Well he was clearly obscured by the wall until the point that it was past the wall. By then it was too late. Completely blameless in my opinion. Strange thing is, if he just didn't move at all it'd probably have looked like he had even less chance of reaching it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I don't agree at all! He saw it really early. He moved really early.
Agree with all of that for sure. McGeady should be able to contribute more from the right but it's clear at this stage that he just doesn't. Even in his more orthodox winger days he was always far more productive on the left cutting in. It was a total waste of an opportunity. McClean running around like a headless chicken doesn't serve much purpose up front either, pointless experiment in my opinion. He's just not a striker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Back to Hoolahan briefly, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but the shortlist for our goal of the year spoke volumes. Hoolahan to the fore of all three - his brilliantly taken goal against Sweden, his inch perfect cross for Brady and pass for McClean. I shudder to think what kind of a year we would have had without him.
Sure that's what it's all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
At least we know it's what you actually believe, and not just opportunistic or agenda based.
Looking at Danny's pictures on page five, he does make a movement to his left before it reaches the wall. He's anticipating where it's going. I just don't think he can fully commit as it looks like it's going to hit the wall, which it should have, and therefore he'd have to be prepared for a deflection or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Yeah, for me the only mitigant is that he instinctively recognised a deflection risk.
On the plus side, he dealt with a dangerous in-swinger very well in the second half, not getting tempted to anticipate a touch and letting the ball make its way into his arms. Randolph made the mistake of anticipating a touch against Leicester. There was no touch and the ball went straight into the middle of the goal. It's not easy to call those situations right but it's one thing I always notice.
Just for the sake of mischief: was the ball that exposed Egan the kind of ball that Whelan mops up every match (before failing to carry it forward into a wide open space and playing a slow conservative pass to a CB!)?
Very possibly. But I'd say any one of Whelan, McCarthy or even Meyler might have offered more protection. Hendrick and Hourihane were always unlikely to be as defensively assured.
It was a brilliant cameo. He did everything we've been crying out for our more established midfielders to do. Simply put, make yourself available for a pass and use the ball constructively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nugget
McGeady did play more central in the 2nd half, and he contributed even less. He looked tired again. I really dont see what we get from him, and his purple patch for Preston is probably more to do with the level he is playing at than anything else otherwise its just one of those weird enigmas why he can't transfer any club form to International.
I think there is justification in being critical of O'Neill at this stage. Going on the last two performances we will end up drawing all our remaining world cup games and/or losing 1-0/0-1.
I read an article recently about wingers not really looking up or aiming when they cross teh majority of the time, I think it was hunts article I referred to a few sundays ago, well hunts delivery was ok. At the moment it doesn't seem to be working at all, so is it all down to the poor positioning of our players? Surely you look up the odd time and nail it on the head? Either way its scary, ball after ball over the last two games never looked like going on anyones head.
I was flabbergasted the last day when Christie came on that with all the long balls we never had anyone the near side of the post to flick on, and the ball landed short for a welsh clearance, it happened a couple of times again last night. We clearly haven't been practising these set pieces, if O'Neills emphasis is so much on set-pieces etc we have an awful lot to work on, and why have we not thus far?
If there is anything we can learn from Iceland, its that when you take your chance, like a set-piece, you defend resolutely and stay organised, closing out the game and holding your lead, without much fuss. They showed that against us last night and against England. I think their system suits playing british and Irish teams, but less so proper passing continental teams.
I wouldn't really judge our set pieces on the last two games. We were without most of our heavy hitters in that regard and playing two teams who were never going to be bullied in that department anyway. My criticism would be that we hadn't anything else planned to compensate.
I thought Gleeson started the better actually. I thought he looked far more composed on the ball than hourihane. And to think some were calling for him the last day :rolleyes: I've always thought Gleeson was a tidy football good at keeping momentum going anytime I've watched him.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
It doesn't matter, our game plan was to throw the long ball and cross cross cross, we did both abjectly. If thats our plan then we should have some plays and some organisation. We had nothing and these/this were clearly our "plan" as you call it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
I got an email slagging Christie for his aimless long throws on Friday. I thought it was more Walters and Long's fault for not being in a place to get a flick. They clearly hadn't been practiced.
As for O'Kane, his composure on the ball encouraged others to move ahead of him. That type of play holds things together and makes a team look like a team with a purpose. From my seat in the East Upper you can see a good team on the ball. Germany advanced as a unit. Even Wales did on Friday. When our midfielders get the ball our full backs often stay put in expectation of being the first option hit, before chipping the ball "into the channels". A good ball playing midfielder gives CBs the confidence to hold a high line and full backs to advance and it was only when O'Kane and Gleeson came on did it look to me like we were a coherent attacking eleven.
