The standard price is 10/1 to win the group. Anyway, those odds don't have that much relevance to our chances,Quote:
Originally Posted by Colbert Report
the telling odds are 1/5 not to qualify.
The standard price is 10/1 to win the group. Anyway, those odds don't have that much relevance to our chances,Quote:
Originally Posted by Colbert Report
the telling odds are 1/5 not to qualify.
Theres an awful lot of conditional simple in your last few posts on this matter. I'd rather see some past tense. If you haven't tried it, then you never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I'd agree with Stutts assertion that is a tactical answer from Trap, to sidestep the real issue. It's negative at best, but typical of him, and something he will only get away with for a while longer.
Noelys 352 formation would be too weak defensively, but I like the shackle-free liberalism in his thinking.
So what are the odds on Trap still having the job come christmas?
I think we'll beat Kazakhstan (nerve racking 1-0 or 2-1 job) and Faroes. We'll be beaten by the Germans.Quote:
Originally Posted by punkrocket
The real testing time for him is in March when I think we have to play Austria/Sweden in a double header in the same week. That week could define if we get in the play offs or in the worst case scenario finish 4th. Two defeats or one draw and I think he could leave.
I think the Germans will stroll the group - maybe we might nick a draw over there if they take the foot off the gas if they've qualified or they might drop points in Stockholm.
Very high odds that he'll stay. We can't afford to sack him...
Though as Bungle says, he could resign if results don't pick up.
I doubt he would resign, its not something he often does. Why would he and lose all that money.
Ya, I think we are ok till March. But I hoped, through time as much as traps experimenting, that the lineup and system would have changed somewhat from what it is now, but since last Friday I don't feel this is the case, and I can now see us seriously struggling in March, but Trap kept on until at least then because of the results in the first 3 games. I actually think if we perform as well as we can in Traps old system, we could draw against the Germans at home, if everyone is on top of their game.
Don't try and bamboozle me with grammar Paul O'Shea.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
To put it another way, Ireland playing 433/451 would be like Wolves the last two seasons. We'd have a bit more of the ball but we'd lack the creative impetus to make a lot of chances and our lone striker would spend 99% of his time running up the channels with nobody to provide an option in the box.
Its the use of "would", im referring to. I actually thought we played that formation against Uruguay for some of the time. And yes they had a lot of chances, but I think what Stutts has alluded to previously, we still concede an awful lot of chances(in 4-4-2, so does it really matter), but in that game we created many and played a great attacking game, and could have drawn in the end. With a few tweaks and shaping the system further, perhaps we wouldn't be so exposed or poor defensively in that shape. Again, you don't know till you try. But with emphasis by Trap on getting players in and learning his ways and system, then surely we "could" be pruned further in that formation.
IF you were to compare that game, and as little as you can a competitive and a friendly, against Russia at home, where we went 3-0 down, I thought we were far more likely to get a good result against Uruguay than we were against Russia. These were two contrasting styles, but we looked far more effective going forward in the game against Uruguay. We looked shabby defenisvely in both.
I'm not sure what Paul meant either but I think he might be saying that you are saying "XYZ is fact" a lot in recent posts rather than "in my opinion XYZ would lead to…". If he was I agree.
You've just done it above too!
I posted this as a possible XI in post No. 36, taken from those selected for Serbia.
---------------Westwood-------------
----Kelly----JOS-----SSL----Wilson---------
-----------McCarthy---Gibson
Coleman----McGeady---McClean
----------------Long*---------
* or KD or JW
I don't see that as being a shape that would isolate Long and leave him running the channels. I see it as being a mixture of pace, good ball players and athletes. They key is how they interact. You can only hypothesise from our position but I think it has a nice look about it, is well balanced, has nobody in a role he isn't suited too (bar McGeady perhaps?) and if Gibson and McGeady can shoot on sight who knows?
Mcclean seems to have a decent strike too.
But the jury is still out, on that one, Mcclean i mean. He could well have a stalled season like Coleman last year. I think this is the make or break season for Coleman actually.
In this formation, I think I'd like to see Hoolahan get a run out in the McGeady role with McGeady on the right and Coleman maybe needing to rediscover his club form and knock on the door again once he has done that. Ideally become a RFB and take Kelly's place as I don't think Kelly is good or comfortable enough on the ball. And I never thought I'd say it but Ireland in the middle of the three would be interesting to see, that would give teams something to think about against us as would be guys who can weigh in with a goal all over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Yeah both should drop out of the professional game.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
My Derry mate reckons McClean could be at Tranmere in 2 years' time! I think success and failure at the top level is driven by such fine margins that either might not fulfil early promise. Under good stewardship and with luck regarding injuries both should progress.
Yep, largely agree. I was picking that formation from the Serbia squad, not from what we have available overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
great post ifk well thought out and well executed.
Well so could Jack Wilshere. McClean clearly has the talent, application and ability to make it at the top level. It should be a given that luck will play its part too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I don't agree, I'd say McClean is a championship standard player who punched above his weight for a couple of months. I think he'll have vanished right off the radar completely this time next year. He's made it this far on determination, confidence and just basic direct running and aggression. They aren't things to fall back on and he certainly doesn't have natural talent or any sort of technical ability to speak of, he reminds me a lot of a young Kilbane but the game has moved on since to allow him to be as successful, especially at winger which is no longer a headless chicken kind of position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
That is probably the most patently untrue statement I've ever seen on this forum. Watch this video. He is a technically excellent striker of the ball, an inch-perfect crosser and passer of the ball at his best, and he's shown already he can do it with consistency at the highest level. People say "direct" as a synonym for "not technical." Steven Gerrard is a technical, direct player. So is Fernando Torres. McClean isn't in the same bracket as those players but he is both direct, technically strong and naturally gifted and he's more likely than not to get better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Murfinator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4N6o79fY94
McClean has a lot of qualities, but crossing and passing aren't anything special (I'm not say his passing or crossing is bad, it's just nothing special compared to his peers). McClean's obvious talent is running with the ball, panicking defenders and his tremendous work rate. Unfortunately, Martin O' Neill has the habit of taking good players and running them into the ground until they're useless (see Agbonlahor at Villa).Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
He is inconsistent at this stage of his career but he'll get better and at his best his final ball is inch-perfect.
O'Neill did great with players like Alan Thompson. I've no worries about O'Neill.