http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-30423366.html
Good test this. USA impressed a lot of people in the World Cup and are well ranked by FIFA but have a fairly poor defence. Last played them in 2002, won 2-1, Kinsella and Doherty the scorers.
Printable View
http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-30423366.html
Good test this. USA impressed a lot of people in the World Cup and are well ranked by FIFA but have a fairly poor defence. Last played them in 2002, won 2-1, Kinsella and Doherty the scorers.
Would prefer not losing to the USA lol.
But then we did OK against Costa Rica who are about the same level as USA.
Please change the date to the right order.
That's weird. I could have sworn I just copied that direct from the Indo. Can only imagine the opposition affected my brain.
Good test this. USA impressed a lot of people in the World Cup and are well ranked by FIFA but have a fairly poor defence..[/QUOTE]
Have to respectfully disagree with you there. The US back 4 was the surprise of my life. They bend but rarely break. Germany beat Ireland 9-1 in 2 games right? Beat the hosts 7-1? They beat US one nil.
It's midfield and anything resembling an offense, especially without Landy cakes that US looks clueless at. Michael Bradley was a huge disappointment at generating some ebb and flow but he is great at coming back and helping on D.
I think the US defence led a charmed enough life, especially against Germany and Belgium. Combined, those two teams had 35 shots on target in 2 1/3rd games of football. Howard is certainly great, but it was like Russia/Ireland: another day it could have been 5-0 in both games.
Not that Ireland will be racking up the shots, but I don't think the US strength is in their back four.
Prefer not losing to the USA? Why? What difference would it make.....losing to Croatia, Sweden, Russia, Germany, USA?Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
A loss is a loss.
If you have that 'we're much better than them at football' attitude which many Irish including myself had, surely it's time to kick it into touch now.
I emigrated to the US in the mid 80's and I kid you not when I tell you the US's team was Leinster Senior League level at that time.
But look at how they have improved since. And look at how much we have gone backwards.
It really pains me to see how the job (of improving one's status in the game by proper planning and coaching) is done first hand, and to look at ourselves who keep making the same mistakes year in and decade out.
No we don't have the financial resources that the US do - it is fair to say that we are more on a level with Belgium or Holland (albeit with a smaller population).
But those countries put plans in place, just like the US has, and are now reaping the rewards.
We need to fix our broken system, or we'll be singing this same long, just like England is, in another 20 years time.
They have a MASSIVE population to choose from. We don't.
Ergo, lies the rub.
The US has a massive population to choose from. That is correct. But population is only a small factor in the equation. The smaller countries like Belgium and Holland, and indeed Denmark and Sweden have done it right over the years. We haven't. A plan to completely revise our coaching system (and I hear that is beginning already). In the absence of turning our domestic league into a viable operation, which seems destined not to happen no matter how hard we try, we need to develop a process where the cream of the crop (2 or 3 of them) from the LOI are incorporated into the national team squad. It may be a step backwards to begin with, but it will reap rewards going forwardQuote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Also the inner cities produce the majority of US athletes. Playing soccer in the suburbs is on the rise for sure, but most kids dont play organized soccer in places like nyc, chicago, memphis, atlanta, etc.. as the health implications of playing american football become more and more obvious it will be interesting to see if those kids from poor areas are turned to soccer. Kobe Bryant for example grew up in Italy and was a terrific soccer player. The US needs to produce a Kobe Bryant or Peyton Manning or Derek Jeter of soccer, and it will happen soon.
Irish Times article mentioned earlier highlighted the middle class nature of soccer in USA being its most likely natural limiter. It costs money to develop kids and in most cases the networks and resources aren't there to develop the most talented kids, only the kids whose parents can afford it.
Crosby The boy is coming home, he also said the World cup final was the greatest sporting event he has ever been at.
Wooohooo Go Soccerball!!!
Well it's a bit embarrassing losing to a country that "does not even play the game", mind you they have beaten England before too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Even a defeat to Cyprus is honourable :)
Will be interesting to see how such a match will pan out though, still at least it is at the Aviva so if Ireland do lose most
Americans won't even know :)
Well, in the context of those games, Ireland went out to win both games playing attacking football, we just were woefully unprepared to actually do it, whereas the USA were set out for damage limitation. I think the USA are a better team than Ireland overall but the results are not a useful comparison, any more than Brazil losing 7-1 at home to Germany makes them worse than us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
The USA actually remind me of past Ireland teams that qualified for the World Cup...only the US have an easier path. Then, when you get there, you punch above your weight for 3 or 4 games.
There has definitely been a huge surge in interest in the sport here...but that was for the pomp and ceremony of a World Cup. The question is - will that translate to hum drum qualifiers and to the MLS?
Worth noting that the team has strong MLS representation. And like teams such as Belgium, Sweden, Holland, Greece - they have a well supported domestic league. We don't. The USA is currently better than us and that gap is going to widen - vastly. Our coaching set up is flawed, we produce fantastic new talent annually, it seems, in the LoI - but nobody wants to go watch them. As long as that's the case local teams will flog their best young talent to half arsed League 1 teams in England for next to nothing just to get money to survive. And that then translates to the national team. Utter mediocrity from top to bottom.
