no but his performances for us would suggest he's notQuote:
Originally Posted by the bear
Printable View
no but his performances for us would suggest he's notQuote:
Originally Posted by the bear
From todays English Independent
'James McCarthy as natural a 21-year old midfielder as any in the division..'
Not a plodder for Derby county..
The irony is that McCarthy is improved now that he's gone from an attacking midfielder into a holding midfielder. He's actually more of a Trappatoni-style player now than he was before... Yet he still gets ignored.
green had a few stinkers for us which started the ball rolling on him getting dogs abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
he is not as bad as is let on, but is not particularily good either. personally i don't want whelan in the side at all. mccarthy has yet to be given a chance so i'm not going to herald him as a great international standard player, but i can't see any good reason why he's not been tried out yet. amazing that he's only 21, 5 full senior seasons behind him already.
In fairness he has'nt been in that roll for all that long and Wigan have only come good over the last couple of weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by brine3
I think he should be going to the euros and it will be interesting to see if Trap takes him.
nail on the head as to why he's not rated by manyQuote:
Originally Posted by Condex
started well enough and scored in his debut. was reasonable then against armenia away, started really well against russia a month later but like the rest of the team that night wasnt great after.Quote:
Originally Posted by the bear
as i said not a world beater but not the disaster many make him out to be either.
I seen Keith Andrews throw himself at balls against Russia over there, and my over riding thought was that in spite of the potential and arguable superior technique, I couldn't imagine McCarthy doing the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by brine3
I haven't seen much of McCarthy since* to say whether he's improved or not, but it's that discipline, appetite and bite that Trapp seems to prefer in the middle.
(* I've seen F all football lately for one reason or another. Getting the Sports Packages back in for next season. Don't care what she says.)
Interesting that Wigan were good both with and without the ball last night. I liked how they soaked up pressure yet still committed bodies going forward.
I'd still like to see us put more pressure on the ball when not in possession, and break with more purpose and retain the ball better when we have it. I was impressed by McCarthy's composure last night but felt that the whole team was well drilled and more adventurous than we usually are.
It wasn't unlike the game in Liege in some respects.
That said, on another day they'd have been spanked by Arsenal.
I've seen McCarthy put in shifts for Wigan all season against decent teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
I think both McCarthy and Gibson are good players. Gibson is particularly good at retaining possession under pressure. It's one of the things I like about him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Condex
In fairness to Gibson, pretty much all of Everton disappeared on Saturday.
Could it be argued though that if we had a midfield capable of controlling the ball for a reasonable period then we wouldn't have to rely on players hurling their bodies at the ball in last-ditch blocks??Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_peepee
about mid way through the first half (25 mins) McCarthy tried a slightly backwards cross field pass which was cut out and almost lead to
a goal. He was played into a tight spot though and being closed down. Bit careless.
Could it also be argued that if we had a defense that didnt automatically pump long balls up to our strikers that the midfield might see more of the ball thus allowing them to control the ball for a reasonable period meaning we wouldn't have to rely on players hurling their bodies at the ball in last-ditch blocks??Quote:
Originally Posted by Yard of Pace
;)
I would argue that that could be argued also.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
One of the problems with playing the ball of of defence is of course that when you lose the ball there is nobody left to make those
last ditch blocks!!
If the long ball game is good enough for Chelsea then surely it is good enough for us?
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...e-7654779.html
Chelsea are no Barcelona and I don't think we are either?
Well what better way to test the theorem than in the Chelsea V Barcelona match coming up in a few minutes,
long ball V short ball who will win?
Book makers say Barca Chelsea (17/4) v (16/5) Barcelona (8/11)
I think a 1-1 draw.
1-0 Chelsea and the long ball. ( A mistake from the Spanish Keane).
Still 45 mins to go so my 1-1 is still on.
so Trap was right all alongQuote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Well pretty much, however this is only the first leg and Barcelona are still favourites to win the Cup.Quote:
Originally Posted by the bear
Chelsea were pretty lucky to win, could have been 1-3.
But that's the way it often is in these games.
Here's a virtual fact: the inferior team will always get at least one good chance to score. If it takes its chance(s) while the better team misses its chances the lesser team will win. Happens regularly. Switzerland v Spain at WC10, Eng v Spain at Wembley last year, Chelsea last night…
That's why I always hold some hope for Ireland no matter who we play.
me too stutts, only 50 days to goQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I actually thought watching chelsea last night was just like watching us, bar a few world class players, and a slightly younger team. They sat very deep. It was interesting to watch and wasn't boring though, unlike when we play, perhaps because Barcelona are truely brilliant in the last 2/3s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Thats why as good Barca are they are not the complete team. World class midfielders and up front, but back is very suspect. Its a shame in a way.
can a team that commits so much to attacking ever be not suspect at the back? if they were to improve defensive shape, discipline etc. would it not take away from their attacking play? Barca do most of their defending in the opponents half by putting immense pressure on opposing players before they even get a chance to string a few passes together
I think you're both right.
Paul is right that Barcelona actually don't have any great strength in defence, especially in Pique's absence. It's mad that such a big club has so little central defensive cover.
In fairness to Chelsea, they also made it harder than teams usually do for Barcelona to disposses. This is one of Barcelona's key strengths - as Bear says, they cover up their defensive weaknesss by winning the ball back before teams get that far.
Very often the only way to get the better of teams like Barcelona is to capitalise on an error. That's what Chelsea did last night, and Wigan on Monday when Arteta pulled up after a weak corner. It's like winning turnover ball in rugby - it's unexpected so the team in previously possession isn't set up to resist an attack.
I'm fine with our lining up behind the ball, but in my opinion we don't put enough pressure on the man in possession though. It's those occasional "steals" that can be capitalised on.
In my opinion Wigan gave a better example of how Ireland should deploy Trap's preferred tactics. They were excellent without the ball, but quite aggressive with it.
My God, that was my 10,000th post!
I think it's more a case that there are so few central defenders who can adapt to the club's style. Mascherano is a failed experiment in defence. The Ukrainian guy a couple of years ago couldn't adapt. I'd have my doubts about someone like Vidic playing there either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I find it hilarious that a team full of supposed world class stars have to be so negative in their style of play. Barca still created plenty of excellent chances so all the pundits claiming it was a defenceless masterclass are exaggerating a tad.
The Trap wouldn't send us out that defensive against Spain........or would he?
I think Chelsea are capable of playing a more positive game but the fact is that they are a defensive-minded side and that's where their best strengths lie. Arsenal have shown you can match Barcelona playing positive football, but Chelsea's strengths are maintaining a solid shape, soaking up pressure and hitting teams with devastating counter-attacks. That's exactly what Ramires (who is probably the best midfielder in England at this stage) did for Drogba's goal, and Drogba probably should have returned the favour to Kalou in the second half.
Not saying we could do the same against Spain, but can you imagine James McClean charging up the wing with 5 minutes to go and centering for Shane Long to score with a free header? I'd like to think it could happen. Either that or we score in the first five minutes and soak it up for the rest of the game.
I dont think enough emphasis was put on ramires and most of all his pass to drogba, it was almost physically impossible given how far forward he was leaning - as you saw he fell over after passing in order to get the ball behind rather than in front of the defenders - and where he managed to pass the ball, behind the defenders was the perfect ball, as they were running towards goal, and then lost balance trying to get back onside and turned. It bought Drogba some extra time, as the covering defender had to compose himself and then try and get across to make a block which he couldn't do in time, and i believe had ramiers tried going in front of the defenders with the pass it would have been knocked out or the shot by drogba blocked by the covering defender and/or goalkeeper.
Chelseas key here was how deep they sat, you might have noticed midway through the first half barcelona sprayed the ball around the final third for about 5 minutes, getting nowhere, they realised they needed to pull chelsea out so they started passing back around the centre circle, chelsea mistakenly lost their shape slightly by moving forward and a ball was played over the top, nearly resulting in a goal. This only happened about twice in the game as generally the line was very robust and deep.
In the overall context, barcelona will not miss those many chances in the nou camp, and thats why 2 legs unlike us in the euros the opposing team dont get a chance to right the wrong, ensuring generally over 2 legs the best team goes through, chelsea have to score over there to go through.
R5 Live were previewing the game last night saying that arsenal deservedly beat barcelona at the Emirates last season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I'm an Arsenal fan and can't agree at all. Barcelona were already 1 up and had missed clear cut chances when they had a goal ruled out by an incorrect offside call. Arsenal then scored from both of their only two chances.
They were torn apart at the Nou camp, only scoring from a weird OG from a corner. Yet, right at the death Bendtner missed a great chance to seal the tie. Mad game, football!
I think Trap will use Liege vs. Italy as our template, maybe being a bit more on the front foot versus Croatia.
Yep, Barcelona will have to score 3 I'm sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Is Messi Spanish now :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
I've seen Bilbao give Barca a proper game of football without resorting to 10 men behind the ball and cynical play.
Like Stuttgart says Barca battered the Arse last season at the Emirates but like last night Barca didn't take their chances.
Did Chelsea narrow the pitch last night? It looked bloody tiny on the tv. I suppose if you have 21 players in one half for 80% of the time it is going to look cramped.
One thing that does surprise me with Barca is that then when the Barca gk has the ball and Chelsea had 3/4 players in the Barca half (wow I know) they didn't try and speed the attack up. The Chelsea midfield didn't have time to 'set' yet Barca would play the ball out slowly amongst themselves and almost wait for Chelsea to form their defensive shield. I know these guys are top class players and believe in their football 100% but trying to play through 7 instead of 11 is a lot easier!
Well I meant they matched them on the scoreline. Apart from one hammering at Camp Nou Arsenal have always competed with Barca.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Matched in what sense, they try to play in the same style? thats about as good a match, like a cheap brand of whiskey, it looks the same, but certainly doesn't taste the same. Arsenal have never looked closed to barcas quality.
No, matched in the sense they were in the game right until the last kick while playing their natural attacking game.
On another day that home game, a bit like Chelsea last night could have been 3/4 goals for barcelona. Arsenal were a pale impression of barcelona, they never came close to matching them, a pseudo-total football impersonation and they were knocked out.
The one thing Barcelona do is miss an awful lot of chances given a world class attack its quite strange, maybe its complacency because they know they will just create more.
I suppose they are missing Villa.
Hopefully Iniesta gets a more central role next week.
I think it would be a tragedy if Chelsea sneaked through.
I wouldn't say it's complacency. Simply, their approach play is better than their finishing. Alexis is not Robin Van Persie, Pedro is not Andy Johnson.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
At that level though, their finishing when under pressure or in quick circumstance is rushed and not clinical like so much more of their play in tight quarters in midfield and their build up play. The passing they make is very clinical, and precise, so why not their finishing, it seems rushed or not concentrated, perhaps under pressure they find it difficult, but at the end of the day, good finishing is like good passing really its about picking a spot and executing the pass precisly to that position. Im putting it down to either being under pressure and rushed or complacent.
But ya villa seems to be precise and clinical under pressure ;)