Ronnie Whelan wrote before the Euros that we'd miss O'Kane (was he injured or just culled?). I saw his point at the time and see it now too.
You don't think Hourihane's form at club level entitled him to an opportunity?Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Gleeson played well too but he pass selection was far more cautious than O'Kane's.
Wouldn't disagree with that. Just think we'd be a bigger threat from set pieces with the likes of Duffy and Clark aggressively attacking Brady's deliveries.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
He might mean vs Wales, TOWK was wanting him thrown in against Wales untested, which looking at last night, MON got spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Ah yes, fair point I guess. And very unlike Paul to use the benefit of hindsight. :)
Funny thing is people complained about O'Dowda getting included, and he is the only one who has looked like a premiership capable player when he has come on. MON and Keane can obviously spot this as you'd expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
I've watched both, and I've always felt out of all midfielders never to get a chance Gleeson has been the best I've spotted and always felt he could probably move up the ladder again, for whatever reason like others before he just hasn't been lucky enough to be in a championship promotion winning team a mon avis.
I've learnt not to get carried away with cameos and/or first couple of appearances, cos the players have something to prove and generally they are in less important games, then when regulars theyir performance levels drop, just look at hendrick and heaslip in the rugby, its more apparent in rugby though.
I also don't think anyone really staked a claim last night, horgan was good, odowda was ok in patches, hayes made himself busy, but nothing none of the regular first teamers don't give us. We really need a decent striker, or one that can at least position himself well. The following move where o'dowda anticapated the tackle and bent his left foot to touch the ball on the outside and slip it by the icelandic defender was also quality. These are the things mon and keane must spot and look out for when deciding who gets preference and is closer to first team.
and bttw. and mark678910 and a couple of others too. Its funny when i see certain players i can generally see when they will fit in well but i didnt think so much with hourihane. Still time to be hopefully proven wrong. He is very small too, doesn't suit playing that deep should have been further forward, but on the ball he didnt show much.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
That one through pass to o'dowda from o'kane top of boot was lovely. Its so simple, not really just looks it, and works so effectively.
Small in height or build? In height I would have thought he was average enough, not as tall as McCarthy, Hendrick or Meyler but definitely taller than Whelan, Gleeson and probably O'Kane.
There is something about O'Dowda I agree, and have always done. Not overly encouraging that he hasn't taken the Championship by storm but hopefully he can kick on. He definitely has a bit of quality about him.
Gleeson looks run of the mill any time I see him, more of what we have already, but I really haven't seen enough to write him in or out. O'Kane just looks to have something a bit different.
Who complained about O'Dowda being in the squad?
No complaints from me for MON picking Hourihane. His club form merited it but I think he fluffed the audition. He'll get another chance I'm sure.
I still think MON could have played a better hand last night with the cards he was dealt (or failed to pick up). But in each game we were so far from full strength that it's clear we shouldn't draw too many conclusions. In the context of the group and our injury situation a draw with Wales was perfectly decent.
Balls.ie did an interesting write-up on this very issue: https://www.balls.ie/football/aiden-mcgeady-4-362064Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavan Casey
I wouldn't describe it as a hissy fit, but i remember the conversation :pQuote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
I didn't and still don't believe Randolph has done anything for either club or country that justifies making a change, but i was very pleased Westwood got his chance yesterday.
I've not had time to watch it back, so bar the goal I've only seen the game live. On the goal, while the wall was awful, i thought Westwood has to take a fair bit of the blame. The free kick was right in the corner, but there wasn't much pace on it. It goes past Westwood at a difficult height for a goalkeeper but it wasn't a case of Magnusson hitting a great freekick that went over the wall at speed and then dipped in the air. It went through the wall at head height at a fairly pedestrian ace and then dropped. It was only that lack of pace that allowed it to end up in the bottom corner.
The wall could and probably should have stopped it. But whose job is it the organise the wall? Westwood seemed to be giving instructions to Brady about how it should set up. Half of them jumping and half of them not bothering suggests either he wasn't clear, Brady cocked up the instruction, or that nobody said whether they should jump or not.
After it goes past the wall I'd expect my keeper to get something on it. On the replay i watched both his feet were planted as Magnusson struck the ball. By the time he gets his feet sorted it is already in. He never dives. Once it goes in his body language is pretty sheepy. I don't think he was terrible happy with his own efforts.
He hadn't had much to do up until then but he had looked fine up until that happened. After that i thought he looked nervy. He came out of his box a lot, and tends to ponder on the ball until someone is almost on top of him.
The coming out of his box is a mixed blessing. He cleaned up a potentially dangerous situation very well at one point, and he is quick off his line. However he just didn't look confident to me. I'll concede that that's maybe me unconsciously projecting my own bias onto him.
Similarly the delaying his clearances forces a member of the opposition to close him down and potentially creates a bit more space in midfield (and you are right about the distance he was getting).
But the combination of the two has the potential for disaster in my opinion.
If everyone is fit and i was picking 3 goalkeepers for a major tournament he would certainly make my squad though. For that reason I think it's important that he gets more game time in friendlies etc. But Randolph is the obvious first choice goalkeeper for me.
Yep, I agree that KW himself felt he could have done better. I saw it in his body language too. He started going the right way but just stopped - but maybe in anticipation of a deflection. Had he continued he'd have made a decent save.
I was at Pats v Rovers on Saturday. Rovers' keeper (Cencinsky?) saved a similar shot that got through the wall. That shot actually had more pace.
I don't think a keeper can micro-organise his wall though. It's his job to line them up but after that it's up to the players to jump and get in the way.
Funny thing is, I probably prefer KW as a keeper but Randolph continues to do well. He made a hash of a punch on Friday but was very alert and dealt with Bale's free kick easily. He dealt with an under-hit back pass well too.
I'd be much happier if we were nitpicking over which forwards to pick!
On Westwood, I was watching him needless to say behind the goal. He had the wall organised but then it was moved back about 3 yards to the line the ref had drawn and he shouted a few instructions but no one listened and he gave up. They did move a taller player to the middle of the wall and a smaller one to the left I think. Much and all as I hate to admit it, he was flatfooted when it nestled in the net. I was surprised he didn't save it. On the positive side his distribution was better than Randolph and he fed the ball out to the full backs far more often than Randolph.
As to the game itself, we had a team which never played together before so I am neither shocked at the result nor at the performance. I was pleasantly surprised at the size of the crowd.
What did we learn, if we can learn anything from one game:
- (a) McGeady, who many wanted to start against Wales, is still the McGeady we love and who frustrates us. The standard in the Championship is dire (trust me) and a series of good games for Preston does not mean he is a new man. That said, he is one of the few Irish players who get us on our feet, only to sit down again. I still think he can produce that bit of magic so worth a squad place.
- (b) Hourihane - very reluctant to judge him on one game but did not have a great game and always took the easy option. Maybe with more experience, more confidence will come. Possible blame in the goal. Worth a squad place.
- (c) Doyle: it told us that he is not the player he once was and alas that injury he got playing for us really knocked him back. Not worth a squad place.
+ (d) Horgan put in some excellent crosses but with no natural striker they were wasted.
+ (e) Continued tactic of pretending to take a short corner which draws two defenders away for our one man. Surprised everyone doesn't do this.
- (f) A lot of people were attending an international for the first time. You can imagine their thoughts on what they saw.
+ (g) Austria only drew at home to Finland. No world beaters either.
- (h) McLean was ineffective in the role given to him. + You have to admire his energy and determination.
- (i) Looks like we have to rely on a 34 year old playing in the second tier of English football for our inspiration and whom the management were originally ambivalent about.
- (j) What has happened to the Jeff Hendrick of the Euros ?
+++ We're joint top of the group with our main competitors still to come to us. We need to practice big time on set pieces because with the retirement of Robbie chances from open play will be at a premium.
Ah yeah, but at least the days of that bluffer Robbie Keane being in the squad are behind us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Looks like your lunch mates pretty much ended up being right, Owls.
The strikers issue is a problem. The consensus seems to be that Doyle should have been named in his last squad, but who on earth should we be picking in his place? Maybe time to try setting up cups of coffee with Patrick Bamford, Will Keane and Scott Hogan again!
Definitely not Rooney or Sheridan either. The obvious answer is Scott Hogan but that has all died down for some reason. Is he just not interested or is it just not discussed because he was injured at the time??Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
Another problem we have is how uncreative we are without someone like Hoolahan. Even worse is that people seem to forget that he will be 36 by the time we/if we qualify for the World Cup. We need someone coming through there too.
we have Long, Walters and Murphy to be fair - theres goals in that trio. And some other options (Pilkington, Sheridan spring to mind) available at senior and youth levels. I don't quite think we are as desperate as being made out. The issue is around creativity and the absence of creative spark in the middle three when we are down Hoolohan. Brady may grow into such a role for us. I don't think it is alarm bells quite yet.
The striker issue is just the most glaring one I think - it's far from the only one. I've been saying it for a while here; we've a shortage of players worse than I've known in almost 30 years following the team. People are (rightly) pointing out that Hoolahan is a big loss - but he's 34. Who's coming through to replace him? McGeady in the centre? Horgan, maybe? But he's a while away from Hoolahan's level of experience yet. O'Dowda? Not overly positive reviews about him here.Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
We still have very much the same team from the Euros, which was the oldest squad in the competition then and is a year older now. Our underage teams are largely poor, there's no professional league at home to develop players and the FAI think the LoI is great for providing ten senior internationals (including Horgan and Boyle now) when actually that's a really poor return.
I still think we're in for a long Scotland-esque spell in the doldrums.
30 and two 34 years old SkStu. We are in trouble very soon if MON doesn't solve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
35 in May which is even worse, and as I said above he will 36 by the time we get to Russia, that's if we get there.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Sure, I agree our medium to long term prospects don't look healthy but I think what I am saying is that there is time to turn it around. Long and Murphy have another 4-5 years left in them so we just need to bring in another two prospects during that time. In terms of this qualifying campaign, it looks like we have sufficient strength in depth to create and score the goals that will get us to the WC. Sorry, that was my context.
It is funny, I got challenged quite strongly before this campaign started for suggesting that post Euro16 was the right time to get our next level of players on board and primed (granted, my suggestions were founded on a very incorrect assumption that we wouldn't make the top 2 of this group). Most people who challenged felt that we should play our strongest and most experienced players to try and get us to Russia. So, I suppose we cant have it both ways. My preference has now changed massively. I think we need to go with what we know until the end of this qualification campaign and use all available friendly opportunities to bed in our less experienced players and, if we qualify, use early 2018 to bring more players through and on board.
Also, I agree with PineappleStu completely with respect to the FAI. They have a greater responsibility to the future of Irish football than the current management team. It is they who have failed to develop the league to a standard whereby we have ready talent to choose from and it is they who are not ensuring our young players are able to compete with other young players from around Europe and the World to be ready to make the leap from underage to Senior football in a professional league and it is they who continue to rely on a wing and a prayer that O'Neill can charm qualified but reluctant individuals into declaring for us.
And finally, I have been proclaiming that the end is near since 2007...I have been forced to recognize that sometimes this sh!t just sorts itself out and players come through. I don't think it is the right strategy (see my last paragraph) but so far it has kept us afloat.
There is a lot in what you say in an overall excellent post, but we have been scoring from open play post RK, including two in the finals Vs Sweden & Italy no less. Into this campaign and Hendrick, Coleman, Long & McClean have all registered from open play at key times in big games and some more than once and we have begun to beat higher ranked sides while registering more from play than set pieces. I think there is remarkable credit due to MON here, yes, it relies on Wes but at least he uses him properly, not like his predecessor who had us delivering unwatchable muck while telling us it had to be thus as we had no one good enough to play differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
We are joint top with Wales sent away having failed to beat us when they needed to and thought they would, and we wont have to field a side as weakened as that again unless an awful lot of bad luck comes our way. It was ugly, it threw away (temporarily I hope) the periodic green shoots of passing & possession focused play which have been beginning to emerge in our game, which have been so welcome to finally see. But we didn't lose and we could have still edged it.
Iceland was a hard watch, granted but if Hourihane doesn't duck - and I believe he has been given a very easy ride for that in reports and on here - then we draw, a clean sheet etc, small margins. There has seemingly been more discussion of KW's foot position etc than the guy in the wall, I repeat, in the effing wall, who ducked on his debut for his country. MON mentioned it though. But there we go, on and up.
I feel positive, overall, and of course the second half of the campaign will define it more than the first, but we are doing well and while not playing total football, its not always caveman football either (the last two games and their mitigating circumstances apart). We are half decent, it's a nice time to be watching the side and we have waited a good bit to say that :) so I am enjoying it.
We will probably need to beat Serbia at home to top it, but then again we beat Germany. Long scored ... also from open play ;)
Well said to both of you's.
What is MON's contract situation? Is he a long haul manager now? If they went to Russia and didnt do well and went home after 3 games would he likely still be the man?
I don't think anyone is defending him ducking. It obviously shouldn't have happened. The nuance in KWs foot position maybe just makes for more interesting conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
He is 34 SkStu. I don't see him playing for Ireland at 38/39 years of age, I would hope not anyway. Might as well bring back Aldridge and Quinn if that is the case.:D Pretty bleak that we have just Long really. After that we need to hope that some young Irish striker turns out to be very good or that we recruit someone worthwhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Not sure what MON is supposed to do about it tbh. He can make more players, but it'll be 18 years before that impacts the senior team.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapAPony