Ireland line-up under Trapattoni

I watched the Roma - Madrid match tonight and Roma played the 4-2-3-1 system that they played last season.

----------------Doni-----------------
Panucci----Mexes---Juan----Cassetti
--------De Rossi----Pizarro-----------
----Giuly-----Perrotta-----Mancini----
---------------Totti-----------------


I've seen loads of Roma with this system and I'd love to see us play it. They sit back and play on the break but it's far from boring football. And they haven't got the strongest defence in the world either while Pizarro is very much an Andy Reid type player. As well as that you're not going to see Totti, Mancini and Giuly chasing back much off the ball. Roma still had 3 players on Robben at times without getting caught short in other areas.

i think im with ye on this EB, at least to try it out, the only problem is whats the midfield?!

reid, reid, mcgeady, ireland, duff?
keane?

Keane plays too deep as it is so that would be like a 424 with no actual striker!

Just tell Keane to stay up front. :) Totti's certainly not a textbook lone striker either but it works. Even then he still drops deep often. It works when you play on the counter. Probably not if you want to dominate a game against a weaker team.

Well I heard from a good source that hes going to play a 2-1-2-1-2-1-2 with both Given and Henderson in goals. Sounds good to me.

Danger here George Hamilton dicusses Opera and Trappattoni.


http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

i think im with ye on this EB, at least to try it out, the only problem is whats the midfield?!

reid, reid, mcgeady, ireland, duff?
keane?

Keane plays too deep as it is so that would be like a 424 with no actual striker!

---

I'd be inclined to drop one or even two out of McGeady, Duff, Ireland Andy Reid, Keane....

One, it gives us a chance to absorb hits in availibility while minimising impact. We're seldon if ever gonna have all five of our technically best players available to us so I think it's dnagerous to base a formation around them
Two, to Promote competition and avoid complacency. For example I want Andy Reid and Steven Ireland, Or Duff and McGeady to know they're battling for the same spot in the starting 11.
Three, most importantly for me, I think we'd need to re-inforce that line up of our best technical players with more than just SReid and a Back four if we're gonna compete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr_peepee

I'd be inclined to drop one or even two out of McGeady, Duff, Ireland Andy Reid, Keane....

One, it gives us a chance to absorb hits in availibility while minimising impact. We're seldon if ever gonna have all five of our technically best players available to us so I think it's dnagerous to base a formation around them

---

I have to say I completely disagree with this. You line up with your best team and worry about injuries or suspensions later. We'll need our best players players playing if we're to qualify. You can always give the potential replacements game time in friendlies or in one of the easier competitive games. Besides, our best 11 needs to play with each other as much as possible to learn how to adjust to each other's playing style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr_peepee

Two, to Promote competition and avoid complacency. For example I want Andy Reid and Steven Ireland, Or Duff and McGeady to know they're battling for the same spot in the starting 11.

---

I agree that we need with this, but we have a competent manager in Trapattoni and he should be able to discourage these traits without necessarily dropping players. Besides, I don't think either of those two players should be competing for the same spot. I assume Ireland will play in the hole behind the striker, and Andy Reid will play as a central midfielder or as a deep lying playmaker, and there's no reason why Duff and McGeady can't play on opposite flanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr_peepee

Three, most importantly for me, I think we'd need to re-inforce that line up of our best technical players with more than just SReid and a Back four if we're gonna compete.

---

I think at home, when we (hoepfully) should be dominating possession, it shouldn't be a problem, but maybe away from home we could do with a more orthodox holding midfielder than Steven Reid (although from people's comments on here it sounds like he's excelled at that role whenever he's played it this season). If we get the right tactics then we could still potentially play this line up; if everyone in midfield was pressing heavily then it might prevent us from needing a holding midfielder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmurphyc

I have to say I completely disagree with this. You line up with your best team and worry about injuries or suspensions later. We'll need our best players players playing if we're to qualify. You can always give the potential replacements game time in friendlies or in one of the easier competitive games. Besides, our best 11 needs to play with each other as much as possible to learn how to adjust to each other's playing style.



I agree that we need with this, but we have a competent manager in Trapattoni and he should be able to discourage these traits without necessarily dropping players. Besides, I don't think either of those two players should be competing for the same spot. I assume Ireland will play in the hole behind the striker, and Andy Reid will play as a central midfielder or as a deep lying playmaker, and there's no reason why Duff and McGeady can't play on opposite flanks.



I think at home, when we (hoepfully) should be dominating possession, it shouldn't be a problem, but maybe away from home we could do with a more orthodox holding midfielder than Steven Reid (although from people's comments on here it sounds like he's excelled at that role whenever he's played it this season). If we get the right tactics then we could still potentially play this line up; if everyone in midfield was pressing heavily then it might prevent us from needing a holding midfielder.

---

The over all point of my post is that the best 11 players don't necessarily make the bast team. Not doubting the talent of our "big 5" just questioning the merrits of including all five and acknowledging the potential benifits of excluding one or two of them.

It's all down to perception, but I don't like the idea of Andy Reid and another as the only central midfeilders as such. I'd prefer him in a free role roaming from deep to behind the front man, with the protection of two sitting midfielder that protect the back four and free up Andy Reid to do what he does best. I don't see Andy Reid and Ireland combining well without detriment to one or both of them.

Obviously I feel Duff and McGeady can play in the same team and it may well happen, but only in the case where Keane is the lone front man (or absent). Keane may well do a the job alone but it will be at the expense of his own merrits. He's clearly better playing a little deeper or off someone else.

Point is something will have to give to include all 5 of our technically best players. England had the same problem in the latter days under Erikson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr_peepee

The over all point of my post is that the best 11 players don't necessarily make the bast team. Not doubting the talent of our "big 5" just questioning the merrits of including all five and acknowledging the potential benifits of excluding one or two of them.

It's all down to perception, but I don't like the idea of Andy Reid and another as the only central midfeilders as such. I'd prefer him in a free role roaming from deep to behind the front man, with the protection of two sitting midfielder that protect the back four and free up Andy Reid to do what he does best. I don't see Andy Reid and Ireland combining well without detriment to one or both of them.

---

I agree about the team vs individuals argument. But I do think that all of these players can be accommodated, and Trapattoni will hopefully find a way of doing it without sacrificing anything else. It might not work, but only time and games will tell and I do think it should be given a chance before being written off. I'm still not sure about Ireland's readiness, so I think if Trapattoni feels we need more cover, then he'll be the player sacrificed, and may just be brought on late in games if we need more impetus in the final third. I disagree on the point about Andy Reid though. I think he can help out with the defence. Perhaps if he's told to roam far up field alot we may need an extra man, but in games where he's asked to sit deep and dictate play (which is his best position IMO) he can help break down attacks due to his ability to read the game.

If you were Trapattoni, what would yours be?

Already covered here

http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=83473

Yet again, I agree very much with the Doctor.

I can't comment on Roma as I don't know their players so well, but for me 4-2-3-1 offers us two important things given our lack of physicality & height and our abundance of lightweight but tricky and pacy "creative types":

1. Solid, well balanced defence. This doesn't just refer to the back 4, it refers to defending collectively and protecting the defence. This for me is best served by having Carsley and S. Reid sitting in front of the defence, almost like a traditional 2 man central midfield but playing very cautiously. Carsley has bite, Reid has presence, mobility and a very good range of passing. It struck me yesterday, on the basis of just one sighting admittedly, that Martin Rowlands would play this role very well - do De Canio and Tardelli /Trapattoni know each other? Joey O'Brien may be useful in this role too.
2. Maximise the attacking potential of the creative players given this solid defensive foundation. This for me would be a traditional back 4, the 2 aforementioned cautious midfielders and then a 3-1 of Duff-A. Reid- McGeady fronted by Keane.

Hunt could easily play the left sided role if more aggression was required, Daryl Murphy could maybe play the left sided role too. Stephen Ireland* could play in Andy Reid's central advanced playmaking role or the right sided role. Keane could also play a variant on the advanced central role if we played Doyle upfront. Duff & McGeady can interchange, Andy Reid is also comfortable wide. All of this supports Dr.Peepee's point about not depending on all being available.

There's no reason for the full backs not to have attacking license in this system.

I think this team would be a handful but it really places pressure across the team to get goals. Goals from midfield are always crucial - you'll find successful teams get more than their share, plus the oft mentioned set piece output too. For this reason I'd have Andy Reid pulling the strings further up the field though I agree that he can be very tidy from deep too.

