If we make Euro'12 do we sacrifice the WC?

I was just taking a gander at the FAI page that puts up all the results.
Had a couple of obvious observations:
We used to blast bad teams. Blast. No 1-0 stuff. 5-0 or 4-0 right on.

And.... the situation after making the World Cup, for Euro Q's is quite muddled. Weird Friendly/Non Friendly stuff...
Will/Could it be reversed? I mean not Qualifying for two tourneys in a row?

Let's say SEPT goes well and the result in Moscow see's us off to Poland/Ukraine.
Taking ALL of that into consideration, including reasonably that several of our more prominent players, could perhaps retire after making and playing in this tourney....
And the prospect that Trap would maybe step down...
I admit I am keeping in the thought process, and I know it is hard to think of now, that HYPOTHETICALLY if we do make 2012, then HYPOTHETICALLY IS it NOT easy to see some crazy penalty kicks type emotional thing that see's us out... and a bunch of players just can't do it anymore... (At least right away...they are exhausted and declare Int'l retirement....)

OK but even without that.
If we make Euro, does it make us making the World Cup harder?
Easier?
Indifferent?

What if I told you if we make Euro, we Do not make the WC.
BUT what if I also said, if we miss Euro we MIGHT make the WC but it is 50-50? What would you say?
Discuss.
Oh here are the records:
http://www.fai.ie/index.php?option=c...710&Itemid=375

Last time we qualified for a European championship we qualified for the following world cup and finished up in the quarter finals getting knocked out by the hosts.

So by that reckoning I'm looking forward to our game against Brazil in the last 8 in 2014.

We are a season or three from the spine of the side in Dunne, O'Shea, Duff, Keane and maybe even Given having to look at how much longer they can play the level for. With that closing in, I would like us to face it from a postion of strength, of having qualified for Euro 2012. It will breed confidence and hopefully success also.

It will mean a generation of kids wanting to emulate players in the side, and this has been significant in the past, Keane has spoken of it, as much as they want to emulate O'Driscoll, or O'Gara, or Carey or whoever else in Irish sport.

To a lesser extent, and this is something some may not agree with, it could sway inbetweeners to play for Ireland if we can begin to qualify regularly again, as there is not much between England and ourselves in terms of how we perform when we reach major finals, but England make it to them more often than we do. If a guy, like for example O'Hara, who is English born, but of clear and strong Irish descent, sees both teams more equally, we may in turn get more of them declaring earlier in their careers. If this can add two or three credible options to the squad, that could be the difference.

Then there is the boost that qualifying will give the ranking and maybe seeding, a good tournament could make the hill a little less steep for following campaigns and generations.

But most of all, there is the gap since our last successfull quailfying campaign, which is now too long and too many managers ago. the sooner that is lifted, the better for soccer in Ireland.

OP makes no great sense.
And given the 'choice', Brazil (Or any WC) over 'Polkraine' (or any Euros), any time.

But being Ireland, or a fan, ain't that simple...
As yer man says in 2 years time, we'll be 'crap' when all those players retire....

found that hard to follow crosby,

i don't understand how you think playing in the euros might hinder our chances of getting into the world cup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke

there is not much between England and ourselves in terms of how we perform when we reach major finals, but England make it to them more often than we do

---

Since 1994, England have reached a semi final (1996), and three quarter finals (2002, 2004, 2006).

Erm, we know.

Think he means how the teams play when they get there, not necessarily in terms of results.

'Ingerland' usually manage one convincing performance per tournament and are thankfully, mediocre at best in the rest.
We usually manage one decent result without being overly convincing otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Think he means how the teams play when they get there, not necessarily in terms of results..

---

"How [they] perform" suggests results, surely?

Well if you listen to their fans, especially last year, it was very much about the manner (as in style, or lack of it), how they went about this. And which has finally downsized the expectations of many, thankfully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Since 1994, England have reached a semi final (1996), and three quarter finals (2002, 2004, 2006).

---

Point taken, I was more along the lines of what AB has suggested. Also in tournaments where we have qualified we have a quarter final and two knock out stages on the CV, without ever really failing miserably and exiting early with a series of very poor results, once we have qualified, which England do on occasion. Do you see what I was meaning now?

Anyway, this may not be what the OP had in mind at all, as I am not fully sure I understood Crosbys post, but that lads and lassies, was my 1000th post. Only taken me the bones of a decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke

failing miserably and exiting early with a series of very poor results, once...qualified, which England do on occasion. Do you see what I was meaning now?

