Printable View
Pessimism :confused: What have I been pessimistic about?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdomkerry
Im simply giving a rating of our players ability, optimism or pessimism don't come into the equation, or influence their ability.
Thats not to say I dont believe this team can achieve with the right manager
He was a wonderful prospect but suffered from 3 problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdomkerry
1 He's a lazy bugger!
2 The fact he is flexible meant that when he was a first choice player for Utd a few years ago it was in a variety of positions. I'm not sure he was ever given long enough in one position to chine and so slowly replacements were bought for all of them. I still think he should be a centre back given his physique but he has played comparatively little there.
3 He is happier being a sub at Utd than a regular key player at e.g Everton or Spurs. I'd be interested to know if Phil Neville gets more pleasure in being a key player for a moderately succesful Everton team than he would being an occasional sub in a title winning Utd team. O'Shea could do with the responsibility of leading a defence.
I can't make out O'shea either .. needless to say that he needs to move to develop the potential that is there .. but he won't move.
anyone remember this ? Look at the slow motion at the end .. drag back and then smacks it with his right.
He was a bundle of nerves in Basle 2003 ... although he wasn't in great form for United either at the time .. think he was at fault for a couple of goals against Stuttgart in the Champions league around the same time.
That game against Newcastle was probably his best game as a left back for Man Utd. When Utd signed Heinze he started to get shunted all around the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by macdermesser
I think that game against Stuttgart might have been one of his first as a left back. I remember Fergie switched him and Silvestre in one CL game all of a sudden.
Anyone remember this?
Having watched the Man. City vs Liverpool game today, I have to revise my opinion of Dunne. He was superb.
you never rated him until today? The guy has been a rock at Man City for a good number of years now. I think if he was at one of the big 4 or had an Italian sounding surname he'd be Andy Gray's favourite defender :cool:.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Exactly. City's player of the season for the last 3 years. He had Torres in his back pocket today. I thought Finnan had an excellent game today too.Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker1982
Agree fully. Even Andy Gray made reference to Dunne's ability to make outstanding recovery tackles today.Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker1982
And back to Sanchez...
Can anyone give me an "intelligent reason" as to why he should not be next Ireland manager? Not liking him doesn't count.
Great record with N. Ireland and did well before at Wycombe and Sligo!. Quite unlucky as well with Fulham IMO, don't think he would have been relegated had he been there till the end of the season.
I think he's the best of what the bookies consider to be front runners...
I hear that he lost the Fulham dressing room due to his insistence on a long ball game.
He is a long ball merchant and we do not have the players to play this game.
Probably becase he won't want it? From my observation of Sanchez, he's an intensely ambitious individual. If he was installed as ROI manager, he would either fail or succeed (obviously).Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinoAsprilla
If it is the former, then that could signal the end to his managerial career. And even should it be the latter, he risks making a name for himself as an "international" manager i.e. still unable to cut it in club football.
The only way I could see him accepting the ROI job is if they threw a huge wedge of cash at him. However, the necessary amount would likely be sufficient to attract other, better qualified candidates?
My guess is that Sanchez will attempt to re-start his club career in England with a Championship side, or an ambitious League One team. And unless the FAI is prepared to wait, I'd be surprised if Sanchez will make any decision in the next few months, whilst he assesses what club vacancies might arise. (He'll have enough cash in the bank after Fulham not to have to rush his decision, that's for sure!)
Sanchez will do ok with average players as average players do not mind playing lump it up the pitch football. But he cannot work with Premiership players as they will not stand for the long ball tactics he likes to play.
I daresay there will have been discontented individuals within the club - Sanchez is quite a pri ckly character. However, I'd be surprised if the dissent was widespread, or based on tactical differences, for two reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
First, the squad was almost entirely his, LS having got shot of 15 players and replaced them with 13 of his own. And since he will undoubtedly have discussed his plans with the new guys upon signing, it cannot have come as a shock to them what tactics he prefers.