It's a mantra of mine that you don't pick a formation or a system and then pick the players. You pick a system that suits your players. There's not one square peg in a round hole in what I've written above as far as I can see, and anyway, it's not table football, players can move all over the place, not just laterally! It's only marginally different to a Danish style 4-3-3, Ciaran being correct that a lone striker need not be a beanpole, look at Tomassen in the past.

Sometimes flair may need to be sacrificed for a bit more steel, hence players like Lawrence or Jon Walters who has really impressed me may have a role in a more solid system.

*I still have difficulty mentally coming to terms with Ireland in any starting XI. For me he's still a "hypothetical" international.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Yet again, I agree very much with the Doctor.

I can't comment on Roma as I don't know their players so well, but for me 4-2-3-1 offers us two important things given our lack of physicality & height and our abundance of lightweight but tricky and pacy "creative types":

1. Solid, well balanced defence. This doesn't just refer to the back 4, it refers to defending collectively and protecting the defence. This for me is best served by having Carsley and S. Reid sitting in front of the defence, almost like a traditional 2 man central midfield but playing very cautiously. Carsley has bite, Reid has presence, mobility and a very good range of passing. It struck me yesterday, on the basis of just one sighting admittedly, that Martin Rowlands would play this role very well - do De Canio and Tardelli /Trapattoni know each other? Joey O'Brien may be useful in this role too.
2. Maximise the attacking potential of the creative players given this solid defensive foundation. This for me would be a traditional back 4, the 2 aforementioned cautious midfielders and then a 3-1 of Duff-A. Reid- McGeady fronted by Keane.

Hunt could easily play the left sided role if more aggression was required, Daryl Murphy could maybe play the left sided role too. Stephen Ireland* could play in Andy Reid's central advanced playmaking role or the right sided role. Keane could also play a variant on the advanced central role if we played Doyle upfront. Duff & McGeady can interchange, Andy Reid is also comfortable wide. All of this supports Dr.Peepee's point about not depending on all being available.

There's no reason for the full backs not to have attacking license in this system.

I think this team would be a handful but it really places pressure across the team to get goals. Goals from midfield are always crucial - you'll find successful teams get more than their share, plus the oft mentioned set piece output too. For this reason I'd have Andy Reid pulling the strings further up the field though I agree that he can be very tidy from deep too.

It's a mantra of mine that you don't pick a formation or a system and then pick the players. You pick a system that suits your players. There's not one square peg in a round hole in what I've written above as far as I can see, and anyway, it's not table football, players can move all over the place, not just laterally! It's only marginally different to a Danish style 4-3-3, Ciaran being correct that a lone striker need not be a beanpole, look at Tomassen in the past.

Sometimes flair may need to be sacrificed for a bit more steel, hence players like Lawrence or Jon Walters who has really impressed me may have a role in a more solid system.

*I still have difficulty mentally coming to terms with Ireland in any starting XI. For me he's still a "hypothetical" international.

---

Very well thought out post there, Stuttgart. There's a lot there that would certainly be worth putting into practice - (hopefully in the Algarve and the May friendlies).

Who actually populates the full back slots has been bothering me for a while particularly given the fact that Finnan is most likely gone for good.

Who starts alongside Dunne at centre half?

Given McShane's current stagnation at club level and if Andy O'Brien is indeed retired - Joey O'Brien could feasibly slot in to partner Dunne at Centre Half.

I think Kilbane at left full could deliver on the attacking licence offered the full backs as outlined above.

Its then a flip of a coin re Kelly / O'Shea at right full. Kelly certainly has more aggression in the tackle although his positional sense is still a bit wayward at times. O'Shea has tried the patience of everyone for years. You know what you get with him - but you also know what you don't get.

I think the Brazil match showed that Dunne & O'Shea is a solid CB pairing, KK is our only option (yikes) at left full unless Kelly plays there and until maybe O'Halloran or Delaney stake a claim. RB is between Kelly and Joey O'Brien I reckon. McShane may provide cover at RB or CB and maybe Foley will emerge as proper RB cover.

That all assumes Finnan and AO'B stay retired.

