Originally Posted by
Kingdom
I don't like Keogh or Pearce. I have no time for either of them, view them as serious liabilities and centre-back is the position on the pitch that I keep an eye out most. Now I'll concede that I've seen little of Pearce, to the extent I can't even mention the games I saw him playing for Reading, but I just don't like him.
Keogh I've seen more of, and he is ok, but for me, and I don't mean this to sound insulting, he at times appears to try to be too smart or clever. To be absolutely fair to him, I was open-minded about him up to the play-off final, and since his absolute brainfart that cost Derby, I've been set against him.
For me little things like that are enough to worry me. The play-off final is just as important to the club player as a qualifier is for a competitive International team and it's international players. It's when you expect players to be at their absolute maximum in the first minute, right through to the final penalty in a shootout at a championship. And Richard Keogh has that mark against him for me already. The difference between the two examples is that the club player gets another chance the next season, either by transfer or promotion. The international doesn't get afforded that same luxury.
That said I'm not too blinkered to change my opinion on a player if I feel it's merited. Unfortunately there aren't enough friendlies with nothing at stake (I'm referring to the absolute need to treat friendlies importantly for the next ranking seedings) whereby they both can get their chances to stake a proper claim.
The way I look at centre-back is that it's the out-field position whereby you need to have an absolute specialist; a player who knows that this is his single area of responsibility and once he does everything he needs to do, then generally his team will not lose. It would take something special from the opposing team to score. I've no problem with wonder-goals or just goals that deserve credit - or that don't require criticism of the centre-half/back 3,4 or 5.
The way I look at Richard Keogh brings me to the same opinion of McShane. I just never feel confidence in McShane's ability to not f*ck-up once a game. Again, I am biased by referencing (in my own mind at least) the couple of times he has let himself down, and I cannot shake those memories enough to credit him with being deserving of a place in the team, precisely because he keeps giving people ammunition.
Loyalty, ambition, commitment-to-the-cause are not traits/characteristics I'm judging here; they should be taken as a given - which I take the liberty of assuming each squad member has; it's awareness, positional sense, the ability to lead or follow the commands of the leading partner, dove-tailing with the corresponding full-back, offensive set-piece threat, defensive set-piece threat, concentration and so on.
And I'm not trying to be dramatic here by saying the following: it hurts seeing the paucity of options we have at centre-back. We've always had great defenders, and even when we've not had great individuals, we've had great partnerships. Ledger wasn't anything to write home about, but Jesus, with himself and Dunne together, you were never bricking it during international week. Breen and Cunningham, an excellent partnership that complemented each other.
We've even had a couple of fellas who were ****e but filled in for a period of time and performed admirably, such as Alan Kernaghan and Phil Babb.
It's also why I get annoyed when Delaney isn't in squads. Is he World-class, is he super-fast, is he young, no he's not. He does make mistakes, but he has qualities that I like in a centre-half; he generally keeps it simple, he doesn't get flustered, he is a tough b*stard, and he's very capable in the sky. I'd put him in the Mick McCarthy/Kevin Moran school of centre-backs, albeit not at Moran's level, and it annoys me to see him relegated to the role of extended squad filler.
And I wouldn't limit it to just centre-back either.
I'm not criticising the management just yet though, because I appreciate that this is still honeymoon territory and it will be one full campaign before they know what they need in their squads in terms of different characters, groups, and cliques etc. But we're Ireland. We do have a limited pool of players. And while this might be the reason why McShane and Kelly are constantly in squads, but I would go the other way and say that when we know what they offer, or don't offer depending on your viewpoint, then I am of the opinion that the management should implore themselves to give that 1 extra squad place to the likes of Matt Doherty or Brian Lenihan, or Jack Grealish, or Cillian Sheridan, or Samir Carruthers, or in this example: Shane Duffy.
That for me is why I put so much stock in the likes of Duffy, Williams, and others who show promise. Not because they're the finished article or anything like it, but because they've shown something, in the case of Duffy here, that they have more potential than their more experienced peers/contenders have ever shown. Sometimes, and it doesn't happen enough until managers are facing down the barrel of a gun (and even then things rarely change), sometimes you need to go out on a limb and have a look or give a chance to the fringe element, particularly in the case of Ireland, whereby we are totally at the discretion of managers in a league which has zero worry about the fate of our national team. Whereby the young Irish player doesn't get the nod at his club, but the young English or experienced European does. Sometimes the fate of one of our many potential players gets put astray for different reasons. I wouldn't encourage using the National team as a shop window for players, far from it, but I think in certain cases we could expand our horizons so to speak.
The North have had to do it numerous times, and a couple of times in the past, their campaigns have been not totally different to ours, with better individual results and just as much chance of qualifying (2008/2010 and possibly 2016)
Having said all that, I'm contradicting myself somewhat by taking a negative viewpoint on Pearce and Keogh without having seen them enough over a fair period of time, to draw a conclusion that is fair to them.