---

Sorry, not really. England's recent record:

W 10- progressed through group stage, lost in R16
E 08- didn't qualify
W 06- progressed through group stage and R16, lost on penalties in QF
E 04- progressed through group stage, lost on penalties in QF
W 02- progressed through group stage and R16, lost in QF
E 00- eliminated in group stage, although beating Germany to knock them out too
W 98- progressed through group stage, lost on penalties in R16
E 96- progressed through group stage and QF, lost on penalties in SF

So, they've only exited early (ie, at the group stage) once in the seven tournaments where they qualified. And even then they beat the holders, so not an unmitigated disaster. They might be hard to watch and rubbish compared with their more excitable fans' expectations, but that's not quite the same thing.

Quote:

---

but that lads and lassies, was my 1000th post. Only taken me the bones of a decade

---

Congratulations :)

Don't worry CTP, back in the real world, the rest of us do.
:)


As for the Ingles, as long as they never win anything, who cares....

If the choice is between definitely qualifying for this tournament and not the other, or possibly qualifying for neither, I'll take the Euro's in 2012 thanks very much.

If we qualify for the Euro's, I'd prefer for us to do it as group winners obviously, because it gives us more preparation time; if we've to go through the play-off's then so be it.
It would make a big difference to us qualifying earlier, as it allows the manager to see as many players as possible (and as many systems), perhaps even the Armenia game at home as well as an extra two friendly dates we'd currently be reserving for the play-offs.
It also allows us organise the friendlies for next Spring/Summer quicker too.

Come next summer, hopefully as prep for Ukrailand, the likes of Foley, Ward, Wilson, McCarthy, Meyler, Cox, Westwood, Coleman, Clark and O'Dea will all have featured enough in the warm up games to make them realistic contenders for a team spot, never mind a squad spot. We might be lucky and that O'Shea and Ledger have settled well at centre back for the new clubs (with Ledger being promoted to the PL) and that Duffy and Cunningham, will have established themselves at club level and given themselves a chance as squad members.

Even just looking at that number of players on the fringes (12), Foley, Ward, Wilson, McCarthy, Meyler, Cox, Westwood, Coleman, Clark O'Dea, Duffy and Cunningham, is a cause for optimism, and even if some of the est. squad members retired, we wouldn't be in the sheet to the same extent as we were post Anfield 95.

Of that list to be fair only McCarthy, Coleman and Clark have shown significant ability at the highest level. I think Westwood will in time, Foley and Ward are solid players, but probably nothing more. The others have a lot of question marks over them. Wilson is decent with questionable commitment, Meyler may never even get capped with his injury record, Cox up to now has realistically been championship standard, Duffy and Cunningham have proved nothing and I dont think O'Dea will ever be good enough. Have to say I'm feeling more skeptical than optimism over that bunch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Murfinator

Of that list to be fair only McCarthy, Coleman and Clark have shown significant ability at the highest level. I think Westwood will in time, Foley and Ward are solid players, but probably nothing more. The others have a lot of question marks over them. Wilson is decent with questionable commitment, Meyler may never even get capped with his injury record, Cox up to now has realistically been championship standard, Duffy and Cunningham have proved nothing and I dont think O'Dea will ever be good enough. Have to say I'm feeling more skeptical than optimism over that bunch.

---

They're not all going to be world beaters, of course. But Foley has been a Prem regular for two years, so he'd be in the first category surely. Meyler had a couple of injuries but there is no reason he won't make it. And O'Dea has been excellent in the last few Ireland outings despite his limitations.

They don't have to be world class for us to feel optimistic - this is the biggest influx of potentially great top flight players we've had in decades imo. And even those who don't make it can unquestionably contribute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

They're not all going to be world beaters, of course. But Foley has been a Prem regular for two years, so he'd be in the first category surely. Meyler had a couple of injuries but there is no reason he won't make it. And O'Dea has been excellent in the last few Ireland outings despite his limitations.

They don't have to be world class for us to feel optimistic - this is the biggest influx of potentially great top flight players we've had in decades imo. And even those who don't make it can unquestionably contribute.

---

I would like to back up your point(s) with one word - Greece.

The Musical??

Quote:

---

The Musical??

---

you better shape up.

Sorry Bear.
Eh, sometimes there is a little "Hangover" from teams who do not usually make tournaments.
Sometimes the "Hangover" is a good thing. Or A great thing.
But they almost always slot back into being where they are historically. Which, unless it is a weird sort of generation, you know, is correct. And good sometimes. Or bad.
I am willing to risk it of course. Lets dance.

Im saying that, if we DO make Euro... that it will be nutty and things will happen after it.
Its almost more of a "pure" situation if we DON'T make it. (As far as making the World Cup goes.)
I can see Trap as Manager and the team in tact way more if we do not make Euro than if we do.

If I'm picking you up right... I don't see how qualification for a major tournament could ever be a bad thing. Maybe I'd take a World Cup over a European Championship if it had to be a choice of one over the other, but who in their right mind would turn one down if the option of qualifying for both was still on the table or the chances of such were still very much alive and within our own hands? I don't really see how us qualifying for Euro 2012 would prove detrimental to our World Cup 2014 qualification campaign or create some sort of "impurity"... I'm not sure what you mean there exactly, but, presumably, you're referring to a fear of a possible lack of continuity or preparation for the following campaign or something? We'll have as much time to prepare for the next campaign either way and, whether we qualify for Euro 2012 or not, it will always be a new campaign with the same players available regardless, unless a group of them decides to retire specifically because they've qualified for Euro 2012 and are happy to pass the next campaign onto the next generation, but I don't really see that happening specifically due to us qualifying. I'd imagine that if players are considering international retirement it would happen either way regardless if such players no longer feel like they have their best efforts to offer.

It's a bizarre concept really; that we should hope not to qualify? :confused: I remember Steve Staunton using a similar defence and talking about a similar mode of thought when we were so awfully bad during his reign as manager. He always intimated that he was "building for the future", as if the results and performances there and then were inconsequential or of an inferior importance in comparison to this rather nebulous "future", but I always thought of that as self-defeatist nonsense that was ultimately more detrimental in the long-term. You take each game as it is and you go out to try and win it, or at least try not lose it, if at all possible. A winning mentality breeds success. You can't play international football with your head two or four years down the line. It's a very different game in that sense from club football. There's not enough short or long-term continuity in international football to designate the "future" your primary concern.

Is there really such a thing as this so-called "hangover effect"? If so, what is it exactly? Is it to suggest an expected lack of morale or motivation on the part of a team of players once they've had to return to the more mundane duties of qualification after having experienced the euphoric highs of a major tournament? To me, the phrase is little more than a vague and simplistic cliché commentators trot out when a "big team" under-performs against a perceived "minnow". The timing after a major tournament of whatever game to which they're referring just happens to provide a convenience for their limited analysis. If such poor performances have to be attributed to some solitary factor, I might put them down to poor discipline, but there are a multitude of variables and factors that impact upon any one team's performance in any one qualification campaign. Didn't France go on to win Euro 2000 after lifting the World Cup in 1998 and having failed to qualify for the tournaments in both 1994 and 1990 prior to that? Or, if it is, as you claim, that this effects just those "teams who do not usually make tournaments" (a rather ambiguous category in itself), I'd imagine that any performance perceived to be relatively inferior to that of a previous tournament or qualification campaign would primarily be a case of that team, once again, re-finding their level; the natural ebbing and flowing, if you will, of the successes of a pot two or three level team who can never consistently compete with the resources of the major pot one powers who are always at the very top of European football. What examples are there of this supposed "hangover effect"?

I remember Croatia came to Dublin in September of 1998 immediately after having had a very successful World Cup, by their expectations. They'd just finished third in the competition, but we trampled all over them in that game, beating them 2-0. Possibly they approached the game with complacency in abundance; they lost the run of themselves completely and had two men sent off, if memory serves me right. I suppose you could say Holland underestimated us as well in September of 2000, having just hosted Euro 2000 with Belgium, at least until they found themselves 2-0 down in Amsterdam before quickly getting their act together and pulling the game back to 2-2, but, by and large, I would think that most teams - the major powers in world football, especially - who qualify for major tournaments do so consistently over and over again. I don't think there's any general "hangover effect" evident throughout international football. To attribute the aforementioned performances against us of Croatia or Holland to a "hangover effect", I feel would even be too simplistic. For those teams "who do not usually make tournaments", I'd imagine they're just re-finding their natural level. Inevitably, sometimes they'll punch above their weight, as you might say Croatia did in 1998, and sometimes they'll have more barren spells or the odd game where things just don't work for them.

Admittedly, we had a pretty poor Euro 2004 qualification campaign after our World Cup in 2002, but I don't know if you could say it was due to this "hangover effect" either. On that occasion, McCarthy and the team were under immense pressure since the fall-out from what happened in Saipan. It appeared that the general public had lost confidence in McCarthy and were just waiting for him to slip up. He had subsequently become an "enemy" to a very significant portion of Ireland fans and his position was on insecure ground from the outset despite having just managed the team to the second round of a World Cup finals. Whilst the Saipan incident might have helped the players who remained in Japan/South Korea bond together in reaction for the good of the country, or to "just give it a lash with nothing to lose" or whatever, for the remainder of the competition, a team without Roy Keane bossing the midfield was never going to be the same in international competition afterwards. In addition to that, we had the toughest fixture of the campaign up first; a daunting away trip to Moscow that saw us resoundingly beaten 4-2, Phil Babb (of all people) even making a final ill-fated return and contributing an own goal. Kerr taking over after such a bad start, which included a loss to Switzerland in our next game, was never optimal.

Even if this is what you're saying a "hangover effect" is, there is certainly nothing inevitable about it. As pointed out by Bonnie, even we qualified for the World Cup in 1990 after playing in Euro '88. In qualification for Euro '92, we didn't lose a game as a second pot team and missed out on the finals by a point with just England, the group-winner, qualifying for the finals. There was no "hangover effect" evident there. After our World Cup in 1994, we made it to the play-off for Euro '96 with a unit that was very much on its last legs; ageing and well past its heyday. No-one really would have expected us with any certainty to top a group featuring Portugal, never mind get through a play-off against Holland in Anfield, "hangover" or not. When Mick came in, he had to pretty much build from scratch and still just missed out on qualification for the 1998 World Cup after losing to Belgium by a goal in the play-offs. We've perennially been a team that just about makes it or just about misses out; a "so near yet so far" type of team teetering between the lower second and third pots of teams in Europe and qualifying by scraping through, as runners-up or through the play-offs when we do, which isn't often either. Well, in contemporary times and for as long as I can remember, at least. Non-qualification for tournaments in 1996, 1998, 2004, 2006 or 2008, for example, certainly didn't guarantee qualification or make any huge deal of difference to what I'd consider fairly usual or standard performances in subsequent campaigns.

The benefits of qualifying for a major tournament are both obvious and numerous if we're to at least maintain or consolidate what we might consider to be our natural level. I can't see how non-qualification could do anything other than aid deterioration or stagnancy and impair our chances of punching above our weight for the next few years to come. Qualification should: breed confidence and self-belief; help us get over any mental block that might make qualification seem daunting or beyond our capability; provide invaluable experience against a variety of styles of play at the very top level; help improve our ranking and seeding, crucial for giving ourselves a better chance in future campaigns; spur camaraderie, togetherness and morale within the team given they'll have a month solid away working with one another to do the country proud; re-generate unparalleled interest amongst fans all over the country and ensure football and the team are at the forefront of public consciousness (even Ireland winning a Six Nations in rugby is minor stuff compared to the buzz and excitement qualification for a major footballing tournament stirs up and down the country); inspire the next generation to emulate a new set of national heroes with whom they can directly connect; provide a massive windfall for the FAI as well as justify the future distribution of developmental funds and resources; and ensure that the young players in future squads will have those who've been there and done it to look up to for another decade. I'm sure there are plenty more benefits I haven't mentioned that far outweigh these vague or dubious "risks" apparently brought about by qualifying or associated with some sort of imagined "hangover effect".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crosby87

If we make Euro, does it make us making the World Cup harder

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Nope.

---

Why didn't I just think of that before writing my spiel? :p

i agree with wolfie and the spiel.

qualifying for the euros would enhance our chances of qualifying for world cup, more experienced players, higher world rankings, more interest generated in the sport, a taste of glory thats been almost forgotten at this stage (10 years since last tourno) , playing in a successful team could encourage players who might of thought about retiring to stick on for another succesful crack at a major finals.

regarding your q about swapping defo qualification for euro for possible world cup, not a chance i turn down the oppurtunity to cheer on the lads in euros.

i hope we qualify for something soon