Whether Irish supporter's of English teams (that "wouldn't watch that sh!t" down the road from their house) like it or not a vibrant, well supported LOI is integral to this country's national team progressing on the world stage.
Under Trap we never went out to win games like this, don't fuzzy the facts from the past to suit you argument by appending some silly throwaway remark to cover yourself like "woefully unprepared to actually do it".Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
No. Ireland played decent purposeful football in the first twenty or so minutes againt Germany at home. I remember being mildly impressed of how Trap was approaching the game. Then it all went to pieces.
Paul, the YBIG hivemind has gotten to you again. I watched the Germany match and made my own assessment. Ireland played purposeful football and the formation was set up to hang on to the ball and create things as Trap knew sitting back and playing the traditional game would make us sitting ducks, which is exactly what we were after he changed to 442 at half time/
And the second germany game? We had some attacks with stokes up front but we definitely didnt setup to win it. Damage limitation or sneak a draw.
I dont think we ever set ourselves up to win under trap, it was containment at all times bar the France away game where we had nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
We had an ok patch to start with in the first game, then the germans figured us out quickly and our weaknesses and cruelly exposed us. I was actually surprised how easy they got in behind coleman time and again.
There was nothing damage limitation about the game in Germany either. Whelan on the right was a bit weird but he had one of his best games there and we at least looked to retain the ball and use it well when we had it. Germany dominated the game but that's because they're Germany and were at home. The reason it wasn't a freewheeling attacking performance is because they have much better players than us, not because we were set up negatively, whereas the USA definitely did just set up to absorb the pressure Germany occasionally put on them.
Isn't the way for a country like us to set up to try and beat Germany, almost by definition, to set up to defend well and sneak some chances on the counter or from set pieces?
I think King set us up to do as well as we realistically could have.
Trap used Keith Fahey as a defensive midfielder. That was silly. So too was just sitting off them without putting pressure on the ball. That tactic got found out by most opponents around 2009/10. It worked for a while but passed its sell by date.
Also, Germany's finishing was impeccable that day. How many were from 20 yards or more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
We always started games well under Trapattoni because we were passing the ball and venturing forward with purpose. Every single time we would capitulate after 15 minutes and retreat into our shells.
How many times did we go in front under Trapattoni, mobilise, play like we are desperately protecting a 1 goal lead - with about 25 minutes on the clock - and then invariably concede an equaliser and throw away points needlessly?
People go on about the achievement of even getting to the Playoffs in 09/10 campaign but those Bulgaria games were gimmes and the way we dropped points against them was maddening.
That's a point I made quite frequently when I was more pro- Trap than I eventually became. Yes we spent large parts of games defending, but we did have a great habit of scoring early under Trap. We did it lots of times.
Agree re- both Bulgaria games. Not gimmes, but more purpose and self-confidence and we should have won.
I think there was a difference between how we started against Germany, Russia in Dublin and a couple of other games, than our usual strong opening 5 minutes. It wasn't just route one, there was more patience and more precision.
I wonder why we do this though, is it simply us running out of steam, ie starting too fast and using up too much energy early on?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
This is a pretty fatal tactic guaranteed to go wrong same say sprinting the first 300 metres of marathon.
The best tactic is to pace yourselves until what is maybe the last quarter of the game then you can recover in the
dressing room rather than on the pitch.
That I think is more important than anything else to get right, more important than player selection or formation
or whatever.
As I just said I think that is a fatal tactic, as an example of that I remember once at school we had to run a 800 metreQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
race which I really didn't fancy doing as such runs are normally a painful experience for me, hence I decide to jog round
and just run the last 300 metres, as I knew this was the longest distance you could sprint for.
Much to my surprise I actually won the race, coming from last to first in the last 300 metres!!
The best part of the race for me was passing the last runner, the captain of the football team, early in the final straight,
I could tell from his breathing he was absolutely whacked, I ran about 20-30 metres out of him to win by a distance!!
Nobody was more surprised than me, I was far from the most athletic, I just used the best tactics, they were all knackered after about 400
metres, I was knackered when the race was ran.
Tricky its pretty simple, the teams figure us out and then capitalise on our one route approach, we revert to "our plan" without the ball.
Looking back im happy we didnt qualify for SA as I would have probably come back with Aids. I think we had all the old failings in that campaign that Trap said was one of the first things he would put right, the same frailties that we never got rid of under Traps 6 years, two wins and 4 more points, going into that italy game, a win and we topped the group. Ah well hindsight and all that, history is looked back more fondly depending on whose doing the looking back.
I think the USAs biggest problem is that a world cup is every 4 years and they dont have much to play for in between. So its interest will pique but i doubt will sustain. Interesting to see how the Confederations goes in a couple of years.
Sprinting for 300 mtrs after running 500 is pretty impressive if yer not athletic. I'd say you mean running fast, i always find it funny when middle distance runners or long distance say sprint to the end. They cant sprint they run fast. Sprinting is completely different.
