Ireland V Sweden(A) 22 March & Austria(H) - 26 March 2013 - World Cup 2014 Qualifiers

Bang on the money Stutts. As per.

Pretty much yourself and myself plus the usual brigade on here agree for the most part.

Whelan was awful last night. He runs as if he's constantly in porridge or treacle or oobleck.
His use of the ball was awful and I have no idea what he brought to the game except for his dead ball delivery. Even then we had McClean on the pitch for that too.

I disagree partly with your statement of Sammon's ineffectiveness. He was beyond brutal in the air but he did disrupt the Austrians no end and that's what we could only hope for when he was named in the side. Like Ward and McShane I hope to never see him or Whelan in an Irish shirt again but I will hold off on any disdain for Conor as he cannot be blamed for this.

The lack of leadership was shown up last night in the last 20'. If Robbie or Duff were on the pitch would they have allowed us to go back to 4-4-2? Would they have done a Paris and managed the game better?

That a manager of Trap's experience and obvious knowledge has shown up time and time again that he can't manage a game as it unfolds is telling. It hurts today knowing what we could have done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

We were only ahead at half time because of superior attrition. Attrition is not playing well, even if it works.

---

I think this is very unfair. We were excellent for most of the first half in my opinion. Controlled aggression but also a variety in our play, direct, down the wings and feeding Long, in particular, in behind. It is the best I have seen us play since Paris. It was more frantic than that night but I believe it's what the occasion demanded, pinning a relatively inexperienced side in their own half and forcing them into errors. Just a shame we couldn't maintain it and, yes, the lack of substitutions and wrong ones when they came had a huge part to play in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I'm actually more negative than Brian Kerr today

---

Is this not a bit of a red flag?

Plenty of follow up links on here...


http://www.facebook.com/groups/20295...okmark_t=group

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I'm actually more negative than Brian Kerr today, and that's not usual.

First up, the inclusion of Sammon was a nonsensical disaster. Poor lad, it's not his fault he's not up to the standard required. Trap is making us regret calling for him to go to more matches. He'd never have seen him otherwise. Giles' Herald preview predicted he'd be out of his depth and his inclusion signalled a return to hoofball afteer proper football on Friday - he was 100% right.

Many pundits including Kerr have said Whelan was good. I disagree. He offered nothing over and above the bare minimum a CM should be able to do, and at times he looked panicky on the ball and struggled with the basics. He was one paced too, but in fairness took some decent frees / corners. I'm usually the last one here defending Whelan but I thought he looked very limited. As soon as Trap stumbles on a more effective midfield, he rips it all up again. Why?

Kerr said we played well in parts. Very very few parts in my view, and generaly isolated bits of individual play rather than cohesive team play. The game plan was awful. We were only ahead at half time because of superior attrition. Attrition is not playing well, even if it works.

We might have scored a 3rd from another set piece but after their keeper made a good save that was it as far as I recall. From then we sat back and allowed them to outnumber us in key areas while Trap just looked on. I couldn't believe the utterly ineffective Sammon (why play hoofball if your centre-forward loses most of his aerial duels?) stayed on. Cox, Doyle or Hoolahan would all have been better options than leaving Sammon on, and I also couldn't believe Walters moved upfront to stay at 442.

Utterly bizarre and inept management. In fact our approach to the whole game was so devoid of what Giles always refers to as moral courage I'd say it was a cowardly showing from Trap. The players were all game, but the strategy & mindset was a cop out. I'm livid.

---

Spot on with pretty much everything there. Having said that I do think that Doyler is living off his reputation with us a little bit. His form at the moment is very poor for Wolves. Obviously, he would be 100 times better than Conor, as would Simon Cox, but I think that he isn't deserving of his place in the starting line up, at least on current form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I don't want to apportion too much blame on the players for the last goal, but what was Forde doing so far off his line, and whoever should have come on out on Alaba got the deflection that brought it up and under, without this it wouldn't have got over and under Forde. But thats only little details.

---

That's part of the problem. We got two draws this week against our playoff rivals. The players got all the credit for the first one, and were not held responsible for the second one. Is that right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barney

I'd have defended Trap up to now. He's done a good job for my money but last night, while not a disastrous performance, showed me he has to go.

The man has left a great legacy in football. His achievements are exceptional. He's done well with us, I'll remember him fondly if he goes. He deserves better than the treatment he got from Tony O'Donoghue who seems to think that he's Jeremy Paxman or someone. It saddens me that such a great football man has to take that rubbish from a non-entity like O'Donoghue. All that said, he seems incapable of making basic decisions correctly and has clearly had a lot of communication issues with this squad and for those reasons, I think his time has come.

---

The squad do as he asks, so clearly they understand what he wants from them. He has a proven record of getting the job done here over a qualification campaign, and we're still within striking range of second spot now. There are many nations in other groups who would love to be "only" level on points with half the campaign remaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shakermaker1982

Do you want to know who we have beaten in competitive matches at home under the Trap?

Cyprus
Georgia
Andorra
Macedonia
Armenia

---

We haven't beaten a so-called top side at home in 12 years. We haven't beaten a so-called top side away in 26 years. Does it matter? No. What matters is that we get enough results after 10 games to get a playoff, not who we beat to get there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Are you saying the Austrian equaliser was undeserved or implying it came as a surprise/out of the blue? Alaba's goal was on the cards for the last 20 minutes. They had 60 per cent of the overall possession. At one point towards the end of the game, a stat-bar popped up to inform us they were enjoying a ten-minute spell of 87 per cent of possession in their favour. We were clearly on the ropes. Throughout the game, they had 11 attempts on goal compared to our 6. And yet we were robbed, just because their goal came late? It doesn't matter when their goal was scored.

---

Of course it matters. If someone scores with 20 minutes to go, you can retrieve the situation. If they score with 20 seconds remaining, there's not a lot you can do to recover the ground.

We defended deep late on, as most coaches do with narrow leads these days. It didn't work this time, but not every team is going to score 30 yard deflected shots past our defence in injury time. For all their possession stats, that's what it ultimately required, as they couldn't get past us any other way.

Quote:

---

Seasoned qualifiers, you mean?... How do we compare?

---

We know they're seasoned qualifiers. Just like Belgium were before 1988, Hungary were before 1990, Denmark were before 1994, and Holland were before 2002. That didn't stop us getting the measure of them in the campaign we faced them.

Quote:

---

Even if we do manage to somehow finish second, we'll have to ensure that we're not the ninth-worst second-placed team of all the nine groups.

---

I'm not that worried about it at this stage, it will change. We faced similiar 4 years ago, and secured the 8th spot of the 8 qualifiers at the end of the campaign. In any case, we can only affect our own games, what other teams do in other groups is out of our hands.

It wasn't the result we wanted, but this is a 10-12 game slog, not a cup final. There will be highlights and setbacks along the way. After that, we can take stock of how we got on, and where we go from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

I think this is very unfair. We were excellent for most of the first half in my opinion. Controlled aggression but also a variety in our play, direct, down the wings and feeding Long, in particular, in behind. It is the best I have seen us play since Paris. It was more frantic than that night but I believe it's what the occasion demanded, pinning a relatively inexperienced side in their own half and forcing them into errors. Just a shame we couldn't maintain it and, yes, the lack of substitutions and wrong ones when they came had a huge part to play in that.

---

I thought it was caveman stuff. That the ball eventually found its way to dangerous players like McClean or Long was arrived at in as primitive a manner as even Ireland as ever produced, bar the occasional isolated move. I'm not saying we didn't do some decent stuff in the final third but it was sporadic and what I 'd call "low probability" stuff.

Bungle, like you I think an off-form Doyle still has so much more to offer than Sammon. There was one run he made against Italy last June that was so forceful, athletic and direct it'll stick in my mind for ages. A player doesn't lose those traits even if he's playing badly at his club.

Another thing about trap last night, he brought on a midfielder and moves walters up top, we win a free in the corner and he instructs players to stay back. Why would he bring on a midfielder, instruct walters to player as another forward if we aren't going to contest the ball up front at all and just wind down the clock, we were never going to go for another goal so why leave 2 up front? It makes no sense. I remember people lambasting kerr when we went 2-0 up for bringing on an extra midfielder, but that was very early in the second half, this was with 10 or so minutes to go...

I think he is arrogant and purposely does these things, in a "I am the boss" autocratic way, i know this sounds a bit reactionary but I just don't understand, surely he knew the right subs and when to make them last night? He cant be that bad a manager?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

That's part of the problem. We got two draws this week against our playoff rivals. The players got all the credit for the first one, and were not held responsible for the second one. Is that right?

---

I actually gave Trap credit too for Friday, even if he picked McCarthy by default. The players did everything asked of them last night, but in my opinion two of them shouldn't have started and the game was crying out for substitutions and any amateur could have seen that. I was getting inundated with texts during the second half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

It wasn't the result we wanted, but this is a 10-12 game slog, not a cup final. There will be highlights and setbacks along the way. After that, we can take stock of how we got on, and where we go from there.

---

True, but it's never the case where we get the pioints in the bag as insurance against a bad result. The Kerr campaign (France, Switzerland, Israel) was a classic example as was Trap's first two campaigns where we benefitted from our direct rival for second falling to pieces. I see this as being more like the Kerr group where we carelessly left points out there and paid the price. While I still think it's possible I'd rather be on 2 points-per-game now rather than hoping to be on 2 points-per-game later.

We can still get 6 points from Sweden & Austria but I think it'll take balls and conviction and I don't see us doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The squad do as he asks, so clearly they understand what he wants from them. He has a proven record of getting the job done here over a qualification campaign, and we're still within striking range of second spot now. There are many nations in other groups who would love to be "only" level on points with half the campaign remaining.

---

When I talk communication issues, I'm not talking in regards to tactics and stuff because nobody outside the camp knows if there is an issue in that respect. I'm more talking about the amount of players who have seemingly had issues with the management team in general. Yes some players are nancy boys who don't like criticism or things not going their way and yes the media blow a lot of this up but when you have as many players having problems with the management team as we have, then you have to look at what the common denominator is and it's Trap. It's worrying and I do believe that when he goes, some people will come out and say that they didn't enjoy playing under him and that the set-up was shambolic.

He does have a record of doing it over a campaign and his away record, for example, is excellent. But looking at last night, the manager was directly responsible for us dropping two points by making bizarre decisions or refusing to make common sense decisions. That's a sign for me that his time is up. We aren't badly positioned in the group but I think that with another manager, we'd have gotten two more points last night and I fear that it will happen again over the course of the rest of the qualifiers. For that reason, I'd like to see the Trap go with some dignity, having done what in my opinion is a good job, and someone else come in who won't make those mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

The lack of leadership was shown up last night in the last 20'. If Robbie or Duff were on the pitch would they have allowed us to go back to 4-4-2? Would they have done a Paris and managed the game better?

---

No but that was what happened because Sammon got tired. I think he was supposed to be operating ala Keane and as he did in the first half - deep (on the half way line) pressuring their deeper midfielders as well as centre backs.

Understandably run into the ground, he was begging to be subbed off. Doyle was the ideal man to play in that role, bothering Austrian players clearly uncomfortable with being pressured on the ball, as well as someone with the experience and ability to hold a ball up when it came his way in wide channels. By far the worst single decision of the night for me, even ahead of staying 442.

With two strikers pressing high up we could have got away with keeping four in the middle and more experience would have seen us through too. But it shouldn't be that way - a manager should seize the initiative and change things to secure a result instead of crossing fingers because he doesn't like to disrupt things lest the changes don't work.

I went off Kerr for that reason and it's the reason I'm off Trap. Someone else said a lack of moral courage - and I'd agree 100 per cent.

It doesn't matter if they(the strikers) are pressing high up, if they are out of position and the midfielders are ahead of them. Which is what the case was last night for the last 10 minutes or so, they were pressing high up near the centre circle but the ball and opposition were around halfway between the circle and the 18 yard box. What it then requires is another midfielder lying deep, blocking route 1 and trying to break up and track the triangle passes in behind, which didn't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

It doesn't matter if they(the strikers) are pressing high up, if they are out of position and the midfielders are ahead of them. Which is what the case was last night for the last 10 minutes or so, they were pressing high up near the centre circle but the ball and opposition were around halfway between the circle and the 18 yard box. What it then requires is another midfielder lying deep, blocking route 1 and trying to break up and track the triangle passes in behind, which didn't happen.

---

I don't disagree with that in general, but the bit in bold I'm not convinced about. The Austrians were ineffectual most of the game at getting the ball back to front, particularly because a bit of pressure from our attackers and midfielders lessened their time (they were also fairly poor on the ball at times).

In the last ten however the Austrians were often able to play the ball across the back four with ease, with only Walters closing in and the other players lying deep. Sammon, at this point, was cruelly off the pace and miles behind the play although doggedly trying to close in. When they had the ball in their own half our shape was ok, bit ragged, but two banks of four was vaguely there. Problem was our tired players couldn't step up quick enough, particularly from the front.

However when they easily bypassed our one-up-front (as it pretty much was at that point) plenty of space opened up for them to unpick our midfield.

I don't mind whether Sammon was withdrawn for, say, Brady and Green chucked in for a 451. Think that would have been as effective. I'm just saying Trap had options. If he was so compelled to play 442 and wanted two up front because they had been effective in maintaining a high pressing line then I say ok - but there's no excuse for asking a guy totally off his feet to do that job.

I think with Doyle on the pitch he could've dropped in to that 'Keane in Stockholm' role (as Sammon did in the first half) and pressed not only centre halves but also covered back into the top point of a three man midfield triangle.

As you say I'd have went 451 too, particularly because we had zero composure at that point and the beloved 'two banks of four' were out the window. But even a simple substitution like that could've made the difference on the night, because even with us looking ragged and ill-composed, Austria wern't doing all that much. Almost any action would have been better than inaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAFC_rdfl

Now as annoying as most of the in-game comments from you were :p, the above hits the nail on the head.
To me it looked like Walters was expecting the fulltime whistle (crowd were whistling at the time), but there was still 2 mins left, he must have known that. He was waving arms as if to say - blow it up ref. Why the hell wasn't he busting an albeit already knackered gut to try get back into a defensive position.
A huge amount of the equaliser comes down to lads being so knackered from the style of play - chasing and pressing - that they just couldn't keep the concentration levels up high enough. Whelan was flat on his feet for the last 20 mins. If that Austria move had of been earlier in the game Alaba wouldn't have had the time he got. Tired body = tired mind unfortunately. The 3 subs available should have been used before the 80th minute. sickened

---

Actually I think he was holding his arms up in exasperation as to why McCarthy had gone racing out of position s wondering who was going to plug the big hole left, yes we could have done with more fresh legs on, I mean trap could have made a sub just to give them a minutes rest.
But that's history now, I was just annoyed I had lost my stream and was desperately searching for confirmation of our 'win' and could not believe it when we conceded in the last minute.

I am not really criticising Walters here, quite the opposite here, he is actually showing some sort of leadership
in say "what the feck is going on"

I'd disagree and say for the last ten minutes we had no shape. Our two strikers were lost up front nowhere near the game of play.

That was probably down to tired minds and tired bodies. The whole formation was disjointed. That's also why I said we had to bring on a deep lying midfielder and keep walters tight, or change doyle for sammon or both. Long was the only one capable of still being able to run and harry.

Sorry i missed the last 2 paragraphs. You were suggesting to continue playing a 4-4-2 - i'd agree with what you said there actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I actually gave Trap credit too for Friday, even if he picked McCarthy by default. The players did everything asked of them last night, but in my opinion two of them shouldn't have started and the game was crying out for substitutions and any amateur could have seen that. I was getting inundated with texts during the second half.

---

He made changes. He brought on a defensive midfielder with 10 minutes to go. Any coach in that situation would have done the same. Whether the replacement or who he replaced is good enough is a different discussion, but even the most inept of players can do a job effectively for 10 minutes when called upon.

Quote:

---

We can still get 6 points from Sweden & Austria but I think it'll take balls and conviction and I don't see us doing it.

---

I don't think we'll get 6 points, we may not even need them. The way this group is going, 4 may be enough. Last time, 2 points from the Russia-Slovakia and Italy-Bulgaria double headers proved to be enough for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barney

When I talk communication issues, I'm not talking in regards to tactics and stuff because nobody outside the camp knows if there is an issue in that respect. I'm more talking about the amount of players who have seemingly had issues with the management team in general. Yes some players are nancy boys who don't like criticism or things not going their way and yes the media blow a lot of this up but when you have as many players having problems with the management team as we have, then you have to look at what the common denominator is and it's Trap. It's worrying and I do believe that when he goes, some people will come out and say that they didn't enjoy playing under him and that the set-up was shambolic.

He does have a record of doing it over a campaign and his away record, for example, is excellent. But looking at last night, the manager was directly responsible for us dropping two points by making bizarre decisions or refusing to make common sense decisions. That's a sign for me that his time is up. We aren't badly positioned in the group but I think that with another manager, we'd have gotten two more points last night and I fear that it will happen again over the course of the rest of the qualifiers. For that reason, I'd like to see the Trap go with some dignity, having done what in my opinion is a good job, and someone else come in who won't make those mistakes.

---

We have defended deep under previous coaches, and conceded goals in injury time. It's not something unique to Trap and it happens in football from time to time. The equaliser was an outstanding strike from a top player, but it needed a deflection to go in. If it didn't, we would have got the three points. Three wouldn't have put us through, and the point doesn't knock us out. The objective remains the same.

I'm sure there will be some who will say what they want about the Trap era, but you can't keep 40 players happy all the time. We have had player/coach fallouts for decades. Whether they respect him or hate him, they're professionals with a job to do for this country and to do it to the best of their ability, regardless what they think of him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I'd disagree and say for the last ten minutes we had no shape. Our two strikers were lost up front nowhere near the game of play.

That was probably down to tired minds and tired bodies. The whole formation was disjointed. That's also why I said we had to bring on a deep lying midfielder and keep walters tight, or change doyle for sammon or both. Long was the only one capable of still being able to run and harry.

---

We're probably closer to agreement than we seem. I think the problem was that when the Austrians had the ball in their half, we had less time to set up because they had a far easier time of it playing short passes around our tired forwards, and playing in midfielders who had the run of the middle third since our deep attacker and two midfielders had become totally disconnected.

Because of this I'm convinced Doyle on for Sammon would have been boost in the last ten, even if we did stay 442, because he'd would have been able to harry both centre backs and midfielders (dropping a bit deeper) and hold the ball up better than anyone else going.

Still, absolutely, skin that cat with a 451 but my point was doing almost anything made more sense than doing nothing.

Just thinking more - Glenn Whelan should've took more responsibility in regaining our shape. I was quite pleased when he demanded to take a corner following a poor McClean effort, and it set up our second. Good leadership I thought. But when your most vocal player in telling people to step out is James McClean, there's a problem. McCarthy should learn something from it too but Whelan's the senior guy - regardless of quality he's knows the system and knew what was required. Our lack of composure was, again, shocking throughout.

O'Shea's role as captain and organiser of the defence hasn't been mentioned yet. He needed to push the back 4 out last night but retreated. The Trap should be barking orders from the side to push up but O'Shea has enough experience to know what was needed. Christ even at the level I play at if we're holding on to a lead but under the cosh I try & get the defence to push up even a few metres. It makes such a difference and is a no brainer really. McClean tried to bark at them to be fair to the lad. He could see what was happening along with 30,000 punters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

He made changes. He brought on a defensive midfielder with 10 minutes to go. Any coach in that situation would have done the same. Whether the replacement or who he replaced is good enough is a different discussion, but even the most inept of players can do a job effectively for 10 minutes when called upon.

---

He effectively swapped Green for Walters and Walters for Long. Net net he changed very little and of any one of 5 possible chnanges this one made no sense. We needed to keep someone like Walters where he was and if Green was to come on (fine by me) it should have been to track Alaba, or to help plug the gap in the middle. I think very few managers would have played out the substitution in the manner Trap did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shakermaker1982

O'Shea's role as captain and organiser of the defence hasn't been mentioned yet. He needed to push the back 4 out last night but retreated. The Trap should be barking orders from the side to push up but O'Shea has enough experience to know what was needed. Christ even at the level I play at if we're holding on to a lead but under the cosh I try & get the defence to push up even a few metres. It makes such a difference and is a no brainer really. McClean tried to bark at them to be fair to the lad. He could see what was happening along with 30,000 punters.

---

Do you mean organiser of the midfield? The defence were organised fine all game, it was midfield that was pushing further back. I don't know how much O'Shea was barking at them but it's hard for the midfield to push up when we've got two strikers standing up the pitch, which reinforces the importance of having a strong decision-maker (preferably a captain) in midfield in the modern game.