there is a bit about passing here (against Croatia)Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker1982
http://www.goal.com/en-ie/news/3942/...on-five-things
there is a bit about passing here (against Croatia)Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker1982
http://www.goal.com/en-ie/news/3942/...on-five-things
So McGeady is probably not only our best passer, but our best tackler and winner of the ball, and a good chunk of our fans want him out of the team :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
The mind truly boggles.
Never understood the stick he gets either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrigaline
McClean is an exciting young talent but very much a typical Martin O'Neil Leicester City/Celtic type winger. Strong, fast and good at surging forward and all that but not half the footballer McGeady is.
There are too many who are not up to scratch, so choosing to play football is not an option. The only players I'd keep from that starting team, Dunne Sledge O'Shea (CM) McGeady, Doyle and Long,Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Sorry mates, but Andrews hasn't got the midfield guile, put him on standby. Sacrifice qualification as the desideratum but focus on building a team that can play football and take the consequences on the chin, if need be.
Going into this game I didn't expect too much. All I wanted to see was a performance to be proud of. To head home with our heads held high. For the most part, the players gave it their all and I cannot fault them for that. Some of them are just not up to the job. O'Shea is not a full back anymore. Simple as that. It would have been more beneficial to have a real full back like Kelly playing.
He may not be up to the standard required but Ward deserves a mention. He shouldn't be wearing the no 3 jersey come August but he tried his hardest and stood up ok most of the time.
The midfield as a whole worked hard, and you cannot knock them for a lack of effort. They were overrun most times and that wasn't their fault.
Doyle tried hard too and it was a big improvement on his previous appearances.
What struck me most was how little we can offer. It was embarrassing. We defend well (most of the time) and that is because Trap drills it into the players. But is there anything at all with regard to attack? When we attacked this morning(in Melbourne time) we were completely clueless. There was no movement. Strikers ran straight ahead and tried to hold their lines; wingers ran for the corners and tried to cross; overlapping full backs stop and look to pass back to winger who then crosses.
The attack when Doyle and Keane found themselves on the left wing was one of the worst. While both were pulled out of position, not one player moved into the centre forward position to give them a target.
It reminded me of watching a decent Junior B team. They weren't bad in the back half, but once they break they have absolutely no ideas and unless the defence lets them through, the ball will probably be turned over.
The subs looked like token caps to be honest and they made no sense at all. Removing McGeady was one thing, but why not replace his with either Hunt or McClean? Or else Gibson and push Duff up and go 4-3-3?
Instead he brings on Long(who wasn't deemed good enough for the first two games) and I don't really know where he played. From that moment we lost shape. Walters was brought on to get as many forwards on the field as we could and then the Cox substitute just didn't make sense. It was like he just gave him the last couple of minutes for the sake of it.
I think Trap has done the job he was brought in to do. He set a good base, got us to a playoff and then pushed on to get us to a tournament. This should have been his swansong.
I mentioned at the start of the Where to next thread that while change is needed and important, it cannot be done in one lump. Get players like Wilson, McCarthy, Long into the team from the start. Bring them in instead of Ward, Keane and Doyle. Switch to 4-5-1. Replace O'Shea at right back if possible and Duff on one of the wings.
So look at the first friendly with a team of:
Gk: Westwood - if he plays well enough then keep him there for the first qualifier. That would also be on the condition that he is playing first team football.
RB: Kelly - has experience and would hopefully give Coleman time to settle in at RB with Everton. Maybe give Foley a run
LB: Wilson
CB: Dunne and Sledge are first choice unless Dunne goes. If Sledge is not playing first team football I'd bring in O'Shea to start with Duffy or Clark as next in line.
CM: Andrews, Whelan, McCarthy to start. With Gibson to come in and replace one of the first two.
LW: McClean/McGeady
RW: McGeady/Pilkington/Walters
FW: Long
If we went out with something along those lines, only McCarthy and Wilson would be "new" players. Most importantly though, the spine of the side would remain the same. Gibson could replace Whelan and if he came back, Ireland could eventually replace Andrews.
We are so tragic.
McClean is a very limited player whose unfortunately been set up for a downfall by bizarrely being declared as a cornerstone to our future.Quote:
Originally Posted by brine3
I generally kind of get the point you are making re McClean murfinator but I'd qualify it a bit by saying that, with a lot of work and application, he could become a good player and a decent international player but I don't think he is the messiah he's being made out to be. He's certainly primed to "fail".
By the way, on my ipad, murfinator = muffin actor :)
Let's face it, if Messi had came on instead of McClean he would have looked ****e too!!
And actually McClean did a good job when he came on, people only remember him failing to get past a defender
once but forget all his other good work.
im getting a camera up my ass in july because i have stomach problems - i would rather what the dvd of my inner bowel than this team under that stubborn git
Lots of talk about our 'shape' being what's getting us pumped every game because 4-4-2 isnt flavour of the month right now and Glen Whelan thinks we should play differently.
Would having 3 inadequate midfielders chasing shadows against Spain have made any odds though really? We play 4-4-2 because it suits the playing squad we have. Our strength if we have one and most of our creativity comes through our wingers. Duff and Mcgeady are dribble down the wing kind of players, they wouldnt be suited to the kind of attacking traingle Russia have for instance with Arshavin and Dzagoev.
The only unbeaten team in the group matches and 2 other team in our own group play a fairly conventional version of 4-4-2 but they do better because they have better players and because mentally they are stronger and dont get bamboozled when the opposition start passing the ball around. We've not been beaten so emphatically because of any particular tactical failing, its more a collective lack of concentration, fortitude and (with the exception of Andrews who maybe showed a little too much) passion. This is worrying as its not like us as a team and footballing nation. When the going got tough they didn't get going but just gave the impression they wanted it all to be over, perhaps realising they had achieved their maximum potential just to get to the tournament or maybe they really did feel it would just be like playing Estonia all over again and were overcome with shock when it wasnt.
Is McClean going to be another Sean St Ledger, people distorting his actual contribution to a game in to something infinitely greater than it was?
You are saying he played well because you'd decided before he came on to the pitch that he would do. He could become an important player for us in the future but trying to sugarcoat the reality of what happens on the pitch isnt helping anyone.
Good choices all except O'Shea. I wouldn't let him watch the game never mind play in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
"Sorry mates, but Andrews hasn't got the midfield guile, put him on standby. Sacrifice qualification as the desideratum but focus on building a team that can play football and take the consequences on the chin, if need be"
Good point. Andrews deserves a lot of credit for his effort, but he isn't up to the standard. Still ahead of Whelan mind you, but still not up to snuff.
You're looking at two of McCarthy, Gibson, and dare I say it, Ireland for the two central midfield berths.
True story: I've never heard the word 'guile' used outside the context of Street Fighter or Ireland's midfield.
Andrews has plenty of guile. There's a reason he had more shots on goal during the tournament than all of our strikers combined.
Looking at England right now (versus Ukraine) and they, with all their millions of pounds worth of talent are second best to Ukraine. It's truly the English style of play which is the malaise (for Ireland).
He's not even close to international standard. Ok, there are plenty like him in the Irish team, but Andrews is in a pivotal position and must be dropped. You mention reasons. There's a reason he keeps getting coaxed down the the lower divisions.
He's been coaxed down the divisions once, barring the one slide he had at the start of his career.
He's exactly the type of player who excels in international football - he's not technically great, but he's full of pride and has the character to take control when others around him aren't performing.
agree to easy to penetrate at the back, need a big target and 1 in the hole for successQuote:
Originally Posted by bwagner
That, in a nutshell, is the attitude which has Irish football where it is today. We keep championing players who are not even close to the required standard. But as long as their full of pride that's all we care about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Yeah, work-rate and leadership are so overrated. That's why the Netherlands are odds-on to win the title.
Shame we didn't get the luck of the English.
Our midfield has been poor, both of our midfield players. A few shots on goal doesn't hide that performance nor does it compensate for other deficiencies., nor does it define midfield guile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Andrews could do a job as back up in the next campaign, he's also getting on in football years. If our future midfield is going to depend on Keith as first choice, we have not an earthly of developing a team that can play football.
Both Andrews and Whelan define the midfield style that has become a plague, it functioned on occasions, more so when the other team was more poor or when they dropped back, that midfield can be read like a book and we are looking at 3rd or 4th place with that pairing in the next qualifiers.
I think Whelan is more likely to be consigned to back up, or should be.
Andrews is going to miss two games so change will be forced. I'm a bit like a broken record here but I think Andrews and Gibson with one other could be good - the one other most likely being McCarthy but Whelan deserves a look in a 3. I really like Andrews' athleticism and if midfield is somewhat secured and he is freed up a bit I think he has more to give. Our midfield two are perpetually on the back foot. As my mate said in the pub last night we always play 2 midfielders against 3 better midfielders so what chance do they have?
I'd ditch both. McCarthy, Fahey, Meyler & Gibson can duke it out for the spots.
AFAIA, cards picked up at the Euro Final's competition do not carry over to the WC qualification, even if the cards accumulate for a suspension.
Andrews could function with McCarthy and Gibson. Fahey's injury record rules him out.
We can assume that a player like Andrews who depends mainly on athleticism is going to lose a precious few degrees from now on, he's nearly 32 years old now
pretty sure that red card would have him suspended
I'm not sure about a straight red, but 99% sure that yellow cards no matter how many, do not carry over to the WC qualifiers.
edit
At least that's how I understand this
- 21.05 Cautions and pending yellow-card suspensions from the final tournament expire atthe end of the competition.
taken from http://www.uefa.com/multimediafiles/...7_download.pdf
thats true, so sledger who had two yellows wont be suspended, but andrews will with his red. i think
Andrews definitely misses one game. Speculation that UEFA could increase it to two for his reaction.
http://www.setanta.com/ie/Articles/2...n/gnid-145411/
Maybe I have misunderstood it.. I thought that there was a difference between picking up 2 yellows in the same game as distinct from a straight red.
So, Andrews is not looking at a yellow card suspension, he is facing a red card suspension?
That competition rule just applies to cards picked up in different games at the Finals?
"In the event a player is sent off for two bookable offences, only the red card is counted for disciplinary purposes. However, in the event a player receives a direct red card after being booked in the same match, then both cards are counted. If the player was already facing a suspension for two tournament bookings when he was sent off, this would result in separate suspensions that would be served consecutively. The one match ban for the yellow cards would be served first unless the player's team is eliminated in the match in which he was sent off. If the player's team is eliminated in the match in which he was serving his ban for the yellow cards, then the ban for the sending off would be carried over to the World Cup qualifiers."
"The FDC further stipulates that if a player is sent off during his team's final Euro 2008 match, the suspension carries over to his team's next competitive international(s).[1] For Euro 2012 these would be the qualification matches for the 2014 FIFA World Cup."
"If UEFA suspends a player after his team's elimination from the tournament, or for more games than the team ends up playing without him prior to the final or their elimination (whichever comes first), then the remaining suspension must be served during World Cup qualifying."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Eu...plinary_record
As I understand it, if we were still in the Euro's he would be facing a two match ban. One for being on two yellows and one for getting sent off (The bold part above). Edit - Or maybe not due to the first sentence.:confused:
Yellow card suspensions don't carry over but red card suspensions do, so he faces an automatic one match ban for the next competitive game - WCQ against Kazakhstan.
Exactly. People are talking about dropping both and let the younger crowd fight out for the two remaining spots. Whelan and Andrews maybe limited but does anybody honestly think a midfield duo of Gibson and McCarthy could have done much better in the last 3 games? They still would have been outnumbered and overrun. We need to play 3 midfielders and whether people like it or not, Andrews and Whelan deserve a shot at it from the start. Andrews will be suspended for the first qualifier so if McCarthy and Gibson come in, then it will be up to them to keep Keith out when he gets backQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
A midfield of McCarthy and Gibson would have sat even deeper and been less mobile than Andrews and Whelan. Both players would be good in a midfield three, but in a two I don't think they (or Stephen Ireland, or Wes Hoolahan) can play together.
The future has to be 3 man central midfield McCarthy (our best midfielder by far) Gibson ,McCann or Meylor
If needed Wilson or Clarke can fill in. Unfortunately this will never happen while ( i am living off my previous reputation)
Trap is in charge
The future doesn't necessarily need to be 3 in midfield but we certainly need to be more flexible.
Trapattoni's approach up to now has built on repetition, with the belief that if the players know their roles and what is expected of them, they'll make less mistakes. And this has worked. It got us to the Euros. But it totally failed in the Euros to the extent our players' belief in Trapattoni must be gone. After those 3 defeats, and years of removing any idea of creativity, flexibility, individualism and inventiveness from the minds of our players, does Trapattoni have the will to change and do our players have the will to change under a manager they have known to have one approach, and one approach only?
We need 3 central midfielders to do the work of 2 :)
And we don't need 2 out and out wide midfielders to be on the same team.
In the next WC campaign, we will be the team that other teams target for likely points, home and away.
The Kaz coach will be looking at Ireland's performance at the Euros and think that there's a very good chance that christmas will come early for him.
Yes, I'd agree with that even though I've been banging on about 3 in the middle for a while now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
Part of our problem is that Robbi, Doyle, McGeady have been "must picks". This necessitates 2 in midfield. If Duff goes we could play more of a diamond midfield (as some have done in Polkraine) but that requires good full backs.
In an ideal world you just put out 11 good players in more or less natural positions and if they've got the brain and the technique they become a fluent unit. I'm not sure we're near that ideal world though.
I really like the idea (in theory!) of a 3 man midfield flanked by McClean & Coleman, but that means only picking one of Doyle, Long and Walters. Robbie is demoted to talismanic sub from now on. Could Long or Walters play RHM in a 451 / 433?
PS: are people still quite comfy about Sweden?
Difficult to know with Sweden going forward as there's likely to be a few retirements and their best players in the Euros were all aged 30+. Individually they're no better than the player pool available to us, but they have a swaggger and belief in themselves that we don't seem to have.
I think we can presume they will play a similar game, comfortable with the game they play and how good they play it depends on the quality of the players available.
I'd back them against a team who are not comfortable with the game they play, regardless of some individual superiority.
I'm still confident we could win at home against the Swedes, we might lose away or we might sneak a draw, but I think we should be able to match them in the two games, and it would be as you were between us and them. I think Austria might cause us more problems than the Swedes as they are a lot more mobile.