Second, of the nine teams struggling towards the bottom of the Prem, the only two not to have suffered any hidings this season are Spurs and Fulham. Indeed, Fulham's only big defeat was 5-1 at WHL after LS left. The rest of their games under Sanchez were either narrow defeats or draws, which suggests a side that was at least attempting to compete. Indeed, for the majority of games they have often taken the lead, only to be pegged back or overtaken in the last few minutes.
Whatever else is the explanation, that doesn't sound to me like a team which is going out from the very start not wanting to play for their manager. Otherwise, even if they fluked a lead, the minute the opposition equalised you might expect Fulham to collapse and concede another 3 or 4.
From having seen Fulham half a dozen times this season, my guess is that post-Sanchez, certain players are just using "long-ball tactics" to attempt to justify their position - an excuse which will sound good to Hodgson, assuming he (RH) favours a passing game.
Whilst the ROI do have some technically gifted players (Robbie Keane, Andy Read, Damien Duff in particular), and clearly more than e.g. NI, nonetheless you may be rating them better than they actually are. That is, recent poor performances can't wholly be explained by Staunton's tactical, motivational and selectorial ineptitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
Someone elsewhere pointed to there being factions in the ROI dressing room. If correct, then eliminating that is more important (imo) than what style of football is employed. As such, if Sanchez were in charge, that would be the first thing he would address, and if the big names didn't like it, they'd be out the door before they even knew it - Sanchez would pick Eircom players sooner than appease any "Big Time Charlies" in the squad!
Moreover, the advantage of the long-ball game is that unlike in the English Premiership, international teams rarely come across it, so often struggle to cope with it. Which to a great extent explains why Jack Charlton was so successful when he was in charge - notwithstanding that some of his more gifted players (O'Leary, Brady etc) clearly weren't impressed.
Personally, I think Sanchez would do an excellent job as ROI manager but as I noted elsewhere, I doubt he'd accept it anytime soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
I never said we had good technical players but we do not have the players to play long ball football. We do not have big players to play the ball up to. We dont have chasers from midfield that would get on to these long balls. I am not saying we should play through the middle all the time but we do not have the players to play the Sanchez way.
From my observation, it is a bit of a mischaracterisation of LS's tactics with NI to call them "long ball". To me, that suggests a team where the keeper or defenders immediately hoof it long down the middle the moment they get the ball, for a greyhound or poacher to get behind the opposing defenders and hit it early. As such, the midfield tends to get bypassed and so is usually made up of "scrappers", employed to frustrate the opposition, rather than play a part in building the teams own attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
Whereas with NI, it was more subtle than that. The key to LS's tactics were to get the ball to Healy in space, in order to capitalise on his workrate and phenomenal accuracy in finishing. As such, LS invariably employed a big guy up front, not in order to get beyond his marker, but in order to create room for Healy. This was augmented by the fact that LS usually employed two wingers down the flanks who, along with the midfielders, were instructed to play it quickly forward to one or other of the two front guys, not long. Otherwise, merely hoofing it long in the direction of Healy, who's neither big nor especially quick, would have seen him either outmuscled by opposition defenders or outpaced by a keeper coming quickly off his line.
I think it works that your defenders get it long to the big man who either nods it out to the wingers or nods it back to Healy who then takes a strike at goal. If it goes out to the wingers they whip the crosses in pretty quickly as well to the big man and healy picks up the pieces and gets anything that is going in and around the box. It bypasses the midfield and does not encourage your players to play through the middle and is all about getting the ball into the last third as quickly as possible and playing from there.
Charlton did it and Sanchez did it with Northern IReland and I don't believe we have the players to play that way.
If anyone who was concvinced that Jewell was the right man, then I'd guess the same people would appreciate Sanchez' merits, no?
He'd be an underwhelming candidate for me and, as said above, I'm not sure he'd want it anyway.
I dont think that Jewell is a long ball guy to be honest.