Full Videos of Old Irish Matches

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Of course Kelly banjaxed one winger who had to be replaced but suprisingly Van Gaal replaced the other winger Zenden (with Hassselbank?), he was also missing two or three starting players. I think that Nederlands squad had the bones of Van Gaals classic Ajax team from the mid 1990s.
That had to be one the poorest back 4s that ever took the field for us, Kelly was muck all the game, Stan was arthritic, Dunne was almost a virgin and Harte looked like he could be skinned when one on one with Zenden in a nano second.
I had forgotten how much we hoofed the ball up field, we badly needed a player like Houghton in midfield.
The ref was also good to us that day, his good decisions went in our favour, the penalty shout (also a Dunne hand ball?). He then played advantage, not just once but twice in a row in the lead up to our goal, normally a ref would have blown up for the 2nd foul but this German ref had vision.

---

You know it's funny, in the moments leading up that Dutch penalty shout (and I agree with above, Van Nistelrooy runs into Given when the keeper isn't even looking at him) Ireland are trying to play out from the back and get caught. And Jim Beglin is annoyed: "We're acting like Brazil" he says.

That's what I mean when I say the side had a bit of confidence we've often lacked. Plenty of hoofball back then, but more today. We could do with more playing out.

Are edits required to remove any George Hamilton stereotypical remarks about McGrath, Babb or Phelan's 'engrained' ability to handle the humid heat of USA 94 better than other teammates?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Are edits required to remove any George Hamilton stereotypical remarks about McGrath, Babb or Phelan's 'engrained' ability to handle the humid heat of USA 94 better than other teammates?

---

no ....

Did George Black up to cope with the heat himself ?

I suppose we can safely say without accusation of stereotyping, that Mexico handled the heat of Orlando much better than Ireland.

You can get a sense of the optimism around the team's potential to perform at USA94 in the aftermath of the first game in the BBC post match interviews with the players and pundits, more so with Liam Brady.
With Cas injured and Quinn out, the attacking (and tactical) options were more limited in later games v Norway and Netherlands.
Though I haven't watched the last 16 game since that fateful day.

Watched the Euro 88 programmes back there. Was kind of funny when Charlton was knocking Bonner after the England game, saying he saved us a few times but was generally making up for his own mistakes. He basically wanted Bonner to act as a sweeper keeper to compensate for McCarthy's lack of pace against Lineker. Bonner kept holding back but ended up saving the few one on ones.

The save from Lineker's header at the death was seriously close, his positioning looked questionable and was very fortunate to push it around the post rather than into the corner of the net.

There was a programme with Houghton and Whelan chatting to Darragh Maloney before it. Whelan was basically saying we'd gone as far as we could go, that they were spent against the Holland. He blamed the sessions after first two games a bit too, without being critical of them. Seemed very acceptant considering we were shafted by a late offside goal!

Houghton was similar, he said they got what they deserved overall... a win, a draw and a defeat. Reading between the lines it seems he thinks we should've lost to England, beat USSR and drew with the Holland. Saw a programme with Frank Stapleton a few weeks ago and got the same kind of vibe, amazing really there isn't a bigger feeling of injustice amongst them. Even Wim Kieft admitted the goal shouldn't have stood recently apparenty.

Houghton also said the performance against the USSR was the best he was involved in. Given the earlier discussion on this thread we seem to save our best for the Soviets. All the more impressive with Paul McGrath unavailable for the match, Sheedy slotting in instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Watched the Euro 88 programmes back there.

---

watched it on Saturday and while I enjoyed it i thought they should have shown far more action. That performance against the USSR was brilliant with a number of great chances created and at least one stone wall penalty not given to us but they barely showed anything of the action from that game. wasted opportunity i thought.

I remember all the talk being how tired we were going into the Holland game but we played quite well and limited the eventual winners to few chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Watched the Euro 88 programmes back there. Was kind of funny when Charlton was knocking Bonner after the England game, saying he saved us a few times but was generally making up for his own mistakes. He basically wanted Bonner to act as a sweeper keeper to compensate for McCarthy's lack of pace against Lineker. Bonner kept holding back but ended up saving the few one on ones.

The save from Lineker's header at the death was seriously close, his positioning looked questionable and was very fortunate to push it around the post rather than into the corner of the net.

There was a programme with Houghton and Whelan chatting to Darragh Maloney before it. Whelan was basically saying we'd gone as far as we could go, that they were spent against the Holland. He blamed the sessions after first two games a bit too, without being critical of them. Seemed very acceptant considering we were shafted by a late offside goal!

Houghton was similar, he said they got what they deserved overall... a win, a draw and a defeat. Reading between the lines it seems he thinks we should've lost to England, beat USSR and drew with the Holland. Saw a programme with Frank Stapleton a few weeks ago and got the same kind of vibe, amazing really there isn't a bigger feeling of injustice amongst them. Even Wim Kieft admitted the goal shouldn't have stood recently apparenty.

Houghton also said the performance against the USSR was the best he was involved in. Given the earlier discussion on this thread we seem to save our best for the Soviets. All the more impressive with Paul McGrath unavailable for the match, Sheedy slotting in instead.

---

Where was the offside?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Where was the offside?

---

Van Basten was a mile offside. I don't think the 'not interfering with play' thing carried much/any weight back then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbyrne

watched it on Saturday and while I enjoyed it i thought they should have shown far more action. That performance against the USSR was brilliant with a number of great chances created and at least one stone wall penalty not given to us but they barely showed anything of the action from that game. wasted opportunity i thought.

---

Yeah that's true. Even 15/20 minute highlights of each of the three games would've been decent. The USSR match is here with Russian commentary I think, must check it out myself - https://footballia.net/matches/irela...iet-union-euro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Van Basten was a mile offside. I don't think the 'not interfering with play' thing carried much/any weight back then?

---

How was the offside rule at that time, there was a Dutch player offside when the ball was struck forward into the box but he looked to have scarpered himself onside by the time Kieft got his head on the ball,
or was Van Basten off camera (mostly)?

I thought it was handball early on when the ball rebounded off the Dutch post to hit a defender on the arm, the (timeless) unnatural position argument, well seeing as the defender lunged at it, sort off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Van Basten was a mile offside. I don't think the 'not interfering with play' thing carried much/any weight back then?

---

Don't forget if we go with that, Sheedy's goal v England was offside too.

Swings and roundabouts a bit

Wasn't Kieft himself offside by the law at the time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Don't forget if we go with that, Sheedy's goal v England was offside too.

Swings and roundabouts a bit

---

Probably but you wouldn't expect Houghton & Whelan to be thinking along those lines, having been ten minutes away from a European semi final. I was just surprised at how level headed they are about the whole thing, almost to a fault!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

How was the offside rule at that time, there was a Dutch player offside when the ball was struck forward into the box but he looked to have scarpered himself onside by the time Kieft got his head on the ball,
or was Van Basten off camera (mostly)?

---

I was informed that the rule at the time was that once the ball was kicked forward (by Koeman) that if a player was offside, then it's offiside. Can't confirm or deny for sure. But Van Basten was a few yards offside at the time Koeman struck the ball forward. He does seem to have wiggled back to an onside position by the time Kieft gets his head on it.

Kieft himself seems pretty sure too - https://www.independent.ie/sport/whe...-39267208.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wim Kieft

“But on this day, I needed to wait for crosses from the side. Just one. That was my job. That was all I needed to do. I came in even earlier than expected. Just to stand in front and wait for a ball. Wait for a chance. And then it came.

“As,” he adds almost apologetically, “you already know.”

EVEN though he is still involved in football, the talk of THAT goal tires him; he scored nearly 200 at the rate of a goal every other game in a gilded career (11 in 42 for his country); but for Irish people, it is the only thing he is remembered for.

“I thought it was going wide,” the 57-year-old says, almost wanly.

“The ball had such a strange effect. Ronald Koeman didn’t hit the shot that well and it had an enormous spin on it. I was just hitting it on a reflex, more or less. I thought it was going wide but then it spun back. I watched it all the way. It was such a strange feeling. I guess sometimes you need a bit of luck, eh?”

And then he looked at his strike partner, standing, offside. And then the linesman, standing, inert.

“Van Basten was offside,” he confirms. “Definitely offside.”

A job for VAR, you suggest? “Nee, Nee, Nee!” he protests in his native tongue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Wasn't Kieft himself offside by the law at the time?

---

Kieft was okay I'd say. Best angle here at 1:25:30 - https://footballia.net/matches/ireland-netherlands-euro

I guess it was the olden days as well.

eir Sport were showing England v Argentina from 1986 at the weekend; I caught the last ten minutes. Terry Fenwick cleaned out someone (don't think it was Maradona) and wasn't even booked. Jimmy Hill on co-commentary was quite calm in saying that it was a ridiculous challenge which needed to be stamped out of the game, and was disappointed Fenwick wasn't sent off for it. I know it's not entirely comparable, but you'd never hear that sort of balanced un-hyped commentary these days. Add in 30 years of distance, and I don't think it's a big deal for the players to be relaxed about it.

The full game is here btw; goal is from 1:23:30. Two angles - side on and the replay from behind the goal. Kieft isn't in shot in either angle for the initial shot, but it does seem from his movement in the replay that he's onside. Van Basten doesn't appear in the main angle either, but he's behind the main defence in the replay and you've to assume (from other camera angles) that there was no full-back playing him on. I don't think there was, which would make him offside, but that's hardly scientific or clear. I don't know what the exact offside rule was back then either (but I think there was no "interfering with play" alright - hence McLoughlin being offside for Sheedy's strike). You can also see someone (Moran?) collapse to the ground when the goal goes in, so it certainly hurt at the time.

Interesting also to hear Jimmy Hill about two minutes before the goal comment on the Dutch bringing on four strikers to chase the win. Maybe that was the inspiration for van Gaal in 2001?

Edited my post there Stu as some new information was brought to light during my investigation. :D

My link has no sign in requirement :)

But yeah, agree Kieft was almost certainly onside and van Basten was probably offside.

That said, having seen the offside decisions in the Italia 90 repeats, it seems they weren't far off random tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Add in 30 years of distance, and I don't think it's a big deal for the players to be relaxed about it.

---

A big deal? no. Surprising? I would say definitely yes. These things often haunt fans forever, let alone the players involved. I don't mean to go all Roy Keane on it but the overriding feeling was that they were delighted they didn't just make up the numbers, and very little regret. Just think it's a little unusual given how close they were, not once but twice. Beating England probably made up for an awful lot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

These things often haunt fans forever

---

That's a bit hyperbolic I think. OK, I was young enough at the time (it was my first finals), but I think if it haunts you as a fan forever, you've got your life priorities a bit wrong!

The players, sure, it would impact them more. But what's the point in being angry or irritated 30 years on?