Is this what you have for us, yeah ?Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Soccer team soring regularly will be ok ? ;)
Have you any more wisdom to dispense there, I'm borderline nirvana levels of enlightenment here after that.
When the sun comes out it'll be sunny.
When the rain stops falling it'll be dry.
Incredible stuff.
Going by this comment from Hallgrimsson I'd say Ferguson will probably start whenever available.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
"Evan is a different kind. He is so good on the ball. At his feet, he doesn’t need much time in the box to finish and when he is 100% fit, he will be lethal for us,".
The lesson of the Greece game is that playing with 2 in midfield isn’t viable. We don’t have 2 quality midfielders who can do it. We don’t even have one. The only way to compensate for that lack of quality is the quantity of a third man in there.
We already know we have very little in wide areas. Szmodics has quality but he looks like a square peg in a round hole on the left. And the same applies to O’Shea at right back.
Given we’re pretty well stocked at centre forward in central defence it makes sense to play the 3 at the back and 2 up front. From here I think we’re looking at a 5-3-2 being the way to get the most out of the personnel at our disposal. Brady and Ogbene/Festy have the wherewithal to fill the wingback roles. Taylor probably did enough in his cameo to force himself ahead of Knight in the pecking order, partly because Knight did so little over the 2 games.
I could see a way of playing a 4-4-2 with a diamond midfield, but if everyone is fit and available I think out best 11 is as follows
--- Bazunu (Kelleher for now) ---
------ O'Shea Collins Scales ------
Ogbene ---------------------Brady
-------------- Cullen --------------
-------- Taylor Smallbone --------
-------- Parrott Ferguson ---------
I'd put Coleman in place of O'Shea if he's fit but I think we need to start planning for a world where he isn't usually available.
I don't think three at the back works for us. The problem is that you end up with three centre backs effectively marking one forward and too much space left free around the D for pot shots, which have been our undoing time and again. Meanwhile you either have wing backs who want to bomb on and leave too much space in behind, or they just sit back and create a very rigid back five that traps us in our own half for long periods.
Maybe if we know a certain team is going to play two out and out strikers there might be an argument for it, but otherwise it's a waste of a man.
Some combination that involves four at the back and three in central midfield is likely the best way forward for us I think. Which is what we played against Finland when we won and against Greece after Taylor came on and we did better with three in the middle. So 4-3-3 or a variation of that basically.
Agree with a lot of what you've said, but I think we look more solid overall with a back four than we've looked with a back three so I'd be reluctant to switch. I think there's a 4-5-1 type formation that can work, especially if the goal is to defend narrow like we did against Greece. Fully agree there has to be 3 in the midfield, with Cullen the anchor and two of Knight/Smallbone/Molumby/Browne/Taylor/Azaz in there with him. I don't think there's huge quality differences. The issue then is do you play forwards to support Ferguson out wide or do you go with more natural wingers, or one of each? You could go with Ogbene and Ebosele or Parrot and Smodzics or the likes of McAteer, Johnston, Idah, etc. or any combo depending on the opposition.
It feels like there's a bit of optimism and more structure about the team, but it's not a million miles away from Kenny era inconsistencies either. Kenny was good at first halves and one decent performance a window, now we seem to be good at second halves and better at adapting but slow starting. Still not putting together back to back performances really and still making individual mistakes and conceding soft goals. The squad is getting more experienced, and you'd have to hope that with that will come some consistency, but there's still a lot of problems to solve overall.
To quote Mike Bassett '4, 4, F***ing 2!'
I would have Ferguson and Szmodicz as a front pair with Smodicz dropping back to attacking midfield position, or just plain midfield, when needed (which will be a lot). I don't think Szmodicz works anywhere else on the pitch.
I was about to say basically the same... I thought we looked solid enough defensively with the Collins/Scales pairing, lapses in judgement aside (which having a 3rd centre half would not have helped in my opinion). 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 (generously) would be how I'd see us setting up. I'd like to see Szmodics back in the ten role behind Ferguson / another. I thought O'Shea was ok at right back personally, he has a cross in him and solid defensively. Pulling Szmodics away from the left midfield slot opens up a position there though - if Brady is to be LB then we couldn't really put Johnston out there so not sure who could slot in effectively. None of Taylor/Azaz/McGrath/Parrott feels like a good fit, so I can see why HH has gone with Szmodics for his work rate but it feels he is not affecting the game much from the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
I guess the other option is move Brady up but we've a similar problem then at left back. Roughan has impressed for the u21s but if we're really honest McClean is probably superior still.
I think you could make a case for Knight out on the left. Not his natural position obviously, but he has played there a bit and gets about the park so would give you effectively a fourth central midfielder when out of possession and help Brady out too. That then opens the possibility of one of your centre mids being a more attack minded option like Azaz e.g.
---Cullen Molumby
Ogbene Azaz Knight
--------Ferguson
You'd still have the likes of Smallbone and Taylor to come in off the bench. Browne has been good for us off the bench also so plenty of options, just no standout ones. Basically putting numbers in the middle to counter the limited standard of player available in that position.
I said above that I think the window had great information value for HH. This is what I felt:
Who had a good enough window to get bumped up in HH’s plans?
- Taylor, Festy
Who cemented their positions?
- Kelleher, Collins, Scales, Brady, Cullen (just about), Szmodics
(I know a couple of the above committed howlers but I still think their places are nailed on)
Who is the jury out on?
- Molumby, Ogbene, Ferguson (until he's fitter), Parrott (at least as a starter)
Who had a poor window putting starting place at risk?
- Knight, Azaz and arguably O'Shea despite not making any mistakes; it's more a case that RB looks like a position we need to improve on
Who made no major impression, good or bad?
- - McAteer, Johnston
What tactical lessons were learnt?
- 4-4-1-1 looks about right, especially if it adapts to being with / without the ball
- The Collins, Scales, Kelleher triangle looks good - despite awful mistakes*
- Szmodics's attitude is brilliant but he is wasted on the left => play him further forward; left midfield could be filled by Knight (or even Festy, Mikey J?)
- Ferguson's lack of match fitness is an issue for me => solution could be Szmodics and Parrott, with Szmodics closer to midfield;
- O'Shea / Ogbene right side combo is a bit flat in attack => solution might be promote Festy, drop one of the other two. Festy could play RHM
What might we still learn?
- What can Omobamidele and Cannon contribute? Has Taylor jumped above Smallbone?
Conclusion:
- It’s still not easy to pick a best XI! Some good players won’t make the first XI. Knight, Molumby, O’Shea, Parrott, even Ferguson, spring to my mind. More iterations may be needed.
* The Indo Sport podcast analysis with Joe Molloy, Gary Breen and Damo Delaney say that they did their jobs well but that the CBs drop too deep, inviting pressure. Betweeen them and Kelleher they need to be more comunicative with each other and they need to be braver to hold a higher line
I wasn't too impressed by Festy personally, bar the obvious assist v Finland. I thought we looked worse v Greece with him on than Ogbene; I think this is why HH put McAteer in to play right wing the last 10 mins and moved Festy back, but may be reading too much into it.
Sweden/Slovakia
Kosovo
N Iron/Bulgaria
Armenia/Latvia
So.. it's Sweden or Slovakia for us.. yeah
I wouldn't want to get Kosovo either. Would love to draw the North. Add an extra layer of spice to the playoff.
no playoff secured yet.
Although this is true, if we're not getting at least a draw at home v Finland we're in a lot of trouble. They looked a far weaker team than the one we played in the nations league a few years ago. Anything other than 6 points would be a failure imo, but 6 points is fine given the strength of Greece and England. I just hope for a decent playoff match to build some confidence/momentum, if ever we need a playoff draw like that one time we got Estonia it's now!Quote:
Originally Posted by zero
sorry if discussed already
Do we have any chance of being second seeds in the WC draw?
If we we beat Sweden or whoever in a play off is that relevant to the WC ?
Highly doubt we've any chance of getting second seeds now. Two loses to Greece has likely seen us remain as third seeds.
Playoffs will have no affect towards seeding as the draw for qualifiers happens in December. Only affect the playoffs will have is which teams end up in a four team group. Their qualifiers won't start until September 2025.
I saw a probability chart after the Greece game - can't remember where - that said we were 100% third seeds
"So you're saying there's a chance"Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Definitely 100% third seeds. I think we would have had to have won pretty much every nations league game this autumn to have had any chance of moving up.
We are also highly likely to be in a four team group if we are in a relegation playoff in March. So only six qualification games in the main group and likely a very difficult route to a playoff, unless we get lucky and hit on one of the weaker second seeds - Wales or Hungary would be about the best options available.
Man, I am just looking at the qualification process for the World Cup qualifiers, and it looks like it's going to be an absolutely mental draw.
Assume we finish third in the group, then we have a relegation play off in March.
This means:
1. We go into a 4 team group
2. The guidelines seem to suggest that there will almost be a two tier draw, with teams who are in action in March, going into 4 team groups, and effectively getting drawn against each other, to start off qualifying in September next year
3. World Cup qualifying now will become a "mini" Nations League next Autumn
Yes that's pretty much right. I think it's still possible to be in a five team group if in a Nations League playoff, but unlikely. We probably also won't know who the Pot 1 team is at the time of the draw, if it's a team in the Nations League A group knockout phase it will be the winner or.loser of a quarter final that won't be played until a few months after the draw.
This is not meant to be a one off, it's the plan for all tournaments going forward. From our point of view we could really do with getting back into the top 24 in the rankings as soon as possible, so that we're second seeds in future groups. Would make future qualifications a lot easier.
That is true, but then I suppose we're always of the opinion, the higher the ranking, the hopefully better the draw.. but you could still get a stinker like we did last time with France, Holland, Greece..Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
To get back to top 24 we have to
a. Finish at least third this time
b. Win the play off in March
c. Manage to get second in the next Nations League group (all 16 A teams, plus top two in each NL group make up the top 24)
We need a little bit of luck really,
Scotland, Isreal, Bosnia and Switzerland are coming back down (3 of the 4 you'd expect, with only Serbia staying up)
Would prefer England to go up instead of Greece to be honest.. there's still going to be a lot of dangerous teams floating around in Path B next time..
Then again, hopefully HH will have melded a much better team come NL 26
I think England will probably go up through the playoff if they don't go up automatically. If Greece don't end up winning this group they'll go into the promotion playoffs, meaning we'll be a lot more likely to draw them in our World Cup group. Which I think we can all agree we'd rather avoid at this stage!
Can't speak for ROI fans (obv), and I'm sure your motivation is for all the right reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~YTM~
But for this NI fan, I'd rather draw just about anyone else, since we really don't need all the sh1t which such games attract (from both sides, I might add).
Great win for Northern Ireland the other night ~ ~ Is it a one off, or is Michael O'Neill building something like he did the last time ?Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
how would that work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
1. 12/12 first seeds are playing Nations League games (8 quarter finalists + 4 playoff A/B)
2. 4/12 second seeds are playing (playoff to A/B)
3. 4/12 third seeds are playing (playoff to B/C)
4. 6/12 fourth seeds are playing (4 playoff to B/C, 2 to C/D
Taken from wiki. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026...ication_(UEFA)Quote:
Originally Posted by elatedscum
Seeding method
Five-team groups can only contain one team participating in Nations League matches in March 2025, allowing these teams to have two free matchdays in World Cup qualifying to be scheduled during March. The remaining four teams in their group will play among themselves during this window. Additionally, as the four quarter-final winners will compete in the 2025 UEFA Nations League Finals in June, they cannot begin World Cup qualifying until September and must therefore be drawn into four-team groups.
Given these conditions, Pot 1 will contain the eight Nations League quarter-finalists, regardless of their position in the FIFA Men's World Ranking of November 2024. The quarter-finalists will be represented by placeholders in the draw, denoting the winners and losers of each quarter-final pairing.[note 1] The four remaining teams in Pot 1 will be the next best-ranked teams in the FIFA Men's World Ranking of November 2024. In principle, the remaining teams will be allocated to Pots 2 to 5 based on the FIFA Men's World Ranking. However, adjustments to Pots 2 to 5 may be required depending on the number of teams needing the March 2025 window for the Nations League promotion/relegation play-offs.
Should a given draw pot include more Nations League play-off teams than the maximum number of qualifying groups able to contain such teams, a pot adjustment will be made. Such an adjustment will follow these principles:
A pot swap will be made between the lowest-ranked Nations League play-off participant of the pot in question and the highest-ranked compatible team of the lower pot.
The same procedure applies if an additional swap is required in the same pot or another pot.
This seeding method differs from previous cycles, as all World Cup qualifying group draws since 2010 have been seeded based solely on the FIFA Men's World Ranking.
Draw procedure:
The draw will start with Pot 1 and complete with Pot 5. A team will be drawn and assigned to the first available group (based on draw conditions) in alphabetical order. Each five-team group will contain one team from each of the five pots, while each four-team group will contain one team from each of the first four pots.
The following restrictions will be applied with computer assistance:
Competition-related reasons:
2025 UEFA Nations League Finals (identified as the winners of quarter-finals 1–4) will be guaranteed to be drawn into four-team groups (Groups A–F).
Depending on the pot distribution of Nations League play-off teams, Pot 1 teams not involved in Nations League matches in March may need to be drawn into five-team groups (Groups G–L).
Nations League play-off teams from Pots 2 to 4 are prioritised for allocation to four-team groups (Groups A–F).[note 3] If a play-off team is in Pot 5, they will be drawn into a five-team group (Groups G–L) capable of accommodating such a team.
Additionally, teams not involved in Nations League matches in March from Pots 2 to 4 may be required to be drawn into five-team groups (Groups G–L) to ensure a sufficient number of groups are available to contain Nations League play-off teams from the same or subsequent pots.
This is what wiki says - though to be honest I can't really make out what it's saying either. Talk of the next-best ranked teams in the FIFA rankings in pot 1 - is that teams who haven't made the playoffs?
Quote:
Five-team groups can only contain one team participating in Nations League matches in March 2025, allowing these teams to have two free matchdays in World Cup qualifying to be scheduled during March. The remaining four teams in their group will play among themselves during this window. Additionally, as the four quarter-final winners will compete in the 2025 UEFA Nations League Finals in June, they cannot begin World Cup qualifying until September and must therefore be drawn into four-team groups.
Given these conditions, Pot 1 will contain the eight Nations League quarter-finalists, regardless of their position in the FIFA Men's World Ranking of November 2024. The quarter-finalists will be represented by placeholders in the draw, denoting the winners and losers of each quarter-final pairing.[note 1] The four remaining teams in Pot 1 will be the next best-ranked teams in the FIFA Men's World Ranking of November 2024. In principle, the remaining teams will be allocated to Pots 2 to 5 based on the FIFA Men's World Ranking. However, adjustments to Pots 2 to 5 may be required depending on the number of teams needing the March 2025 window for the Nations League promotion/relegation play-offs.
Should a given draw pot include more Nations League play-off teams than the maximum number of qualifying groups able to contain such teams, a pot adjustment will be made. Such an adjustment will follow these principles:
A pot swap will be made between the lowest-ranked Nations League play-off participant of the pot in question and the highest-ranked compatible team of the lower pot.
The same procedure applies if an additional swap is required in the same pot or another pot.
This seeding method differs from previous cycles, as all World Cup qualifying group draws since 2010 have been seeded based solely on the FIFA Men's World Ranking.
Yeah so England for example will take one of those four pot 1 places for teams that didn't make the QFs. But then England could end up finishing second and thrown into a promotion/relegation playoff. Don't think Uefa have a clue what they're doing anymore with all these changes.
Building, definitely.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
That said, there'll be other mishaps along the way, since the team is so young, and therefore not yet experienced enough to cope with everything they might come across. An example was the previous game v Belarus, which they drew 0-0. They absolutely battered them in the first half, with their gk making at least half a dozen top saves - goodness knows how it was goalless. But for the second half their manager made some tactical changes, then used all his subs, and our boys ran out of ideas (and energy?).
Similarly, that game was played in a neutral venue, behind closed doors, meaning they weren't able to capitalise on the boost they get when playing at home.
None of which is to say that we'll qualify for tournaments etc, if only because of our age-old search for "The Next Healy". But I'm very confident that we'll prove a lot more competitive and hard to beat than previously.
We might have to borrow that Michael O'Neill fella some-time in the future ! (wink)Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
I thought you'd had enough of our O'Neills after that Martin fella?Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
Though you could have Michelle, if you like. ;)
Thread locked and archived