Ok, the general consensus is Kilbane over McClean. Although Kilbane's inclusion in Ireland's starting 11 under multiple managers often lead to puzzlement!
Printable View
Ok, the general consensus is Kilbane over McClean. Although Kilbane's inclusion in Ireland's starting 11 under multiple managers often lead to puzzlement!
Ah yeah, Kilbane was a good player, nobody is saying he was a great player but he could play. McClean, it's admirable how he has made the most of what he has when you consider that he doesn't have a first touch, but he's not a player.
If it was arm wrestling, its McClean all day, he'd refuse to fold but there's a football to consider here, control of that ball & it's distribution etc.
Kilbane was a very good player. He drove me crazy at times, but a lot of that was because he would be played on the wing instead of Duff who was pushed further forward as a result. I never liked Duff as a striker.
Kilbane suffered a bit from the Glenn Whelan syndrome in that because he wasn't very flashy he was often overlooked, by myself included, but like Whelan had an excellent career.
It’s duffer on the wing, not Kilbane or McClean
Check out the 2002 World Cup lineups. That's what we're comparing in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by elatedscum
They were at their most effective when they brought Quinn on and moved Duff to the wing (think vs Germany and Spain)
Are we allowed take into account age? It seemed like you thought that wasn’t part of it. Cause it’s 25 year old Kilbane vs 33 year old McClean and to me that’s an easy answer. 23 year old James was very good and very effective. McClean at his best was a better footballer than people give him credit. Kilbane was also a better footballer than he was given credit for. They perhaps both suffer in the memory for being selected later and longer than most.
Here's my squad across the two groups. Taking players based on the age and level they were achieving at that time i.e. 22 year old Richard Dunne in 2002 and James McClean based on his level today. I've also included players that were injured or busy walking the dog in 2002 but would have been there otherwise.
Shay Given
Gavin Bazunu
Caoimhin Kelleher
Steve Finnan
Stephen Carr
Matt Doherty
Ian Harte
Nathan Collins
John Egan
Kenny Cunningham
Dara O'Shea
Andrew Omobamidele
Roy Keane
Josh Cullen
Matt Holland
Mark Kinsella
Kevin Kilbane
Jason Knight
Damien Duff
Robbie Keane
Evan Ferguson
Niall Quinn
Michael Obafemi
I've picked 23 rather than a team because it's hard to compare starting teams given the different formations each team played - the 2002 team played 4-4-2, hardly anybody plays that anymore. A very decent squad I would say, that group could do some damage at a World Cup.
The starting lineups for every match had Duff and Keane up front. Quinn was brought on late in games when we were losing (except Saudi Arabia) so it was a different dynamic.Quote:
Originally Posted by elatedscum
I think you need to re-read the thread. Age has been brought up and one of the reasons that Finnan would be selected over Coleman. Also why Staunton wouldn't start. I think Gary Kelly was past his best as well, leaving space for Doherty to start possibly.
Have you read it? Finnan's achievements as a player were the reasons for selection over Coleman.
No, his achievements were part of the reason along with Coleman being 33. I said age was one of the reasons Finnan would be selected over Coleman.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
It was seen as a close battle if it was peak Finnan v peak Coleman.
It really wasn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by BOOMSHAKALAKA
Id be putting Stephen McPhail and Andy Reid in instead of Omobamidele and Matt HollandQuote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
I wouldn't have Obafemi or Knight in there either. David Connolly, for all his flaws, was in the middle of 100 goals in five seasons, albeit in the English second tier. He was a useful player, whereas Obafemi and even Ferguson could just be flashes in the pan (like Connolly with his initial goal burst and then nothing) Carsley was a Premier League regular for most of his career whereas Knight is in the third tier and while he's a promising player who probably shouldn't be down that low, I can't see him ahead of Carsley.
Reid/McPhail for Holland is a big call given Holland started ahead of Reid (and entirely justified it, decent and all as Reid's impact was when called on) and McPhail never really achieved his potential.
Only 2 people made a judgement and one was you. Going on the only other opinion on it, he just about would pick Coleman. I'd agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Reid didn't make his Ireland debut until 2003 so couldn't really be considered here. McPhail never delivered on his promise for me. He wasn't really even in the frame for the 2002 squad so difficult to justify putting him in a combined squad anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I understand the call for Carsley over Knight alright. The reason Knight is there is because I picked the squad, then realised I only had 22 players and no attacking central midfielder. There are loads of central/defensive midfielders in there so putting another one in in the form of Carsley didn't seem to make sense. So after considering Mark Kennedy (more of a wide player I decided in the end) I went for Knight.
In terms of Connolly, I never rated him. Was never any more than a good second tier player and wasn't international quality. While I take the point RE Obafemi I think he actually achieved more in the Premier League for Southampton as a teenager than Connolly ever did at that level. And he's probably better than that now, fallout with Russell Martin aside.
Sorry - I was talking about Stephen Reid for some reason. Ignore me!
Though if you want an attacking mid, I'd go with Stephen Reid over Knight. I know he was only young at the time - actually a very similar career then as Knight has had now - but I think he had more of a goal threat about him than Knight does. Then injuries hit him really hard unfortunately. You could make the argument that he was also a wide mid but he was quite versatile I think (wiki says he was a right-back, strangely)
Yes, you can make an argument for Stephen Reid alright. Rightly or wrongly my thinking there was that he wasn't in the initial 2002 squad, he came in when Kennedy dropped out. So the comparison should be Kennedy v Knight. And of those two I went for Knight.
A lot of these are random judgement calls of course - fun to debate but not worth getting het up over.
I think elatedscum summarised the bigger picture best when he said "We’re considering how our best players might make the edges of the squad."
Think he played there when he was at West Brom. Trapattoni's first side was built around the Reid-Whelan axis in central midfield with Reid playing box to box, and Whelan as the sitting midfielder. He was never really replaced under Trapattoni.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Discussions and disagreements on Kilbane and McClean is like eating chicken feet or giblets at an all you can eat Chinese.
Neither of them had a peak and the one asset they both shared but also only had was kick the ball in front of the defender and run as fast as you can to get around him. It worked more often for Kilbane because 4-4-2 was the order of the day and the 3rd centre back wasn't coming across that space as you see now. The other thing they both shared and a very admirable quality was the love of playing for their country built on backgrounds that were the foundations of an anti-english sentiment.
Theres an awful lot of nostalgia on this thread. Nostalgia sadly clouds the truth.