulgaria is the real issue.

Then it might well be a desire for the bar issue.

Very good :)

Dont really care who replaces Miller im just glad that he is not going to have any say on the out come of Ireland most important game in this campaign.

Miller is just aint anywhere near good enough.

Hate being negative and I gave him chances in past (plenty) but he just aint up to it really now.

Fair play of you HIbs to give him the chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr_peepee

No... I'm not for turning... The evidence is compelling sure. But I still think he's too rigid in his windows of oppertunity. I think such an emphasis on continuity in a playing pool as limited as ours is misplaced.. I feel rightly or wrongly that continuity should extend to 80-90 percent of a given sqaud, especially given trapps reluctance to use subs at the best of times. Every game for us is a cup final. We risk delaying the uncovering of a decisive player by over a year and all the competitive games there in.

---

We have a budding Maggie Thatcher in our midst :)

I do agree with you about the speed of the introductions. His windows are clearly the B games and friendlies. He's conservative in testing new players in competitive games, bar Gibson at home to Cyprus - a bold move that wasn't a great success.

The stats show he has made changes but the likes of St. Ledger were, in my opinion, obvious call ups well before Nigeria. McCann and others less so but that's another debate.

I am however much happier now that the whole pool is being looked at rather than a narrow pool selected by Teflon Don Givens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

We have a budding Maggie Thatcher in our midst :)

I do agree with you about the speed of the introductions. His windows are clearly the B games and friendlies. He's conservative in testing new players in competitive games, bar Gibson at home to Cyprus - a bold move that wasn't a great success.

---

We shouldn't overlook Trap/Ireland's finest hour, Italy away. Trap managed to change the system fairly rapidly when required, and did so with two big substitutions to swing the game aswell. Folan was put on despite hardly touching a ball in competitive fixture, and then there was also the big decision of removing Doyle in the second half for Noel Hunt which also worked well. I know Doyle wasn't 100% but considering we were chasing a goal plenty of managers would have left him on there to poach a chance, and ended up watching him shuffling around the pitch for the last quarter.

Trap's system may well just about survive with Andrews and Whelan.
Should one of Andrews or Whelan be absent, the cause for concern is sticking to that holding CM style and depending on the less experienced available talent like Gibson to plug the gap.
In fact, in those circumstances, but reluctant to say it out loud, I'd prefer Miller over the young Gibson.

Nobody will replace Miller...im afraid hes stayin!:rolleyes:

It's impossible to imagine that he'll be out of contract for a whole season. Just because he has left some crowd (I don't know who and don't give a) doesn't mean he won't go back to the same level.

Having said that, I don't know if he's any worth to Ireland when Whelan and Andrews are starting ahead of him.

He reminds me greatly of Anthony Stokes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jicked

We shouldn't overlook Trap/Ireland's finest hour, Italy away. Trap managed to change the system fairly rapidly when required, and did so with two big substitutions to swing the game aswell. Folan was put on despite hardly touching a ball in competitive fixture, and then there was also the big decision of removing Doyle in the second half for Noel Hunt which also worked well. I know Doyle wasn't 100% but considering we were chasing a goal plenty of managers would have left him on there to poach a chance, and ended up watching him shuffling around the pitch for the last quarter.

---

All true. Credit where it's due.... But Keogh played wide right that night, and clearly didn't work out for him. What had trapp seen of Lawrence at that point time to decide Keogh was a better right midfielder than Liam Lawrence? It's not a case of 20 20 vision in hindsight, as concerns were expressed by most before hand...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jicked

We shouldn't overlook Trap/Ireland's finest hour, Italy away. Trap managed to change the system fairly rapidly when required, and did so with two big substitutions to swing the game aswell. Folan was put on despite hardly touching a ball in competitive fixture, and then there was also the big decision of removing Doyle in the second half for Noel Hunt which also worked well. I know Doyle wasn't 100% but considering we were chasing a goal plenty of managers would have left him on there to poach a chance, and ended up watching him shuffling around the pitch for the last quarter.

---

Maybe FIFA will allow us play every game with an extra man, considering that it went so well for us against Italy, giving us our finest hour!!

Good one, and sure they haven't won the World Cup in 3 years so they're a load of rubbish. A disgrace that Caleb Folan, Andy Keogh and Noel Hunt couldn't run rings around a nobody like Cannavaro, let the country down so they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jicked

Good one, and sure they haven't won the World Cup in 3 years so they're a load of rubbish. A disgrace that Caleb Folan, Andy Keogh and Noel Hunt couldn't run rings around a nobody like Cannavaro, let the country down so they did.

---

A disgrace that these 3 were deemed as Irelands best options to have on the pitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jicked

Good one, and sure they haven't won the World Cup in 3 years so they're a load of rubbish. A disgrace that Caleb Folan, Andy Keogh and Noel Hunt couldn't run rings around a nobody like Cannavaro, let the country down so they did.

---

Don't be so silly. If you watched the game you'd realise that Italy had three defenders playing against a team with an extra man for 90 minutes all well into their 30s. Any half decent international team would have beaten them under those conditions. Fair enough if they were 1-0 up and only had a man sent off in the last 20 minutes then that's a vastly different situation but playing a game for 90 minutes and having to grab a goal with 10 men is extremely difficult. To put this into perspective United would struggle to beat any of the relegation threatened teams at Old Trafford under the same conditions and they don't even have 3 ancient defenders. Even then Italy managed to score and looked more than comfortable for their win (they even had some other good chances) until all bar the last 5 minutes when we started getting a few chances after Keane scored a goal out of nothing.

I'll also add that the Italian team is also the worst Italian team I have ever seen in my life. They were shocking in the European Championships but if it makes you feel better bring up the World Cup again it was only 3 years ago after all. You might as well mention the 1982 World Cup also they were brilliant then too.

All these people making out how good the Italian performance was would have been the same people slagging us off if we hadn't been fortunate and got a lucky goal in the final minutes. How they now conveniently forget we hadn't created one decent chance in 90 minutes of play against 10 ageing players before this goal amazes me.

We were poor against Italy just very, very lucky with first the sending off and then the goal otherwise we would have been hammered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngirish

Don't be so silly. If you watched the game you'd realise that Italy had three defenders playing for 90 minutes all well into their 30s. Any half decent international team would have beaten them under those conditions. Fair enough if they were 1-0 up and only had a man sent off in the last 20 minutes then that's a vastly different situation but playing a game for 90 minutes and having to grab a goal with 10 men is extremely difficult. To put this into perspective United would struggle to beat any of the relegation threatened teams at Old Trafford under the same conditions and they don't even have 3 ancient defenders. Even then Italy managed to score and looked more than comfortable for their win (they even had some other good chances) until all bar the last 5 minutes when we started getting a few chances after Keane scored a goal out of nothing.

I'll also add that the Italian team is also the worst Italian team I have ever seen in my life. They were shocking in the European Championships but if it makes you feel better bring up the World Cup again it was only 3 years ago after all. You might as well mention the 1982 World Cup also they were brilliant then too.

All these people making out how good the Italian performance was would have been the same people slagging us off if we hadn't been fortunate and got a lucky goal in the final minutes. How they now conveniently forget we hadn't created one decent chance in 90 minutes of play against 10 ageing players before this goal amazes me.

We were rubbish against Italy just very, very lucky with first the sending off and then the goal otherwise we would have been hammered.

---

While I dont necessarily agree with all the points above, i am glad to hear there are other people who think being held to a draw against a team who played 90 minutes with a man short is rather embarassing. It should be said that the Italians traditionally make hard work of qualifying campaigns but come good in the finals. Nevertheless I think there are lesser teams than us who would fancy their chances of a win against a 10 man Italy for a full game.

Quote:

---

A disgrace that these 3 were deemed as Irelands best options to have on the pitch.

---

Excuse me, I forgot how Andy Reid, Clinton Morisson and Shane Long would have struck fear in to the heart of the Italians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngirish

Don't be so silly. If you watched the game you'd realise that Italy had three defenders playing against a team with an extra man for 90 minutes all well into their 30s. Any half decent international team would have beaten them under those conditions. Fair enough if they were 1-0 up and only had a man sent off in the last 20 minutes then that's a vastly different situation but playing a game for 90 minutes and having to grab a goal with 10 men is extremely difficult. To put this into perspective United would struggle to beat any of the relegation threatened teams at Old Trafford under the same conditions and they don't even have 3 ancient defenders. Even then Italy managed to score and looked more than comfortable for their win (they even had some other good chances) until all bar the last 5 minutes when we started getting a few chances after Keane scored a goal out of nothing.

I'll also add that the Italian team is also the worst Italian team I have ever seen in my life. They were shocking in the European Championships but if it makes you feel better bring up the World Cup again it was only 3 years ago after all. You might as well mention the 1982 World Cup also they were brilliant then too.

---

I don't know why you're playing the age card so vigourously. AC Milan won the Champions League in 2007 with a back four all in their 30s. Richard Dunne will be 30 next month, will he suddenly become a liability you can't expect 90 minutes from? Rio Ferdinand will be 31 soon, the washed up has been.

We're not a great team, we won't break down anyone easily, especially anyone with a defence as experienced or as talented as that Italian team, who are going to play 80 minutes with one thing in mind, defence, and seeing out a win is something which despite their age, they are pretty bloody good at doing.

Don't bite Jicked, these guy's have a lot to learn about football.... their opinions are whatever team has the most players will win, I don't understand why Italy even continued the game after the red card, must not have had a calculator on the bench.... or one of those darned solar powered ones from the 80's.

If they ask you to explain the offside rule.. leg it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oink

Don't bite Jicked, these guy's have a lot to learn about football.... their opinions are whatever team has the most players will win, I don't understand why Italy even continued the game after the red card, must not have had a calculator on the bench.... or one of those darned solar powered ones from the 80's.

If they ask you to explain the offside rule.. leg it.

---

I'm fairly certain I have very little, no correction, nothing to learn about football from the likes of you and Jicked. I've already explained why our result against Italy was no great performance reread again you might get it this time. Anyway you're on shaky ground sideing with Jicked as judging from his reply he still hasn't grasped the basic concept that 10 men will inevitably have to do considerably more work than 11 on the pitch (hence why age and tired legs comes into it) as their team will not have as much possession as normal and they will inevitably be under more pressure for most of the game so why he's mentioning AC Milan in 2007 I have no idea unless I missed something and they played all their games en route to the final with 10 men for 90 minutes in which case fair play you got me.

If beating ten men is so difficult maybe Italy should have only started with 10.

Italy are nowhere near as bad as you're making out YI. They are the World Champions on merit, largely down to their ability to defend well. You say they were hopeless at the Euros but it still took a penalty shoot out to knock them out at the q/f stage, by the best team in the World, who couldn't break them down in 120mins. Ireland finished 12pts behind a team that didn't even come out of their group, in qualifying for that competition. Were you really expecting Ireland to create chance after chance away to an Italian team defending a one goal lead with ten men? I don't agree with everything Trap has done so far, far from it and am nowhere near as quick to jump to his defence as Jicked is, but that night we did ok.

4 Italian players were over the age of 30 that night. Buffon 31, Grosso 31, Cannavaro 35and Zambrotta 32. This depiction of Italy being a team full of geriatrics is well wide of the mark.

Yes better teams might have taken full of advantage of a 10 man Italian side but we are Ireland and put out a team consisting of: Given; McShane, Dunne. O'Shea, Kilbane; Keogh, Whelan, Andrews, Hunt; Doyle, Keane. We lack the creativity and spark needed to take apart teams who can sit back for the whole match and defend 1 goal leads. Particularly when up against a country that is renowned for its defending. It wasn't a spectacular performance by any stretch of the imagination but to dismiss a solid point away from home particularly taking into account the team we actually put out that night is harsh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngirish

If beating ten men is so difficult maybe Italy should have only started with 10.

---

Plenty of teams do play the way Italy did when they went down to 10. Rangers in Europe for one. It's hard to beat and Italy are the best in the world at it.

We looked like a classy team against Italy imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

Plenty of teams do play the way Italy did when they went down to 10. Rangers in Europe for one. It's hard to beat and Italy are the best in the world at it.

We looked like a classy team against Italy imo.

---

What a ridiculous statement.

Do you also think that Jordan looks like a classy bird??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weldoninhio

What a ridiculous statement.

Do you also think that Jordan looks like a classy bird??

---

I'd agree with Eirebhoy. I thought we moved the ball around very well in that match. Perhaps that was down to the extra man but in any case I thought we played well and the passing was generally good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weldoninhio

What a ridiculous statement.

Do you also think that Jordan looks like a classy bird??

---

What are you talking about? You disagree, fair enough, no need for the above rubbish.

The way we played in Italy was how I'd expect the likes of Croatia to play in similar circumstances. The passing was brilliant. Quick and short. When Italy got the ball they were hassled off it in an instant. Trust me if Italy could have held onto the ball they would have but they weren't allowed and Pirlo was taken off at half time because he simply couldn't hack it. Teams can play against 10 men and look very ordinary but we played really well imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

What are you talking about? You disagree, fair enough, no need for the above rubbish.

The way we played in Italy was how I'd expect the likes of Croatia to play in similar circumstances. The passing was brilliant. Quick and short. When Italy got the ball they were hassled off it in an instant. Trust me if Italy could have held onto the ball they would have but they weren't allowed and Pirlo was taken off at half time because he simply couldn't hack it. Teams can play against 10 men and look very ordinary but we played really well imo.

---

It comes as a relief to see that other people actually felt we played well against Italy. I thought we were excellent, played with great composure, positivity and confidence - but wasn't able to find a single person after the game who agreed!

As for the whole issue of playing against ten men, there are three things I would point out. Firstly, it wasn't our fault (a) the Italians couldn't keep their discipline and/or (b) the referee overreacted. We attacked an Italian side full of technically superior players for the rest of the game and were certainly worth our goal. Rash finishing from Keane cost us the winner. Poor refereeing robbed us of a second red card - Chiellini went right through Glenn Whelan in a very dangerous tackle and should have been red-carded. Cannavaro made a couple of rash challenges too that should not have gone unpunished.
Secondly, it must be borne in mind that we were away from home. I could indulge in some fanciful philosophising about the home crowd being the 12th man, thereby replenishing the Italian deficit to 11 men, but I won't. The advantages of playing at home are well established in sports psychology. We shouldn't be so quick to write it off just because we were the away side.
Thirdly, and staying with sports psychology, there is also the phenomenon of the Ringelmann Effect. This is made manifest in soccer by the fact that a team which is reduced to ten men conversely ends up working harder and, on average, gains points more often than they lose. You might point to the fact that Italy took the lead shortly after the red card as an example of this. So the fact that Ireland drew against ten men should not be used as a stick to beat the Irish players. Sport is a complicated, counter-intuitive thing. That's my take, anyway!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shakermaker1982

4 Italian players were over the age of 30 that night. Buffon 31, Grosso 31, Cannavaro 35and Zambrotta 32. This depiction of Italy being a team full of geriatrics is well wide of the mark.

Yes better teams might have taken full of advantage of a 10 man Italian side but we are Ireland and put out a team consisting of: Given; McShane, Dunne. O'Shea, Kilbane; Keogh, Whelan, Andrews, Hunt; Doyle, Keane. We lack the creativity and spark needed to take apart teams who can sit back for the whole match and defend 1 goal leads. Particularly when up against a country that is renowned for its defending. It wasn't a spectacular performance by any stretch of the imagination but to dismiss a solid point away from home particularly taking into account the team we actually put out that night is harsh.

---

I never dismissed the point but some of the statements on here claiming how excellent a performance it was are ridiculous. We didn't create anything in nearly 90 minutes of play and were almost caught on the break again. We were lucky that's all to grab the equaliser. And I agree our team is poor. I'm not having a go at Trapp he's doing well with a limited bunch of players but the performance was definitely not good.

We had 11 shots on goal, 6 on target. 10 corners. Of course we created chances.