John Giles resignation and Stan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I'd argue that Keane was never a holding midfielder either.

---

He wasn't before the latter part of his career but at that time he would almost always have a holding midfielder like Nicky Butt or Kinsella in beside him. An interesting stat that shows the change in Keane's roles at club level is that it took him over 50 games to score his 50th goal for Man Utd.

I agree that neither Barton or Ireland are holders but chances were Barton played that role when they both played in the centre. Barton scored 6 goals last season and Reyna was his partner for 5 of those with Ireland starting none of the 6.

I just think every manager gives 1 player the holding role in every match these days.

I totally agree with Eirebhoy on this. In an ideal world you would have 2 all round midfielders who have the talent and the tactical awareness and discipline to be an all rounder in midfield. But most players are not Roy Keans, or Vieras who can do it all in there. So what do they do they play one like Frings or Makele and another like Lampard or Gerrard. Look at Liverpool they dont even trust Gerrard to play the 2nd more attacking midfielder and they play two sitting players one to break it up and the other to be more constructive.

I think most managers do, but club managers have the luxury of being able to buy one.

Just to pick on above a bit: I'd never classify Kinsella as having been a holder. Keane & Kinsella is a classic example of what I believe is important: a ball winner (Keane) and a ball user (Kinsella). This is subtly different to a holder & attacker combo. In my mind anyway!

The point I like to make about Stephen Ireland is that he's most effective further up the pitch. He can pick & time that pass that gets his forwards in. However, he's too lightweight to impose himself on central mid. Barton on the other hand is an energetic box-to-box player but by no means a holder. The players we have most like him are S. Reid & maybe Jon Douglas. We have several players in the mould of Ireland.

I'd love to sit down with Guus Hiddink and ask him how he'd deal with our midfield. I'd like to hear what he thinks of our options man-for-man and how this stacks up against his Australia team that admittedly had quality in some key positions, but bog-standard at best in others (Luke Wiltshire anyone?). I saw them in the flesh against Italy and was impressed.

If you have 2 quality midfielders it's not an issue Petit/Viera was the classic of modern times when one went the other sat our problem and many other teams is that it's difficult to get 1 quality midfielder in there never mind 2!

Someone used the Germany example but Ballack never sits so Frings has to when Frings does go forward they are exposed unless one of the wide players drifts in, I seen it during the WC when Lahm & the other full back went forward they were effectively playing 253

yeah but stuttgart there are people on here who dont even believe in tactics or managers and sure its just all about the players going and doing there stuff.

I spent the whole Italy vs Australia game watching jealously, thinking: Irishman X is better than that Aussie, almost throughout the team. Admittedly I thought Cahill was absolute class and Grella, who I'd never heard of before, was a brick wall in front of the back 3. Kewell didn't play.

it's difficult to get 1 quality midfielder in there never mind 2!

So maybe use 3 to compensate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I spent the whole Italy vs Australia game watching jealously, thinking: Irishman X is better than that Aussie, almost throughout the team. Admittedly I thought Cahill was absolute class and Grella, who I'd never heard of before, was a brick wall in front of the back 3. Kewell didn't play.

it's difficult to get 1 quality midfielder in there never mind 2!

So maybe use 3 to compensate?

---

Not wanting to open up a what if debate but wasn't Cahill on course to declare for us when Mick was in charge?

We effectively played with 3 against Germany because Keane was so deep, I felt it just meant we never held the ball when it went forward.
If you play 3/5/2 it can work well or if you have someone like Lampard who will make runs from deep it can work, maye using Stephen Reid in that position still think we'd be too defensive.

It only works if you have a really really good coach who know how to get the player to carry out his thoughts someone like Hiddink. I would not have the faith in Staunton to try something like that. I feel Staunton is a 4-4-2 role up your sleeves lads get stuck in sort of guy and we are going to pay dear for that. The worse your players the better your manager needs to be.

Indeed, if we had someone like Hiddink I would be more confident in playing a different system as it is with an inexperienced coach and mainly average players who for the most part play 442 week in week out I actually think varying too much from the basics could backfire.
442 with a central player to sit and not cross the halfway line, 2 wide players who need to attack but also have the discipline to track back, that is as complicated as I would make it!

I thought Kerr bemoaned the lack of flexibility of the team to adjust to anything beyond 442 after we played Italy.
Stan had a few precious qualities as a player (rather than precious few)
as well as a class player, he was a leader an organiser, a positive influence and the never say die hard player who you would want to have sniffing around the last chance to save a game.
I'd expect that that's part of what Stan is giving/communicating to this team and aiming to see done on the pitch. The football brainy part of the equation should be Robson.
I'd hope that Robson is chomping at the bit to get himself actively involved in these 2 games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

yeah but stuttgart there are people on here who dont even believe in tactics or managers and sure its just all about the players going and doing there stuff.

---

And whats wrong with that?
At the end of the day its a game to be enjoyed not to be turned into something approximating train spotting.
keeping things simple and having a good manager are not mutually exclusive as two World Cups and a European Championships for ourselves proved.

Cause you only get away with having a bad manager if you have really top class players. Also we did not have a bad manager under Charlton. He was a manager who thought he had more limited players than he did have but he got them playing to a system that defenite and never changed but it was cohesive. No team is going to win anything without tactics and system in place. The worse your players are the more you need a good system and tactics in place.

why do you think a manager who send his players out to do their stuff is a bad manager?
I just think some of ye would be better off talking bout instruction manuals for DVD recorders as talking about football. same differance in the way ye approach it. people always like to think they no more than anyone....

I dont know more than people on here but I do recognise that some managers know more than others and I also recognise that managers make a difference when dealing with a squad of 22 players. There is motiviation, organisation, training and many other aspects to deal with. Its not just enough to go in and say go and play. Especially if you have an average group of players like we do. Greece are proof of what can be achieved with very average players by international standards. The manager got them playing to a system that suited them and they did well as a result. Man for man they were nowhere near some of the other teams but through organisation they won the cup. There are numerous examples of this.

Of course if you have 11 very talented players V 11 lessser talented players and both are organised the same talent will always win. But this is not always the case and a team needs to give them the best chance of winning by being well organised and having a clear plan set out for them.

yeah
tune in the stations on your DVD recorder......yadda yadda yadda.....:rolleyes:

Bill if you dont like to debate why do you come on here. Seems pretty childish to post a response like that. Its seems if you cant come up with a decent response you resort to child like school yard responses. Also I did not realise you were George Costanzas girlfriend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

when he gets it right(and I think for the first 25 minutes against the germans he got it spot on) I will be as happy as everyone else.

---

Right - so you agree that he should be given a fair crack of the whip then? You were saying before that he should have gone after the Germany game (which would of course prevent him from having opportunity to get it right!) I agree with you about Keane's performances for Ireland in the last few matches - he does try silly over-complicated things when he should be taking the simpler option. But I was commenting specifically on his performance against Liverpool last weekend. I saw the game. You didn't! To try and maintain that the scoreline somehow tells you something about one player's performance is a bit false ... players play well and don't score. Players play well and lose. To actually state that it is irrelevant that you didn't actually see the game is very very naive.

Also surely dropping a player is a form of managment also. Or should you just let the players walk into the dressing room and sure pick the team themselves. Oh wait how do you know what squad you have as you need a manager to pick the squad also. Sure why dont we just let anybody who is qualified to play for ireland come into the dressing room and and we have a fight to see who plays.


This reductionist approach to managment is some feable attempt by Bill to suggest he is a rebble who does not fall into the anal analysis of football which is currently in vogue. I agree that people can be over the top and look too much into tactics. However you do need a manager how knows what he is doing, who has clear ideas of what systems he wants his team to use both in general play and at set pieces. Nearly every walk of life bar art , you need a manager to be successful and even then in music successful bands usually make it through good management.

Also your feable attempt at humour does not work either and just shows the post up for a lack of knowledge of any part of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

Bill if you dont like to debate why do you come on here.

---

just to hear from you love...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

Also surely dropping a player is a form of managment also. Or should you just let the players walk into the dressing room and sure pick the team themselves. Oh wait how do you know what squad you have as you need a manager to pick the squad also. Sure why dont we just let anybody who is qualified to play for ireland come into the dressing room and and we have a fight to see who plays.

This reductionist approach to managment is some feable attempt by Bill to suggest he is a rebble who does not fall into the anal analysis of football which is currently in vogue. I agree that people can be over the top and look too much into tactics. However you do need a manager how knows what he is doing, who has clear ideas of what systems he wants his team to use both in general play and at set pieces. Nearly every walk of life bar art , you need a manager to be successful and even then in music successful bands usually make it through good management.
Also your feable attempt at humour does not work either and just shows the post up for a lack of knowledge of any part of the game.

---

Youve kinda taken your own meaning from what I was saying and ran with it and now ya seem to have gone a bit far with it....:D you should probably keep your "footballers fighting in dressing room over jerseys" fantasy to yourself. I thought you didnt do humour neil so why comment on my attempts?
Basically I do think people over analyse football. its essentially a simple game and the genius of great managers is arguably that they keep it simple or convey an illusion of simplicity to the players. actually last night the panel on rte just backed up my point. You and eirebhouy couldnt think outside the box enough to even contemplate the fact that we might not play a Carsley type player. a holding midfielder in your book, a limited player in mine. try stick to what is actually said Neil and not to what you beleive is being implied.