Printable View
Like I said in a blog post, you really can underestimate the effect of Coleman's injury on the result of that game, the players themselves and the rest of the qualifiers. Would we have needed the play offs with him in our side? It's impossible to tell, but you can't deny we are a better side with him in the team.
Worth noting that Wales also lost their talisman and captain, and ultimately failed to get out of the group. We did the same and got to the play offs
I see that Michael O'Neill has turned down the Scottish job and will stay with northern Ireland.
I would guess that there aren't too many NI fans worrying about how he got his head turned and his commitment to the job now.
Interesting point!Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
O'Neill has now signed the new contract: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2018...-ireland-deal/
Questions about our O'Neill's commitment to the job isn't the major issue by a long shot, it's what he has to commit to the task at hand going into a 3rd campaign is blatantly at odds with what is needed.
By and large I'd agree with that, although it isn't as blatant to me as it seems to be to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
But I think the commitment issue is being used as a stick to beat him with to a certain extent by commentators whose real issue is his suitability for the job in general.
Would it be possible to have a Poll on this thread asking "Are you happy that Martin O'Neill is staying on as manager of Ireland ?" The results would be interesting. I would predict 55%/45% in favour.
Once again, I'm not necessarily looking for entertaining football. Just some kind of tactical plan that takes multiple contingencies into account. O'Neill's Ireland seems to lurch from one fixture for the next hoping for the best. The players go out on to the pitch with passion and belief, but where's the plan? What was the plan against Denmark? Get the 0-0 in Copenhagen. You'd think we were playing for an away point in a league, not a two legged playoff. We had no plan whatsoever for Denmark getting an away goal in Dublin, so we resorted to taking off our midfield and throwing on as many strikers as possible. We were pummelled. It was Football Manager desperation stuff, except without the ability to quit without saving and reload. I've seen well organised, disciplined teams come back from behind against superior opposition. Tony Pulis' teams, for example. But O'Neill had no plan for coming back against Denmark. He says there was nothing else we could have done. That he thinks that way is in itself an indictment of his management.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
The Dutch would call O'Neill's approach toevalsvoetbal ('coincidence football').
If he was under contract until 2020 then keeping him on might have made sense from a financial point of view. But his contract expired in November. We chose to reward his lack of foresight and tactical organisation. The FAI are mad. We had nothing to lose by appointing a new manager.
I'd broadly agree with that, but I think it's worth noting the possibility that the FAI have had feelers out for a new manager, but there's no-one available who's better and within budget
except that our fans are never happy with the manager no matter who it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by brine3
grass is always greener.... as they say
He's on 1 million a year. Our assistant manager is on 500k.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Iceland's manager is on 400k.
Capable and affordable international managers are out there, but the FAI's search for a manager involves calling up Ray Houghton who logs on to Paddy Power and checks out the odds list.
How have they been getting on in the last two campaigns ? The Irish would call their approach "geenkwalificatievoetbal".Quote:
Originally Posted by brine3
That's correct, they didn't qualify.
What exactly is your point?
I'd have changed the manager but sin é. I hope he is massively successfully in the next campaign. Now that the contract has been signed I'm prepared to get behind him.
Isn't he on 2 millionQuote:
Originally Posted by brine3
Im a big fam of Mon, but i have to say if TOD slapped him across the face, i wouldnt complain
Another disgraceful interview from O’Neill with Tony O’Donoghue again today.Choking in outrage at being asked basic questions.He could do with getting over himself.Ego before country again for Marty.
Can you imagine if Eamon Dunphy interviewed Martin O'Neill, and he wasn't allowed walk out. .. that would be TV
I really thought that was disgusting, not least because Tony works for the national broadcaster and the interview would be broadcast to the Irish public, yet MON still manages to say Tony had enough of his time and he was going to move on.
How Martin was able to recall Tony saying "hard luck" and spin something out of that in this interview months later is a bit worrying too. How many times must he have tossed those words around in his own head to come out that passively aggressive towards TOD?
most of our media love to continually chisel away at our national manager and then one bites back and its all shock and horror. it works both ways and some of TODs interviews over the last few years have been agenda driven and tabloid like.... surely our national broadcaster should be above this kind of George hook type punditry and interviewing style?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
the two of them do need to move on though and kevin kilbanes suggestion on OTB last night that FAI and RTE hierarchy should sort a truce is spot on
Trapattoni, Noel King and Martin O'Neill have all come to the conclusion that Tony O'Donoghue is a pain in the hole. I don't remember Martin O'Neill having this sort of issue with an other journalist.
To me the most likely scenario seems that Tony O'Donoghue is a pain in the hole
I can only go on what I see in the interviews, and from those, I think TOD gets unfairly criticised.Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
A lot of what I see is him asking reasonable questions (even if they are critical of a bad performance or result) and getting pissy answers back.
I don't see it that way, even though a lot of the questions are reasonable. Some of the sympathy for Tony O'Donoghue is laughable I think. Sure, he looks the innocent victim when some of the interviews are taken in isolation, but anybody who has been following it closely for four or five years would know he's made his own bed to a large degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
He asked Trap if he was going to resign five minutes after the Alaba equaliser in Dublin, he started badgering Noel King (ffs) about playing Kevin Doyle (out of position allegedly!) instead of Aiden McGeady, he needlessly asked MON if the Denmark game was "a humiliation" straight after that match too.
They're just a selection of his more ridiculous highlights, he's also been relentlessly pursuing Dunphy's 'Wes Hoolahan' agenda, even when the reasons for his exclusion had been well established (regardless of whether we agree with them or not).
TOD was up against it from day one, partly because of his own interviewing reputation I would think, but possibly more because of RTÉ facilitating a witch hunt against every Irish manager for a generation.
I don't think O'Neill is coming out of this too well himself by the way, but the 'Poor Tony' narrative is miles wide of the mark.
The Agenda of the RTE Panel for the past 30 odds years has been to attack the Irish manager, no matter who the incumbent is. TOD is the extension of the Panel and asks their questions. MON knows this.Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
That said MON could deal with the whole thing a bit better but which one of us when the way in which we do our job is questioned wouldn't bristle with anger. I regard it as entertainment, although I note that almost 70% of people in an RTE Poll think MON owes TOD an apology. https://www.independent.ie/sport/soc...-36526308.html
The point is you're using the Dutch as a stick to beat MON but they have been in decline for a few years now.Quote:
Originally Posted by brine3
I just went and watched that interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
TOD: We had more possession, but in terms of penetration, maybe the lack of natural wingers, was that an issue for us?
NK: Germany scored 3 goals, we scored 3 goals, don't talk to me about that, will you please. Don't talk to me about that.
Ridiculous answer to a legitimate question in my opinion. Yes, Tony persisted with that line of questioning, but what he supposed to do (as a journalist and an interviewer), not ask a question because the manager told him not to ask it?
I doubt he is bothered by the whole thing. If anything, it secures his place as the interviewer, because RTE don't give a crap about anything other than ratings.
I don't feel any need to have sympathy for TOD, so don't include me in whatever posters you think are spreading a 'Poor Tony' narrative.
If he is asking unfair questions, then I have no problem with the interviewee getting prickly with him. But if he is asking reasonable questions and getting unreasonable answers back, then I think criticism is unfair.
EDIT: Also, I think it is bizarre to describe it as 'Dunphy's 'Wes Hoolahan' agenda'. Many more people than Dunphy (including plenty on this forum) questioned what they saw as O'Neill's underuse of him. Again, I think it's absolutely legitimate to ask why such a player is not being involved, considering the way in which we gave up possession and invited pressure so readily.
That post draw interview with ToD was tetchy and O'Neill didn't handle it good, ability to manage Ireland now is not about O'Neill's impressive past record as a player or a manager. And just how many times does O'Neill play the "look at my record" card.
After the Denmark defeat, the first question put to him was "has your luck run out?" which imo is the most ignorant and insulting question to ask of O'Neill or even any manager who loses out at the final hurdle. It ranks just ahead of "your team were finally exposed today?" in the stupidity stakes.
There's no doubt King was a bit of a loose cannon, and like O'Neill didn't come out of the exchange very well either. But also like O'Neill, King was ready (pre-empting even) Tony's negative line of questioning, presumably heavily influenced by his pals back in the studio.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
It was an unnecessary line of questioning under the circumstances - a comfortable win in a dead rubber under a caretaker manager. And teams play without what Tony considers natural wingers all the time without it being questioned, and he was just completely wrong and uneducated by not realising Stokes and Doyle had often played in those positions anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I wasn't including you, or any other posters for that matter. It's all over the media/social media, as OwlsFan's poll from the Independent illustrates above.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
We'll just agree to disagree I think.
Tony O'Donoghue is a pain in the hole. Which is great because that's what journalists are supposed to be. It's not in any of our interests for interviewers to blow smoke up O'Neill's hole.
Nobody is suggesting that he blows smoke up O'Neill's hole. What's going on at the moment isn't in anybody's interests, especially the supporters.
Well Martin thanks for coming and tough luck on the prognosis, did you realise at that moment when the doctor told you that your cancer was terminal, that you've wasted most of your life?
neither is sticking a microphone in a managers face 5 mins after a difficult result asking them about their resignation. what other professions (apart from politicians!) would tolerate that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Probably not many, but it's part of the territory.
I only saw this bit now, as it was added after we agreed to disagree. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
There's no doubt Hoolahan is a popular player amongst supporters and I'd normally (maybe even always) want to see him in the starting line-up too. I don't think it's bizarre to suggest Dunphy brings that to another level though, beyond all practical reason. O'Neill also made it very clear early in the time that he sees some games as being suitable for Hoolahan's inclusion and some games where he'd prefer to go a different route. Personally I didn't particularly agree with O'Neill's logic but that's what he's paid for.
When Hoolahan doesn't start we all know it's because O'Neill wants to go with a more physical approach, or that he doesn't trust him fully away from home, or that he's doesn't play two games in a short amount of time, etc., etc. O'Neill (or Trap) shouldn't have to explain this every time.
100% agreed. My biggest criticism of TOD is that the questions he asked are of very little interest to me. The Stoke story has been done to death, as has the Denmark game and the contract saga. It's all yesterdays news now.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
He had the opportunity of an interview with O'Neill. Given what we are hearing about O'Neill bringing in younger players for the upcoming squads the big question I wanted asked was who are the new players he is looking at? Can't for the life of me work out why that wasn't asked.
Actually no, it was added before your first reply (but maybe while you were replying).Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
The later edit was to get round the swear filter for the word prickly.
Is blowing smoke up someone's hole a practical activity ........
Sorry for going off topic but one would like to know .......
If RTE were serious about Football Punditry would Dunphy be on the panel . When did that man last do something credible in Football .
RTE do not take Football seriously.....Dunphy on the panel tells it own story....he is in RTE’s Court as the Fool / Court Jester .....
If I remember right, the seeds for the Noel King vs TOD thing were sown post Germany match a few days before that when TOD asked him about playing Stokes (and someone else on the wing who was out of position) and King corrected him, firmly but relatively beningly.
Then Dunphy completely hatcheted King in the post-match analysis over his line-up, the shape, not playing Wes and Andy Reid and it came back around again.
It's not entirely fair to say TOD is looking to agitate managers but it's not unfair to say his questions tend to parrot whatever controversial line comes out of the panel's (or, possibly more accurately, Dunphy's) mouth...
There's a balance to be found and, god knows we could use some actual answers from MON, but TOD has leaned far too far into becoming an avuncular heckler, a seemingly innocuous dealer of toxic passive aggressiveness. Which has led to him becoming essentially worthless as an actual interviewer imo.
Regardless, O'Neill's effort during the week was really, really poor. There's better ways to deal with this.
O'Donoghue got a reputation for taking a hard line with Trapattoni, who's English wasn't strong enough to deal with it, and was criticised for it here and elsewhere online. He continued in the same vein with King for the games he was in charge of, and kept it up with O'Neill. There's no doubt in my mind that O'Neill would have been appraised of this well before his first encounter and, as a student of law, is more than capable of dealing with O'Donoghue in a manner he was not accustomed to while interviewing the previous two managers.
Which leads us to the current situation, neither of them willing to back down from their current stance - O'Donoghue with his aggressive form of questioning and O'Neill's unwillingness to accept it.
As has been suggested, the best thing for this is for the higher ups in both organisations to come to an understanding and relay this to their respective employees.
BTW in one of O'Neill's first post match interviews, when he made it clear he wasn't going to stand for this type of questioning, when it went back to the studio Dunphy criticised him for that, he said something like "I had my issues with Trapattoni, but he was a gentleman and would never have treated an interviewer like that". I know I'm misquoting him, but he definitely used the word "gentleman". I just thought, "this isn't the first time O'Donoghue has taken this line in a post match interview, but because he was called on it, now you choose to speak about it??"
O'Donoghue's line of questioning and method of asking totally fair IMO. O'Neill is entitled to be annoyed by it but I don't think he realizes how he comes across to average people watching the TV.
Would be very strange for "higher ups" at a broadcaster to interfere with completely professional journalism IMO (whether it's tasteful or not).
The more sensible option if these guys have genuine beef with each other would be to have an off-the-record clear the air chat over a beer -- would give them a chance to explain their perspectives and perhaps in future we could have firm but fair questions, and a manager confident enough to actually answer the questions, even if he doesn't agree with the tone in which they're asked.