A few things. The lineups mentioned while all have their own merits, they are extremely lacking in a physical sense at set pieces. While we don't have to lump balls into the box for set pieces we most certainly need strong players to defend them. And of the players listed above (AReid Duff keane, McGeady, Hunt) we'd be really relying on Dunne OShea and Reid as aerial threats. That is a big issue.

daryl Murphy seems to have been playing superbly for Sunderland. He is a decent sized lad and skillful enough too. COuld he be a genuine CF option for us, if Robbie is allowed to drop off?
We have a couple of dodgy areas and how he fills them will be key. The open positions for me are full back (both sides) one centre back spot and both central midfield spots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingdom

A few things. The lineups mentioned while all have their own merits, they are extremely lacking in a physical sense at set pieces. While we don't have to lump balls into the box for set pieces we most certainly need strong players to defend them. And of the players listed above (AReid Duff keane, McGeady, Hunt) we'd be really relying on Dunne OShea and Reid as aerial threats. That is a big issue.

daryl Murphy seems to have been playing superbly for Sunderland. He is a decent sized lad and skillful enough too. COuld he be a genuine CF option for us, if Robbie is allowed to drop off?

---

I'd pick Doyle to spearhead the attack. If Daryl Murphy can play to his current level on a consistent basis then he could challenge for a starting place, but Doyle has scored more regularly in the Premiership (and of course, he's done it for us too) and can be a threat from set pieces. We have him, Dunne and Kilbane (if he starts) as the players to utilise from set pieces. It's not a great amount, but there's no point in sacrificing better players for tall/physical players just for set pieces. If Trapattoni can get our set pieces up to scratch then this hopefully won't be a major issue.

Doyle's strength in the air is part of the reason why I think Ireland shouldn't start. For me, Doyle and Ireland are competing for one place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmurphyc

I'd pick Doyle to spearhead the attack. If Daryl Murphy can play to his current level on a consistent basis then he could challenge for a starting place, but Doyle has scored more regularly in the Premiership (and of course, he's done it for us too) and can be a threat from set pieces. We have him, Dunne and Kilbane (if he starts) as the players to utilise from set pieces. It's not a great amount, but there's no point in sacrificing better players for tall/physical players just for set pieces. If Trapattoni can get our set pieces up to scratch then this hopefully won't be a major issue.

Doyle's strength in the air is part of the reason why I think Ireland shouldn't start. For me, Doyle and Ireland are competing for one place.

---

Where do you see Robbie in this. Is he the central one of the 3. This would suggest no place for Andy Reid as I'd like Duff and McGeady in the wider positions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cavan_fan

Where do you see Robbie in this. Is he the central one of the 3. This would suggest no place for Andy Reid as I'd like Duff and McGeady in the wider positions.

---

Yep, in a way it's very harsh on Doyle not to have him leading the attack. But, it's very unlikely all of the smaller attacking players will all be fit so it goes back to Dr. Peepee's point about not depending on availability. Reid can play centrally or wide either side - or in eb's favoured role for him, deep playmaker - Duff can play either side, McGeady can play a few roles, Hunt or the bigger lads could play a role, Robbie can lead the attack or play withdrawn and so on.

In an ideal world I'd like to see a regular Doyle / Keane combo upfront but our CM struggles in a 4-4-2 so that probably only leaves 4-3-1-2 but that'd mean giving up one of our relative advantages - width. However, Trap has gone on record as saying that 3-4-1-2 is his favoured line up!!

What's so interesting about the heavyweight management team we now seem to have in place is that they've seen it all before, know all the configurations and roles and (hopefully) will optimise the output from the available inputs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cavan_fan

Where do you see Robbie in this. Is he the central one of the 3. This would suggest no place for Andy Reid as I'd like Duff and McGeady in the wider positions.

---

There's a place for all of the players you've mentioned. Robbie would be the central player and Andy Reid would be playing deeper alongside Steven Reid. Perhaps it's too unbalanced in terms of attacking personnel, but I think it could work as Andy Reid would be able to help out defensively seeing as he'd be playing deeper. I think it's definitely at least giving this set up a try in one of the friendlies. If it fails, it fails. I think it could definitely work as our preferred line up at home and possibly even away.

I like to keep a close eye on Blackburn's results because they have Steven Reid playing in a very attacking system. They won again away from home against Newcastle at the weekend. Dunn was injured.

--------McCarthy--S.Cruz-----------
Bentley---Reid---Emerton---Pederson

Just out of interest. Would anyone think replacing Dunn/Emerton with A.Reid would make that team more attacking?