Should Trapattoni manage Ireland for the 2014 World Cup Campaign?

For what it's worth, I think we were quite lucky to qualify. The day we qualified was the day we were drawn against Estonia. I think we would have lost to all 6 other teams in the draw (I know it was seeded and there were only 3 other possible opponents). We deserved it on balance over the four years, but we were lucky.

I wouldn't mind Tardelli (face-saver for Trap, continuity, generally sound defensive tactics) with someone with a bit more adventure and knowkledge of the players (Liam Brady, Hughton, Mick McC). Trap's argument before the tournament was more or less "I can't experiment because we'll get hammered", but we did get hammered! Bringing on Green and playing 2 in the middle against Spain was just crazy. And I don't buy this business about Cox being a 5th midfielder, I didn't see it. I just saw two strikers standing around all the time while we were being overrun. The lack of a Plan B is a sacking offence in my books. There's no excuse for conservatism when the worst case happens anyway!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

And I think everyone's sympathetic to that angle Tets, but it's not the only angle. 2 mid-table (at best) midfielders against a 5 man Spanish midfield with maurauding full backs makes no sense, especially when the man tasked with mucking in to help was Simon Cox. We had no plan to deal with Modric just as Hodgson had no plan to deal with Pirlo. Martin Samuel in the Mail today writes that Phil Jones should have been tasked with tracking Pirlo. Along similar thinking, John O'Shea might have been tasked with doing the same for us. "Might", I know. Whelan may or may not be good enough at this kind of level but when he personally appeals for a 3 man midfield I'd listen to him over and above a UCC economist.

---

oh yeah, I wouldn't use that article as a reason for playing 3 in midfield, but it was interesting to note that we did cover more ground than the opposition in the first two games, just didn't make anywhere near as good use of it.

Forget about player rumours and tactics for the moment. Selecting Given, Whelan, O'Shea (at right back) Ward and Keane for all three games was a bizarre decision. They all had very poor tournaments and yet all 5 started every game. Thats poor management. And whats worse MickMacs comments about us going to enjoy 2002 or Traps comments about playing the team that got us to 2012 regardless of their form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p2011

For what it's worth, I think we were quite lucky to qualify. The day we qualified was the day we were drawn against Estonia. I think we would have lost to all 6 other teams in the draw (I know it was seeded and there were only 3 other possible opponents). !

---

Yes, we were really outplayed by Bosnia in Dublin recently and 2 campaigns unbeaten away from home we would have given any of them a run for their money. We deservedly came second in the group and the rest is academic. So easy for people to say what might have been if something else happened. Fact we qualified. Fact we deserved it. If you want to talk about unlucky, we were unlucky to be drawn against Spain, Italy and Croatia in the same group and to concede 3 unlucky goals to the latter.

The dreaded mention of cliche Plan B. He tried 3 or was it 4 forwards in one of the games (Plan B). He did try and move Cox back in to midfield and we only conceded 1. Changed it and we conceded 3 in the second half. So much for Plan B. What is this myterious Plan B? Green only came on when we were 3 down. Hardly worth mentioning unless you think a Plan B could have got us out of that hole. What was France's Plan B against Spain (to not have a shot on goal all night?). Where are all these Plan B's that the 12 teams out of the tournament have?

Yeah, fair play Owls. Those ***** owed us an easier draw anyway after being cheated the last time.

Bosnia looked totally disinterested in that end-of-season friendly, and I think they'd have done us over two legs. (More quality than us, more ECL players.) As would (in my opinion) all the others involved.

Plan Bs amongst the 12 teams? Croatia are/were flexible, Ukraine seemed able to rejig, Greece were able to shift gear and chase the game v Germany (albeit with little success ultimately apart from keeping their pride intact), France harried Spain, even mediocre England were able to switch focus somewhat by bringing on Carroll, even if it meant switching to hoofball! One mysterious plan B is going man-for-man in midfield and giving our midfielders/defenders/goalkeeper an out-ball. Not doing this was our undoing. If you're not going to attack (e.g. v Spain), why waste 2 strikers? Why waste even one?

PS: Can we stick to dicussing the tactics, players, matches and not get personal by attacking the poster? ("The dreaded mention of cliche Plan B.", "What is this myterious Plan B?") And any way, surely anything other than 4-4-2 would be a plan B!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p2011

The day we qualified was the day we were drawn against Estonia.

---

The day we qualified was November 15. Same day as Portugal, Czech Republic, and Croatia. All 4 teams qualified on merit, not in a draw.

Quote:

---

I think we would have lost to all 6 other teams in the draw (I know it was seeded and there were only 3 other possible opponents).

---

Well we'll never know, will we?

Quote:

---

We deserved it on balance over the four years, but we were lucky.

---

Either we were lucky or deserved it. It can't be both.

Quote:

---

Bosnia looked totally disinterested in that end-of-season friendly, and I think they'd have done us over two legs.

---

This is the side that conceded one more goal in the play offs than Estonia, yet they would have "done us"?

Quote:

---

Croatia are/were flexible,

---

Out

Quote:

---

Ukraine seemed able to rejig,

---

Out

Quote:

---

Greece were able to shift gear and chase the game (ableit with little success)

---

Out

Quote:

---

France harried Spain,

---

Out

Quote:

---

even mediocre England were able to switch focus somewhat by bringing on Carroll, even if it meant switching to hoofball!

---

Out

All joining Ireland on the scrapheap. Their Plan B's weren't all that effective.

If you wait until Monday mypost you can say that about 15 teams. If we had had Greece's tournament the Phoenix Park might have been busy again. Or Denmark's.

Be fair Stutts, that's easily yer man's best post I've read on here.

And I'd largely agree...
:@

Just because some teams that showed some flexibility are out is no argument that we were right not to be flexible :)

Van Marwijk after resigning after the Dutch went out in the first round

Quote:

---

Just because some teams that showed some flexibility are out is no argument that we were right not to be flexible

---

Except yer man's not saying that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Van Marwijk after resigning after the Dutch went out in the first round

---

Fair play to him. He was on a 6 year contract with 4 years still to go.

I think I said it at the time here, but the Dutch were flattered by their WC Final in 2010 so maybe expectations were a bit too high? They got a fortunate goal to beat Japan, they failed to impress against Slovakia and Brazil shot themselves in the foot (Julio Cesar missed a cross) when comfortably defending a 1-0 lead. OK, they won a good game against Uruguay. Football is a game of fine margins - look at the last 2 pens tonight: underside of the bar and out, inside of the post and in.

Dear dear, why all the aggression?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The day we qualified was November 15. Same day as Portugal, Czech Republic, and Croatia. All 4 teams qualified on merit, not in a draw.

---

The most important factor was the draw in my opinion, getting the worst and least ambitious team by a mile. Of course – ....being 1000% literal and not going on any flights of fancy or opinion.... – we qualified when the final whistle went on the 15th Nov. But surely one can analyse things a bit more subtly than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Either we were lucky or deserved it. It can't be both.

---

Surely it can be both. There doesn't have to be a direct correlation between deserved it and lucky, does there? We've been lucky and yet deserved it dozens of times over the years (v Holland 2001, v Germany and Spain 2002 etc.). Or is subtle opinion-forming banned here too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

This is the side that conceded one more goal in the play offs than Estonia, yet they would have "done us"?

---

Does everything have to be soooo literal? They were chasing the game against a serious team, Portugal, and conceeded a few at the end of the game. Big deal, that hardly makes them comparable with Estonia (check the various rankings). Bosnia also should have won their group ahead of France, only getting done by a soft penalty in the St*de de Fr*nce. And they looked disinterested against us and didn't press us at all at the back the whole game. Which is something serious teams do in competitive games, making you spit up the ball and putting you right back under pressure again. Which is perhaps why a different approach is needed to the "running into the knife" one we took.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Out

---

All but three teams have to be out at this stage, no matter what, so that hardly proves anything. And two have to go out of each group.

By your reasoning, if Spain beat Germany/Italy on Sunday or the other way around, then the two losers (Spain or Italy or Germany) didn't have a Plan B either and, by my logical extension, are somehow tactically inflexible or not worth aspiring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p2011

Dear dear, why all the aggression?

---

There was no aggression, just seeing things differently.

Quote:

---

The most important factor was the draw in my opinion, getting the worst and least ambitious team by a mile. Of course – ....being 1000% literal and not going on any flights of fancy or opinion.... – we qualified when the final whistle went on the 15th Nov.

---

Like ourselves, our opponents qualified for the playoffs on merit. There are plenty of teams who would love to play at this tournament, but only 16 can get there. We succeeded where 37 others failed. A point that is lost on many.

Quote:

---

Surely it can be both. There doesn't have to be a direct correlation between deserved it and lucky, does there? We've been lucky and yet deserved it dozens of times over the years (v Holland 2001, v Germany and Spain 2002 etc.).

---

There have been plenty of times we were unlucky down through the decades, most recently in Macedonia in 99. The team that got through from our group, went out of the finals losing their quarter final 6-1, and shipped 10 goals in their last two games. Did anyone else care?

Quote:

---

They were chasing the game against a serious team, and conceeded a few at the end of the game.

---

As we did at the finals. For them it's a "big deal", for us it's apparantly a "disgrace" and an "embarrassment". Slightly OTT I think.

Quote:

---

And they looked disinterested against us and didn't press us at all at the back the whole game. Which is something serious teams do in competitive games, making you spit up the ball and putting you right back under pressure again.

---

I was there, and no they didn't look disinterested. It was a better game than most expected.

Quote:

---

All but three teams have to be out at this stage, no matter what, so that hardly proves anything. And two have to go out of each group.

---

That is correct, but I'm not on about that. I pointed out the teams you stated that had their flexible Plan B's lined up, are all gone by now as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

That is correct, but I'm not on about that. I pointed out the teams you stated that had their flexible Plan B's lined up, are all gone by now as well.

---

I don't understand your point. Just because they're out doesn't mean their anything to aspire to? Just because they're out means they're not role models? And shouldn't we have alternatives? I disagree in all 3 cases.

My 2 cents: I think we should aspiring to be Croatia/Greece/Denmark/Ukraine. Able to act/react, playing to their potential, giving their fans a couple of moments to cheer about.

Sorry, but I'm replying to a post on a thread that's been closed:


MINE

Originally Posted by mark12345

The reason Gerrard looks great is because he plays with great foreign players ever week. Ditto all the ENgland players and ditto all (or a few of) the Ireland players. England are better than Ireland, but are still crap. They don't even play football, only a version of a game that resembles football. And the same can be said for us.


AND Owls Fan Reply:


Who are these "great foreign players" Gerrard plays with at Liverpool and bearing in mind he seems to be better than most of his clubmates when playing for Liverpool they can't be that great since he is a pub player (apparently)?

If we are that crap, I assume you would like to pass a vote of thanks to Trapp for getting us to the elite Finals of Europe with such crap players?

The great foreign players that Gerrard has played with: - Torres, Alonso, Suarez, Arbeloa, Cisse, Agger, to name but a few. And I don't disagree he is quite good among his clubmates. But put him in with average players (or let me rephrase that, English born Premier League superstars or so we're led to believe) and you see the real Steven Gerrard. Problem with him is he's one dimensional - compare him to Pirlo, which is what we're doing. Pirlo strutted around all day long, played simple intelligent passes and tore England, Ireland and Germany apart. Could Gerrard have done the same. If so, why didn't he? Probably because he's too programed to the 100 miles an hour thought process of the English and Irish footballer. And in essence Gerrard is no different from any of the Irish players at Euro 2012 who played mindless football at the tournament.

And of Trap? He did make us hard to beat in qualifying, which he deserves some credit for. Other than that he's done nothing for this team. He should have learned lessons after the home defeat to Russia and definitely after the performance away. In fairness to the manager though, he can only do so much with such sub-standard players who can't even string two passes together.

The common demonator for these very low standards? English football.

I was thinking Gerrard might have made a difference for Germany in the second half tonight. They had plenty of chances to get good balls in to Klose but they kept hitting the Italy CBs or going too close to Buffon. I've always had the view that Gerrad (and Lampard actually) is not a great midfielder but is a superb ball striker, with a great knack of arriving late, not picked up. The problem with that kind of player is that in order to be regularly effective you need others to secure midfield for you. For England, securing midfield is also his job. He can't do both.