Slovakia V Republic of Ireland - Tuesday, 12th October 2010 - Euro 2012 Qualifier

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs4Ever

Green was by far the worst player on the pitch on Friday night IMO

---

He actually wasn't. Whealan beside him was worse. A passenger all game, asleep in the box for the first goal, and rightly hauled off. Green was pretty brutal, but he actually looked really good for the first ten minutes. Little did we know just how far down hill he would go after than though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

You are confused and why am I not surprised.

---

Why am I not surprised with this comment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

An observation that he gives 100% of what he has, is just that, an observation.

---

Grass is green. A pointless observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Opinion was offered on that effort in the context of what we need - my opinion is that we need a better quality midfielder.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

It is not rational to assume that a player gives 100% of what he has to offer. We have to see that effort being done on the pitch, then we can quantify the effort.

---

How? Through mathematics? Or your subjective opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Are you incapable of even understanding what you yourself wrote and what I replied? The sarcasm I was directly referring to was your use of the word 'despicable'.
"Running after Arshavin looking for his jersey at the end is despicable"

---

It's your understanding that perceives that comment as sarcastic.

street fighter 2 has just popped into my head!!! ROund 2.....::D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

How? Through mathematics? Or your subjective opinion?

---

Do you just assume a player on the pitch gives a 100% of what he has to offer?
I tend to watch a game and subjectively observe if a player is below par, on par, or above par.

You are confusing the intent to go on the pitch with 100% desire to do the best (an honest assumption?), with delivering on the pitch a 100% performance according to their ability.

Westwood sent back to Coventry aster picking up injury in training. Murphy from Ipswich brought in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

You are confusing the intent to go on the pitch with 100% desire to do the best (an honest assumption?), with delivering on the pitch a 100% performance according to their ability.

---

And you're confusing Whelan being stuck in the middle of a Russian triangle as him not trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Yes , optimism a word i mentioned before the russia game. France and Italy are terrible, NI drew with Italy at home and we saw their world cup, so too France and how they performed during the world cup.

---

This argument about Italy and France does my head in. They're two of the biggest sides in the world and much more consistent and effective than the Russia side who just ripped us apart. Rather like the same Russia side (non-qualifiers to the WC, lost to Slovakia at home) they blow hot or cold, and didn't play brilliant against us before having poor WC campaigns.

But the idea they made us look good is just laughable. If they were poor, it was at least partly, and I think largely, because we made them look poor. Petty negativity to claim otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

And you're confusing Whelan being stuck in the middle of a Russian triangle as him not trying.

---

Maybe so but that's would be a different confusion based on a perceived lack of effort by Whelan to get actively involved in the midfield battle.
That 'lack of effort' perception is supported by him not making one tackle in the first half and finally making one interception in the 44th minute as well as making the worst unenforced error of the first half with that careless pass. Green made about about 10 interceptions /tackles in the 1st half. He is let down by a poor touch and very limited passing range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

And you're confusing Whelan being stuck in the middle of a Russian triangle as him not trying.

---

And for me, it didn't help Green was consistently out of position due to his is 'closing down' efforts. Usually he was charging out of centre mid but often five yards behind the ball and nowhere near challenging. Left far more space to be exploited beside Whelan. I'm not sure if it was tactics (though I suspect it was inexperience/being out of depth) but his pressing too far up the pitch meant our usual 'two banks of four' were compromised easier.

Closing down is crucial but just as important is doing it in the right areas at the right time. As Stutts said, remarkable how we now miss Andrews - he's generally very good at this.

Au contraire in the last campaign our CM was characterised by not getting involved, by standing off and holding a deep line. The Bulgaria and Cyprus home games are good examples. The 'Irish standoff'.
And in particular when we go a goal up.

I'd agree with geysir here. Green gave 100%, and we can't really ask any more of him. The problem is that Green at 100% probably still isn't good enough for Irish international standard, but there's not much he can do about that. He wasn't as bad as Whelan, I think it was because he was involved more that his mistakes were more visible, and he doesn't have the buffer against criticism in the shape of good central midfield performances previously that Whelan has.

If the criticism of Green is that despite his 100% efforts, he's still not good enough, then that criticism needs to be directed elsewhere.

However, despite all that, I'd say that one bad game against a good team where the tactics meant we were always going to find it very very tough in midfield doesn't mean his career is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

This argument about Italy and France does my head in. They're two of the biggest sides in the world and much more consistent and effective than the Russia side who just ripped us apart. Rather like the same Russia side (non-qualifiers to the WC, lost to Slovakia at home) they blow hot or cold, and didn't play brilliant against us before having poor WC campaigns.

But the idea they made us look good is just laughable. If they were poor, it was at least partly, and I think largely, because we made them look poor. Petty negativity to claim otherwise.

---

I didnt say the made us look good, i alluded to what geysir said about, the opposition defending deep, happy to sit back and give you time on the ball, makes anyone more comfortable and able pass it better and look like a decent passing team. Thats what happened lads, we were given time, anybody who cant see it whether it does their head in is naive. France were poor that last campaign, struggled through an average group, italy were there for the taking and a better team would have done it, too many has beens. Cyprus were unlucky not to at least draw with them once. It doesn't matter what way you want to dress it up the argument holds through based on how italy and france have been over the last year or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar

Westwood sent back to Coventry aster picking up injury in training. Murphy from Ipswich brought in.

---

Anyone else curious about this or have any more info? What manner of "facial injury" requires a guy to be sent back and cover to be called upon? Eye injury? Broken jaw? Broken nose? gash requiring multiple stitches?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Do you just assume a player on the pitch gives a 100% of what he has to offer?
I tend to watch a game and subjectively observe if a player is below par, on par, or above par.

---

Yes. I rationally assume that a player playing for his country will give 100% of what he has to offer. Circumstances within and outside an individual player's control will dictate if said player's performance is below par, on par, or above par.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

Anyone else curious about this or have any more info? What manner of "facial injury" requires a guy to be sent back and cover to be called upon? Eye injury? Broken jaw? Broken nose? gash requiring multiple stitches?

---

Trap posted team sheet with Westwood in/Given out. The old Glasgow Kiss came into play. Shay back in goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

And for me, it didn't help Green was consistently out of position due to his is 'closing down' efforts. Usually he was charging out of centre mid but often five yards behind the ball and nowhere near challenging. Left far more space to be exploited beside Whelan

---

That was my reading of it too. As I said initially, no one could fault Green for effort but thats not enough. Whelan was completely exposed and couldn't cope.

I think its been done to death now though

lads the stadium tomorrow night is tiny(barely 12,000) so we wont be in a hostile environment. with a couple of thousand irish there hopefully this will help us. thats what im hoping for anyway.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Au contraire in the last campaign our CM was characterised by not getting involved, by standing off and holding a deep line. The Bulgaria and Cyprus home games are good examples. The 'Irish standoff'.
And in particular when we go a goal up.

---

Indeed, but we do press when the midfielders approach our banks of four, and when we do were usually fairly effective at it (in particular Andrews). Green didn't help matters on Friday by being caught continually on the turn after charging ten yards off the half-way line. In fairness his timing was better in the first half, I seem to recall it being mostly the second when he was caught adrift too far forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I didnt say the made us look good, i alluded to what geysir said about, the opposition defending deep, happy to sit back and give you time on the ball, makes anyone more comfortable and able pass it better and look like a decent passing team. Thats what happened lads, we were given time, anybody who cant see it whether it does their head in is naive.

---

Only in Paris did we really look like a decent passing side. Italian teams always give opposition time on the ball, but generally it's in their own half and so it proved against us as Dunne et al had plenty of time to play incisive long balls on to Doyle's head. It's not exactly pass and move stuff. But regardless is it really about being given time or how poor the opposition are....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

France were poor that last campaign, struggled through an average group, italy were there for the taking and a better team would have done it, too many has beens. Cyprus were unlucky not to at least draw with them once.

---

Oh. Well in that case it's a hopelessly negative view that ignores the fact Ireland took the game to two sides far superior in quality and gained credible results. These results wern't some lucky gift, we deserved them due to very good performances. Don't you at least partly accept if the opposition played poorly on the night we deserve credit for limiting them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

It doesn't matter what way you want to dress it up the argument holds through based on how italy and france have been over the last year or so.

---

Or, I guess, how Russia have been over the last year? Guess we should've beat them off the park so since their form hasn't exactly been world class...

I'm not saying we were brilliant or France and Italy were top of their game or even that we shouldn't have beat them - but credit where credit is due. It's is unduly negative, and lazy, to say Ireland are poor when we get beat, but are lucky/the opposition are rubbish when we do well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

credit where credit is due. It's is unduly negative, and lazy, to say Ireland are poor when we get beat, but are lucky/the opposition are rubbish when we do well.

---

Well said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Well said

---

I hope you are not referring to me, just read my posts before the game to see what i said.

I also said the irish fan can be graphed in a period before the games, during the games and then a few days after in terms of how their attitudes and opinions change. I was trying to be clear from the outset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar

Trap posted team sheet with Westwood in/Given out. The old Glasgow Kiss came into play. Shay back in goal.

---

Hart could get away with it, but not Keiren.

Keith Andrews is a big loss in the center of midfield, and really matured as an international in the World Cup qualifiers.

It's unfortunate for Green to be thrown in at the deep end, and Andrews and Whelan struggled in their first games too.

We don't have the players to play the ball around in midfield or even defence. There were a few times when we tried to play it across the back against Russia and were dispossessed and could have conceded goals. Technically we were a lot inferior to Russia. There's probably no alternative to the long ball game since we don't have technically gifted players in defence or midfield to work the ball out slowly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

Indeed, but we do press when the midfielders approach our banks of four, and when we do were usually fairly effective at it (in particular Andrews). Green didn't help matters on Friday by being caught continually on the turn after charging ten yards off the half-way line. In fairness his timing was better in the first half, I seem to recall it being mostly the second when he was caught adrift too far forward.



Only in Paris did we really look like a decent passing side. Italian teams always give opposition time on the ball, but generally it's in their own half and so it proved against us as Dunne et al had plenty of time to play incisive long balls on to Doyle's head. It's not exactly pass and move stuff. But regardless is it really about being given time or how poor the opposition are....?



Oh. Well in that case it's a hopelessly negative view that ignores the fact Ireland took the game to two sides far superior in quality and gained credible results. These results wern't some lucky gift, we deserved them due to very good performances. Don't you at least partly accept if the opposition played poorly on the night we deserve credit for limiting them?



Or, I guess, how Russia have been over the last year? Guess we should've beat them off the park so since their form hasn't exactly been world class...

I'm not saying we were brilliant or France and Italy were top of their game or even that we shouldn't have beat them - but credit where credit is due. It's is unduly negative, and lazy, to say Ireland are poor when we get beat, but are lucky/the opposition are rubbish when we do well.

---

I am saying, that italy and france were shown up to be poor teams at the world cup. Had they performed like russia did against us on friday it wouldn't matter what results had gone before, that would still have been a good performance, but they didn't. Whatever went before for Russia, didn't matter the last day because they proved they can play football brilliantly at least on occasion, i dont think the italians or french did against us, or in the world cup. I do also think we made russia look better than they are. I would agree if Germany, brazil, argentina played poorly on the night some of it must be down to how we (would have) made them look poor.

And im not being lazy, i said and ill say it again, perhaps i wrote too close to the game that people didnt see my posts due to travelling whatever else on the day but people were being blindly optimistic and others were being scapegoated as mad men for questioning traps tactic and how he set us out. I worried that we might not have a plan b and if we ever had an off day due to how deep we play we could get a rollicking, and it happened. It has nothing to do with being lazy and saying we are poor, we have proved we are decent, again another word i used previouslly, but that these 2 games would show how far trap has really brought us? So far i think its 1 step back. If we beat slovakia 2 - 0 away from home, will I be wrong? I certainly wont be right, but I will still believe that changes are required.

I don't know who specifically I was referring to, just generically towards anyone who belittles our good showing against France and Italy because of their own poor showings in the WC. They were good performances regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

Green hasn't shown in his three competitive internationals that he is good enough to play international football. Criticism of Green is qualified by his performances against Armenia and Andorra. He needed a "big" performance against Russia to prove his critcs wrong. That performance wasn't forthcoming. Running after Arshavin looking for his jersey at the end is despicable. He's a tourist.

---

Well said. However, Trap is probably going to persist with him though rather than admit that he is wrong to select him.

ya so was the 3 -1 win against andorra.

I wasn't belittling but it was not as good as people think, again we get exaggerate at both ends of the scale, with tunnel vision.

Anybody see the Whelan interview on SSN today?

No Go on, i might go down stairs they have SSN on, is it main headlines interview?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Whatever went before for Russia, didn't matter the last day because they proved they can play football brilliantly at least on occasion, i dont think the italians or french did against us, or in the world cup.

---

I know Italy and France were not brilliant against us, but are you really saying they arn't capable of good performances at least 'on occasion' like Russia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I do also think we made russia look better than they are. I would agree if Germany, brazil, argentina played poorly on the night some of it must be down to how we (would have) made them look poor.

---

Didn't we make Italy and France look more ordinary than they are? Italy and France, poor form or no, are hardly a bunch of cloggers. They had more than enough quality to turn us other, again we deserve at least some credit that this didn't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

And im not being lazy, i said and ill say it again, perhaps i wrote too close to the game that people didnt see my posts due to travelling whatever else on the day but people were being blindly optimistic and others were being scapegoated as mad men for questioning traps tactic

---

I'm seen this from a couple of poster's and it's really irritating - there's a fairly high level of debate around here (generally ;)) and I rarely read anyone being 'blindly optimistic' or others 'being scapegoated as mad men' for having the temerity to question Trap. In fact the opposite - rampant negativity and naysayery about the Ireland team and Trap's tactics - occurs far more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I worried that we might not have a plan b and if we ever had an off day due to how deep we play we could get a rollicking, and it happened. It has nothing to do with being lazy and saying we are poor, we have proved we are decent, again another word i used previouslly, but that these 2 games would show how far trap has really brought us? So far i think its 1 step back. If we beat slovakia 2 - 0 away from home, will I be wrong? I certainly wont be right, but I will still believe that changes are required.

---

Loads of poster's would agree with a lot of this, myself included. Certainly even if we win tomorrow night there will plenty for manager and players to do. Long term I'm actually hoping the Russia game is something of a wake up call regarding personnel and tactics. Perfect timing as it's not come too late for us to do something about it.

Russia are the best international side he has faced.

The interviewer asks him whether they'll be looking to play a bit more football over in Slovakia and Whelan states it's up to the manager. The guy tries to get him to say he'd prefer playing football (instead of hoofball) but to be fair to Whelan he tries to be as diplomatic as possible. If he doesn't do what the manager says then he could be replaced.....

I think Trap is far more comfortable with the concept of us playing without the ball than most of us here would want, but I'm still not convinced he wants us to play a hoofball game. OK, so Shay was instructed to go long in the last 10 minutes, but why not? It was actually causing them trouble.

One of the very first things Trap had us doing was to get the CBs to carry the ball further forward than we did under Stan. I'm tending to side with Dunne's version of events which is that the players lacked the courage to trust their ability and do things the right way.

Slovakia away is certainly one of the most interesting games we've had in ages. Do we change, and if so, how? Do we just try and play better? Does Trap have the nous to do what's required? Are we just a third rate football country (at best - because I'd actually fear playing Macedonia away more than Slovakia right now)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I think Trap is far more comfortable with the concept of us playing without the ball than most of us here would want, but I'm still not convinced he wants us to play a hoofball game. OK, so Shay was instructed to go long in the last 10 minutes, but why not? It was actually causing them trouble.

One of the very first things Trap had us doing was to get the CBs to carry the ball further forward than we did under Stan. I'm tending to side with Dunne's version of events which is that the players lacked the courage to trust their ability and do things the right way.

Slovakia away is certainly one of the most interesting games we've had in ages. Do we change, and if so, how? Do we just try and play better? Does Trap have the nous to do what's required? Are we just a third rate football country (at best - because I'd actually fear playing Macedonia away more than Slovakia right now)?

---

stutts seriously it was for about 17 mins, from around 87 mins till the end, every single ball was hoofball, that is more than enough time to vary it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

"Despicable", get over yourself.

Green's attitude throughout is to give 100% and he gives 100%.
His contribution is not a lot compared to what we need, but it's still 100%.

---

If it was only about 100% we'd all be playing, Green eas crap I'd do better myself..

It is interesting how Dunne and Whelan do not come to the same conclusions on what is triggering this kick and rush type football.

If Dunne is right i.e. it's the defenders who panic and take the easy option by lumping it long then surely the Trap should and would be going mental at them if it's not what he wants? It happens too often to be solely down to the players in my view. Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with launching it now and again, but teams study videos and every man and his dog knew we'd hit it long to Doyle. Too predictable.

The funny thing about Doyle not being fit for tomorrow is that Slovakia haven't got a clue about what kind of approach we'll take tomorrow!!! I like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shakermaker1982

It is interesting how Dunne and Whelan do not come to the same conclusions on what is triggering this kick and rush type football.

If Dunne is right i.e. it's the defenders who panic and take the easy option by lumping it long then surely the Trap should and would be going mental at them if it's not what he wants? It happens too often to be solely down to the players in my view. Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with launching it now and again, but teams study videos and every man and his dog knew we'd hit it long to Doyle. Too predictable.

The funny thing about Doyle not being fit for tomorrow is that Slovakia haven't got a clue about what kind of approach we'll take tomorrow!!! I like it.

---

Ya the even funnier thing is neither does Trap!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

stutts seriously it was for about 17 mins, from around 87 mins till the end, every single ball was hoofball, that is more than enough time to vary it.

---

My point was abit more nuanced than that! It was clear that the instruction late in the game was to hoof it, but it wasn't clear if hoofing it earlier in the game was an instruction or just they way it panned out. I thought that much of our play was directed wide in the early parts.

Did anyone else notice the moment in the first half when KK released McGeady along the wing, he passed Trap on the touchline and actually looked at him for permission to go further forward?

Anyone know a pub in central / north / west London that will be showing it? Ideally one that won't be showing the England game (which is on at the same time).

No Id say kilbane just got a bit confused and was asking trap where was he, was he in the middle of the park or the left full slot or where was he at all at all.

Well, i was trying, as bad as my eyesight would let me see, trap wasn't gesticulating or shouting that much from the sideline in this period. Which to me suggests he was happy with the hoofball approach.....otherwise surely he would have been advising differently on the sideline?!

I know your point was but i cant be seen to be browsing continually on foot.ie even if i do so i have to nip in and out and raise certain things first, and i think 17/18 mins is quite a significant time compared to the last 10 etc....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

Anyone know a pub in central / north / west London that will be showing it? Ideally one that won't be showing the England game (which is on at the same time).

---

cfdh, im planning on mornington crescent nice irish pub in mornington crescent but he has a few tellies so he might show the england game too.

is that the sheephaven ?