Does anyone else get really disconcerted when TC and Crosby take things seriously and make coherent posts?Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Surely you would have taken precautions given you were going to a country with a huge AIDS problem. Kinda silly just to start lamping it about. Though considering some of your apparent exploits in Slapper Face Jacks who knows. Any port in a storm eh Pauly?Quote:
Looking back im happy we didnt qualify for SA as I would have probably come back with Aids. I think we had all the old failings in that campaign that Trap said was one of the first things he would put right, the same frailties that we never got rid of under Traps 6 years, two wins and 4 more points, going into that italy game, a win and we topped the group. Ah well hindsight and all that, history is looked back more fondly depending on whose doing the looking back.
On a serious note I think that I would have swapped the qualification in SA for Poland simply because that we scraped over the line to get to the Euros. Qualifying for SA would have been dare I say, the "real" team. Especially given that we seem to excel at poor World Cups it may have been a daycent showing.
That's a very interesting comment. And I reckon entirely true. The interest in the World Cup in the USA is always there. I think with the media and social media advances over the last 4 years may show that the interest appears to have grown exponentially to how it was in 2010. But it's hard to say conclusively. I think the real test will come when the USA are playing in humdrum qualifiers and in the Gold Cup before Russia 2018.Quote:
I think the USAs biggest problem is that a world cup is every 4 years and they dont have much to play for in between. So its interest will pique but i doubt will sustain. Interesting to see how the Confederations goes in a couple of years.
The USA are also hosting the 100th Anniversary edition of the Copa America in 2016. So this will be a another test for the burgeoning popularity of soccer. But again it is a tournament so we will see... lest we accuse Yanks of being bandwagoners.
Ya know what he meant. Even Mad Moose and Stutts would refer to there final push as sprinting and I would trust them as authorities on running here. I'd also trust Stutts in financial matters too. :)Quote:
Sprinting for 300 mtrs after running 500 is pretty impressive if yer not athletic. I'd say you mean running fast, i always find it funny when middle distance runners or long distance say sprint to the end. They cant sprint they run fast. Sprinting is completely different.
You mean swap Poland for SA? ya i would too, i always thought id prefer a euros over world cup cos more competitive or so i believed, but having gone to poland and given our team at the euros and where they were at, along with the contingent etc, I would have preferred SA.
However I would have swapped all of them for Brazil. I think everyone would, and nothing to do with the fact it was one of the best world cups in a long time.
Everyone seems to ignore that the Americans always have the greatest following at the world cup bar the home nation obviously. I know there are lots of americans all over the world but still.
Are you sure everybody ignores that or is it just that people aren't interested in how many Americans are at things?Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
I'd wager the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
The term "American" is silly if you think about it. I mean its "of" America, not of all Americas. I mean Skstu is "American" since Canada is in North America. But he doesnt go around to Cow tipping contests calling himself American. Giselle Bundchen is American from being from Brazil but could ony call herself American once she married Tom Brady. Those on the farest reaches of South America are also "American." Mexicans even are American though we prefer if they don't come in. US citizens and the people as a whole should be refered to as "Staters" or something. Help me out here Stutts. By the way do you chaps know Churchill was half American and lived in NYC? PM me if you come here, I will show you where he lived. Your dander will rise.
But it's called the United States of AMERICA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
All the revisionism about the last two Germany games is complete garbage. They would have taken us to the cleaners however we played. There was nothing creditable really about either performance.
And already fear much of the same.
Tbf, most US soccer fans don't have a choice re.an alternative live product given their relative geographical isolation.Quote:
Originally Posted by dancinpants
Due to their domestic coverage, interest in the EPL, CL et al is growing, but a lot less viable for many to take in a live match elsewhere.
Irish players, as been covered multiple times before, suffer from the more exotic mix of players now used elsewhere which means they end up struggling to get a chance to make an impact.
Ideally yes, more young players would stay at home (doesn't really 'accommodate' those of the diaspora though), but there isn't really the interest, and more importantly the € to justify this...
And maybe this will be more the US's 'reality'?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/wor...foreign,36455/
No amount of your own negative revisionism or spin can change the FACT that we won the last two minutes against Germany at home.
I dont know, do you just ignore the whole point, or do i really need to qualify the statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
MEdia outlets, posters etc, always say "soccer is on the rise in America", but they always fail to acknolwedge or include the fact that America is the best supported nation at the World cup, why ignore that part when its quite important, if a country like the USA don't have any interest in soccer or its on the rise how are they still getting the biggest attendances at the games? Of course I did factor in that there are americans all over the world but thats not the sole factor.
surely the likes of argentina and colombia brought far more fans to Brazil than the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
i read that a lot of tickets were sold to US addresses but they could just have easily been fans from other countries living there.
HAHA, love it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
No you wont i pm'd you loads and you never met me that time Crobsy, don't fill the poor guys with hope only to break their hearts. Although you might have split up from your lady by the time we were finished that time in NYC...
Ya i was thinking this too, but I heard it from two different media sources, however it was during the group stages so perhaps initially they had but certainly by colombia/uruguay it was full of colombians, or maybe they were brazillians ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne