I dunno. We've generally appointed dinosaurs. We consistently go for marquee managers that are famous for something they last did a decade before. Then it turns out they are a decade behind the times.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
I had a bad feeling in 2013 that we had appointed the wrong M. O'Neill.
For those who say we don't have the players: ask yourself what kind of players Iceland and Norn Iron have...
and how did the staunton and kerr appointments go??Quote:
Originally Posted by brine3
what exactly have the north or iceland done that we have not?Quote:
Originally Posted by brine3
in relation to MON you cant just brush results like austria and wales way, italy and sweden at the euros, bosnia in the play offs and of course germany at home in 2015 under the carpet. at the very least on a par with anything those we should be aspiring to emulate like the north and iceland have done.
Please don't use Steve Staunton as an example of us appointing a progressive and forward thinking football manager.
MON is an interesting one. Against Germany at home we had a midfield of McCarthy, Hendrick, Brady and Hoolahan. By far the most footballing midfield we've played in years. Ironically because Whelan was suspended, who many for some reason agreed we'd miss badly against Germany. He also started Given, a legend, but one who should have been nowhere near the team at that stage. Given goes off injured and Randolph comes on and gets the assist. Then we beat the world champions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
So I'm undecided on MON. Yes, sometimes he picked the right team, but almost by accident. Other times he had us playing absolute rubbish. He's an odd one. I dunno what happened, I think he fell into the "results matter more than the performance" trap. He's also well known for sending players out on to the pitch with almost no tactical instructions. Maybe his luck ran out.
Stephen kelly saying similar today. If the neigbours dog can see it how can Mccarthy not?Quote:
"But a massive part of that is the player in midfield that recycles the ball. You can't be pedestrian when you're passing across, it has to be done quickly.
"You need someone that looks up and whips it out. If it's Jack Byrne that does that, that's amazing, but that's what we need. If it's tippy-tappy around by the time it gets out there, the space is gone and we can't use it."
Well, Iceland qualified for two tournaments in a row and knocked England out of the Euros.Quote:
what exactly have the north or iceland done that we have not?
Can you imagine if we had done that? You'd never hear the end of it.
Couldn't agree more. I thought we were brilliant. Very impressed with the way we held possession, didn't panic, and measured our passes. Haven't seen a performance like that in years. And hopefully from last night's game, the players will realise the wastefulness of long balls from the back and the value of having a front man (McGoldrick) who can hold the ballQuote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
We pretty much did that in Euro 88 & Italia 90 and - well yes - we are still talking about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by brine3
I was up in the west stand on the half way line with a pretty good view and for the most part I thought we were lots more positive than previously. I don't care if Denmark sat a bit - but every time they could they sprinted forward to close down the space especially in the first half. They were right up in or half looking to win the ball high but thanks to excellent control by stevens and doherty (on average) we played our way out.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
what we did well
- tried to limit hoofing it forward
- played out from tight spaces where denmark were in our faces
- linked up pretty well (a few exceptions)
- several of our players kept cool and tried to be progressive
not so well
- mcgoldrick sucked deep so no focal point up front often enough
- didn't move it fast enough in transition
- certain players are not really able for a quick passing game/close quarter control and they were found out last night
- one or two players continually seemed surprised to have the ball land at their feet
Stars on the ball - Stevens, doherty, hendrick actually did a lot of good stuff, whelan had a very good game from where I was sitting, McG
Pretty effective - clark and duffy were very progressive and settled in nicely together. I thought Egan was fine too.
not so effective - Browne took some time to settle into his role.
less effective - a lot of plays broke down with mclean in the first 75 minutes. got to the point we watched him carefully hoping the next ball would be the good one. hourihane for me also got caught on the ball more than I'd like but he appears to be have been very productive overall (however I didn't see it )
overall I thought their game plan was solid enough against a decent side. there's some revisionism going on that the danes are not that good after all which I don't buy into - no world beaters but no mugs either. I was proud of them on the night and I remain so. I think if we want to move on, and play a different kind of football, mclean is not going to be able to raise his game to join in.
https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/13...reland-Denmark stats are very informative
if we go out then so be it but if we play like that in the next game we have a chance. a buddy of mine came to the game last night and I told him I hoped the team didn't get too much negative press today to which he replied "what can they possibly say to them after that match and effort" - I said "they'll find something".. I'm disappointed to see I was right..
Have to agree with this. The Kenny revolution isn't going to happen. We just don't have the players. I think Mick's done a pretty decent job with the squad available and where he started from (i.e. the dregs of the MON reign)Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
Well, MON finished second in a bigger group. Mick has finished third in a smaller group and failed to beat anybody ranked above us.Quote:
I think Mick's done a pretty decent job with the squad available and where he started from (i.e. the dregs of the MON reign)
Let's not give Mick credit here for improving the team.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
Three things I think can improve.
1. Recruitment. I know it was embarrassing being known as the England B team back in the 90’s. It’s a different world now. There are 4.8 million Irish ppl in Ireland and 6 million Irish ppl in the UK. Total about 100 million across the world. I would think most of our best players are not born in Ireland so it’s strange given the facilities and player development in UK that we aren’t tapping into that avenue more for recruitment.
2. Development. We have kind of never been good at this, but I think we were better before with clubs like home farm. Some how we have been left behind and have abdicated responsibility to the UK academies/clubs to develop our players for us. Whether a central academy can be formed or more investment in individual clubs own academies and youth systems. Or a deal with a big UK club that some clubs here could act as academy clubs for them like the Hone Farm Everton deal? I think we need to be much better at focusing on player development above all else. Clubs here are too much focused on winning today.
3. Investment. End of the day it’s all about money really. I think GAA clubs and rugby clubs are much much better at securing government grants and funding. I could be wrong but that’s my impresssion. I think football could do better here for themselves and be more active in looking for applying for grants, fund raising etc. I think the government could be more active too, like the investment that Iceland government put in to funding facilities for every school. I think it’s absolutely shameful that many schools in Ireland don’t have any piece of grass at all for the kids to play any sports on.
I think talking about managers and switching managers is a waste of time, and changing manager will just mean the real problems will be ignored again.
Fair play. I didn't mean to be too negative afterwards. I do think we played pretty well - and the team deserves credit - without really looking (to me) like we'd score, which was the crucial element last night of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamo kerry
I just feel that over a number of years, going back to Kerr, now we've done the same kind of thing over and over of being hard to beat, and it primarily results in lots of draws but very few important victories. The period under MON with wins over Germany, Bosnia, Italy, Austria and Wales was an outlier. I wish we'd go for it a bit more and risk a defeat in order to get more wins. We talked a lot about tactical courage before the game last night. Last night's tactics nearly worked, but the fact is they didn't.
We've 'secured' the playoffs for reasons unconnected to this qualifying group, so i'm not sure i'll feel any different about this even if we do get through.
The dregs of the O'Neill campaign was the Nations League, which was an unmitigated disaster. And a not unexpected one either, given the growing feeling that we'd been very lucky to come second in our group with some awful performances. Serbia away in particular we were absurdly blessed to get a point from.Quote:
Originally Posted by brine3
I think Mick has to get credit for improving things.
the sense of qualification masking deficiencies is one I share but I genuinely feel there is a difference between what 6/7 players were trying to do last night and previous efforts. it would take serious bravery to lose some games and build an ethos moving forward (instead of drawing them 1-1), blood players in a system, strive for something more. Kenny may be that person, we won't know. for me Mick only let himself down by not starting odowda or someone on the left. McG was the right call up front. the players need to take some responsibility too - sometimes I think they are so surprised to have the ball in the final 3rd that they don't know what to do. at least last night they were taking shots, bursting into the box, trying things. winning is a habit and this was a step in the right direction. if they play like that in play offs I almost don't care if we qualify. they need to be brave and try things and trust themselves. there's ability there. not loads of it but more than people give them credit for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tipp Townie
I personally think Byrne instead of McClean would have changed things dramatically last night. I think we do have the players. Nobody was error free last night but generally the back 5 (and replacements) are goodand our full backs are more than capable of playing dynamic modern football. The rest are fine, some better than others. I think we'll have to be patient and maybe Kenny will flop, but we're only now coming to the end of the Charlton era conservatism. Kenny can be our first genuinely post-2008 manager and with the good talent coming through all used to post-2008 football I think the cultural change can be effected.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I like Byrne as a player, but I think it's a stretch to suggest a player in a part-time league would have been a dramatic improvement last night.
Yes, he performed well in Europe, but Denmark is a step up again, and I don't think we can say he'd have stepped up. McCarthy has to be a better judge of that having seen him in training, and doing just ok v New Zealand
Ya Im not sure he was the right man there either, and yes he only did ok v new zealand who were very poor, but we definitely needed something, I txted a whatsgroup of some members here and said at half time, because we have so much possession(relative to any other game i mean) we dont need the qualities of mcclean, and said we should take him off at half time and bring on Maguire, as he did well the last day out on the wing, plus he would have been confident coming on with the goal as well. He came on far too late, as he did get involved when he came on. Even brady would have made one or two of the crosses the mcclean couldnt make last night. God forbid maybe even o'dowda.
I watched the game from the West Upper and all I could see was McClean sucking the life out of anything on the left hand side, almost crowding out space for Stevens to attack, while at the same time I saw space in front of their back four just dying to be exploited. Hendrick found that space in the second half but is too direct to use it well. Several times in the second half we played through their lines and with some success, often by players like Doherty simply running through the lines. The game was crying out for a player with Byrne's eye for a pass and willingness to receive the ball. Instead McGoldrick had to come deep and wide looking for it himself. I don't think the level he plays at would have made much difference. He was exactly what the game needed. McClean is great for those frantic last ten minutes when we need a goal but not for much else imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu