its more likely they thought better craic was to be found elsewhere or JD was otherwise engaged in a fans ticket raffleQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
its more likely they thought better craic was to be found elsewhere or JD was otherwise engaged in a fans ticket raffleQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
"Had Ireland grabbed that late equaliser, it would have certainly confirmed O’Neill’s emerging status as a lucky manager, having got out of jail in Tbilisi with a late winner before pilfering a point at the home of the world champions."
...
"Ireland’s only other apparent tactic was to use their throw-ins to work the ball down the touchline like a schoolboy team trying to get into the opponents’ half. The interval couldn’t come quick enough.
How Ireland had kept it scoreless was anyone’s guess. Perhaps O’Neill was that lucky manager?"
Every article I read refers to the word "luck" that i had mentioned for so long yet got ridiculed. It looks like many journos share the same opinion.
Every article? Really? Can you provide links?Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Even so, if you want to analyse something properly, examine cause and effect. Rely on talk of luck if you need a crutch, couldn't be bothered or if superstition is what you're into.
so you agree with the BBC article that Scotland have been lucky?Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
It looks to me that any marginal gains that ever go our way are lucky whereas any marginal losses that don't are down to some superior scheming on behalf of our opponents.
Repeat ad Infinitum: football is not science. Stuff happens.
Had Hoolahan scored a beautifully crafted equaliser 6 or 7 minutes before O'Shea's goal (blocked) in Geksrnkirchen would it have been lucky or beautifully crafted?
"How Ireland kept it scoreless was anyone's guess".
Jesus. For an away game I was remarkably relaxed until they scored. Forde had one comfortable save to make. Scotland missed the target twice or three times with presentable chances. We did so once, and hit the bar once.
Is hitting the bar in injury time more lucky/unlucky than hitting the bar on 35 minutes?
We all know Paul's feelings on goals scored either at the end of regulation time or in injury time. They are always purely lucky and nothing to do with anything that went before. :rolleyes:
Teams play on the pitch for the same length of time. What ever happens between the whistles is as valuable as anything else that happens between the whistles. Some will have a greatereffect than others on the outcome of the game. However, they all contribute.
I'm tired of the luck argument being the final determinant in anything we do.
If Hanley's header had gone in, we would have considered ourselves lucky, but it was as a result of a period of sustained pressure from our team that caused it to happen. That's the part that deserves analysis, not the fact that it came off!
Tbh, in the context of the game and the preceding two v.Georgia/Germany, it would have been extremely lucky overall. But that's football!
More bothered about our generally unconvincing performance, at times, in all three games, which makes me feel quite pessimistic about how we're set up for qualifiers in the main.
Thats a different argument band something that should be discussed. We have one clean sheet so far and that was v Gib and but for Forde's head we could have conceded.
Another article featuring the word luck. DI i dont store up all my links, but they've been by various jounros from rte/bbc/indepentent and irish times.
Leahy in rte, mcdonell and mahoney in independent, English in bbc.
I'd take the word of the experts over some random punter on an internet forum most days of the week to be honest, they can't all be lazy or require a support/crutch.
"The Scotland result changes everything for O'Neill. Maybe there was a feeling of destiny after O'Shea's eleventh-hour heroics in Gelsenkirchen and McGeady's slice of genius in Tbilisi. After Friday, those results seem lucky."
the biggest bit of luck for either team last Friday was how the scottish ctre back managed to stay on the pitch after his assaults on Long and Forde. wonder how the scots would have survived the 2nd half with ten men?
Which poster on here doesn't believe in luck in football? It might be owlsfan.
I can't see how a wonderful bit of skill from McGeady can be classed as luck vs the Georgians.
What was lucky about the German game? A decent defensive play capped off with a goal in injury game.
We didn't get any dodgy decisions in our favour e.g. Penalties, iffy red cards or chances galore missed by the opposition.
The away game in Moscow where we somehow kept out Russia took a heroic performance from Dunne and a slice of luck. If the opposition strikers miss a hatful of chances is that luck or just poor play from the opposition?
If we did get a result in Glasgow then I don't think it would have been a scandal. Chelsea in their Champions League win were highly fortunate from the Semi Final onwards. They were dominated and held on, the other night was probably 55/45 in Scotland's favour.
Hendrick wasn't far off being as lucky for staying on the pitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
he was late without malice. a deserved yellow and no moreQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
He could have made that tackle a million times and 999,999 times he'd have been sent off.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
No, really, it wasn't a malicious tackle but in the context of the game I think many referees would have gone for red.
but the one time he did he wasn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I was only joking about that, by the way. I think he was a bit lucky but not excessively so. Hanley, on the other hand, was blessed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
It'd appear to me every victory we have had in the last ten years is lucky in some respect, but every defeat is deserved. I don't see how a period of pressure resulting in a late goal for is lucky but a period of pressure resulting in a goal against is the result of asking for it. It's typical of the self loathing prevalent in Irish football coverage.
Was Scotland / Strachan lucky that the MOTM, Mulgrew, wasn't even picked in the starting XI but instead was a late replacement for Morrison who got sick? I'd say that was a stroke of good luck in itself.
But luck really is neither here nor there. Germany didn't do enough to put the game to bed and actually fell apart a bit in the last ten minutes. We were the better team in zgeorgia and shaded a tight contest. We were not the better team in Glasgow where our opponent shaded a tight contest. Football often hinges on key moments. Shay Given at a key moment last night saved us from a draw if not worse. That key moment went our way.
Now, if the point is that we haven't played particularly well yet then I'd support that view 100pc. Lots of teams earn points by not playing at their best though. It doesn't make them lucky. Twice we scored really good goals.
No stutts, yesterday even when we were under the cosh for those few minutes we still looked like scoring again against the US. I am pretty sure regardless of that save we would have scored again, we were breaking at every opportunity creating loads of chances, playing the ball in their 1/3 and always looked like creating an opening.
When we went behind against Scotland, we didnt look like scoring. We had created nothing. And we created to proceed very little if not nothing. OUr closest chance being a header from a scottish defender against his own crossbar!!
I'm saying that if a key moment goes your way it doesn't necessarily mean its luck. It's a player doing his job well at a key moment. Whether that key moment changed the end result is a moot point. In my opinion an equaliser would have galvanised the US and made life harder for us to score, but clearly neither of us knows for sure, nor is it important to the argument at hand.
I don't have much time for talk of luck. When serious commentators/journalists use it, I suspect they're using it slightly poetically, but, even then, I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean exactly. If a commentator says we were lucky, is he really saying we were undeserving? But how could that be if a fair run of the game resulted in a perfectly legal goal? Stutts highlights very well the problem with categorising certain occurrences as lucky and demonstrates the problem with distinguishing between lucky and not lucky. Either everything positive can potentially be deemed lucky and everything negative deemed unlucky or nothing can be deemed lucky/unlucky and you view phenomena to be occurring as a result of cause and effect, in accordance with the constant laws of physics that govern everything around us, including football matches. How do you distinguish between what is and isn't lucky if you believe that some things happen due to cause and effect but other things mysteriously happen out of the blue with no apparent root cause or origin? If our goal against Germany was "lucky", what caused that luck? Some invisible hand or what? Something caused what some might call "luck"; that being, amongst other causal factors, a positive change in play from us, an exertion of greater pressure as Germany receded and a utilisation of our footballing abilities to ensure the ball made it into the back of the German net. It genuinely confuses me to hear it put down to luck. I don't know what it's supposed to mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker1982
And it was no surprise that we didn't score, or strike lucky, if you prefer. In other words, we didn't score because we weren't able to create what you might call our own luck. It's simple cause and effect. "Luck" is a meaningless wishy-washy term in this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea