Republic of Ireland V Sweden - Monday, 13th June 2016 - Euro 2016 Group E

Six days!

Honestly, I'd take a draw. Opening with a 1-1 hasn't served us too badly over the years.


I'd go with:

-------------- Westwood -----------------

Coleman --- O'Shea --- Clark ---- Brady


----------------- Whelan -----------------

------- McCarthy ---- Hendrick ---------


----------------- Hoolahan ---------------

---------- Walters ------- Long ----------



Barring injuries, the only differences I could envisage to O'Neill's selection would be Randolph and maybe Keogh starting. McClean for Hendrick a possibility too but I don't expect that to happen.

I wouldn't take a draw because I would be surprised if we get anything from the Belgium/Italy games. You don't mention Duffy. I think we might need his height in the box in what is otherwise a small team.

I feel very much the same about Duffy. I think he's as solid at the back as Keogh and Clark, but he also offers a big threat at set-pieces.

I'd like to think it will be Clark and Duffy when the WCQ's roll around. I'd have no issue with Duffy's selection in the Euros either but think maybe O'Shea's experience could be important. Clark has been our best performing defender in my opinion and you'd imagine Keogh can't be too far away as he was an ever present from the Germany game onwards in qualifying. Duffy's ability to get his head on everything, in both penalty boxes, is a brilliant additional string to his bow though, I agree. I'd certainly have him ahead of Keogh but if I was to select him it would be ahead of O'Shea, not Clark.

We thought a draw at home to Poland would be a disaster... it wasn't. We thought a draw at home to Scotland was fatal... it wasn't. On paper sure, Belgium and Italy look the more daunting outfits, but I think there's everything to play for in those games. A draw would set us up fairly nicely in terms of having something to build on, particularly if it's one of those draws where we equalise after chasing the game. Obviously the concession of an equaliser five minutes into stoppage time wouldn't do much for us mentally, so the manner of the draw is important of course.

I think we might be overestimating how difficult it will be to get a result against Belgium/Italy in comparison to Sweden a small bit.

Robbie Brady quoted in this morning's papers about how brilliant Duffy is as a target to aim for his set pieces.

Except we need a win. If we wanted to progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Robbie Brady quoted in this morning's papers about how brilliant Duffy is as a target to aim for his set pieces.

---

Not surprised. The thing with Duffy is that he's not just big and strong, he really knows how to use his strength and attacks the ball so aggressively. He can turn an average cross into a very good one so it would take the pressure off Brady needing to be pin point accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Except we need a win. If we wanted to progress.

---

So it's impossible that we could get something from Belgium/Italy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

So it's impossible that we could get something from Belgium/Italy?

---

I'd expect 0 points from those games.

Fair enough, and I'm sure the bookies agree with you. Personally, I think we've as good a chance of 1 point (or more) from Belgium and/or Italy as we do of getting 3 from Sweden. I don't think there's that much difference in the challenge provided by all three, although we should have more possession against Sweden you would hope. I'd expect their games against each other to be extremely tight also.

I quite fancy getting something from Italy. They are not the best they've ever been, we have a decent enough record against them and they owe us for last time in Poznan.

If we beat Sweden then we should rest the entire starting XI for the Belgium game. 4 pts would get us through.

In the event that a draw is enough for both sides in the Italy game I would be amazed if any other result happens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by punkrocket

I quite fancy getting something from Italy. They are not the best they've ever been, we have a decent enough record against them

---

many fans said that the last euros and Italy got to the final beating us along the way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Fair enough, and I'm sure the bookies agree with you. Personally, I think we've as good a chance of 1 point (or more) from Belgium and/or Italy as we do of getting 3 from Sweden. I don't think there's that much difference in the challenge provided by all three, although we should have more possession against Sweden you would hope. I'd expect their games against each other to be extremely tight also.

---

I think Sweden, apart from Ibrahimovic, are absolutely average, but Belgium and Italy are quite a bit better.

Anybody for an 'Irish games: score predictions' thread?

If we beat Sweden and Italy and Belgium both lose, ah no draw what does that mean?! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbyrne

many fans said that the last euros and Italy got to the final beating us along the way

---

I was just about to say the same myself but I suppose the beauty of football, and many sports, is that the better side on paper doesn't always win. Belgium are ranked 2nd in the world and Italy 12th so it's a bit of deja vu from Poland but this time the third team is ranked below us (33 vs 35). So the odds are two defeats and a draw but our green brain cells try to tell us it will be better than that.

If you are sad like me and love to fill in Euro 2016 spreadsheets you will probably end up with a couple of third place teams scraping through to the last 16 with 2 points.

One win and you are very likely to make it.

If we were to beat Sweden, obviously they would then need to beat either Italy of Belgium to finish ahead of us in the group. Two draws in those games would be use to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbyrne

many fans said that the last euros and Italy got to the final beating us along the way

---

Yes, I think I was one of them.
Depends what mood they are in, they blow hot and cold, some great tournaments and some poor ones. They are getting on a bit, as are we, but a speed merchant like Long could cause their defence problems.

Quote:

---

A computer simulation created at TU Wien (Vienna) predicts the results of the group stage of the Euro 2016: France, Slovakia, Poland, Belgium and Austria are predicted to win all three group stage matches, Italy will not make it to the next round.

---

http://www.tuwien.ac.at/en/news/news...article/10150/

(PDF of predicted results for each group)

Quote:

---

Group E
1. Belgium (BEL) 9
2. Sweden (SWE) 6
3. Ireland (IRL) 3
4. Italy (ITA) 0

---

Gerrup! :)

TV3's Paul Walsh tweeted this from Ireland training: https://twitter.com/paulwalshtv3/sta...44875172741120

Quote:

---

Here are the 10 a side teams during #IRL training. More first teamers in yellow i think....

---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkgCdW2WYAE4KeV.jpg

Brendan O'Brien has tweeted: "Randolph. Brady, JOS, Duffy, Coleman, McGeady, McCarthy, Hendrick, Hoolahan and Long all on one 10-man team at training. Walters sits out..."

Looks like the makings of a starting line-up (although very attack-minded). I expect Whelan would play and probably McGeady drop out. Surely McGeady isn't in the running to start after his season?

Duffy certainly a surprise, if this is an indication, but I approve. As I've said a few times, he's as solid at the back as any of our options but adds a height-threat for set-pieces.

Obviously, I'd rather be seeing Westwood in there too, but I think everyone shares that feeling. Is there anyone on the forum who wants Randolph to be number one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Is there anyone on the forum who wants Randolph to be number one?

---

Yes. Randolph ahead of Westwood for me.

I'd like to see Duffy in the team for Sweden but maybe his lack of playing time in a green jersey will count against him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

Yes. Randolph ahead of Westwood for me.

---

Why do you favour Randolph?

Randolph has done little wrong to warrant being dropped in my view. Westwood is undoubtedly the better goalkeeper, but I think more game time of recent in the Irish shirt for Randolph stands to him.

That's probably true, but at the same time I'd probably prefer MON just to take a ballsy view and pick Westwood even if it is harsh on Randolph.

I'm not sure too much can be read into the ten-a-side selections, other than Walters and Keane are still crocked. I actually have no real firm view on our CB pairing. I'd probably go with Clark and O'Shea.

Westwood
Coleman O'Shea Clark Brady
Whelan McCarthy
Hendrick Hoolahan McClean
Long

I'd be a bit worried about bench options, not much to come on that'd spruce things up.

As Nigel said. Randolph has done little wrong. It's marginal call either way but would start Randolph as he "has the jersey".

Agree bench options don't look great after the Belarus game. Be more tempted to play Christie in a midfield role than to bring McGeady into the team.

Damian Spellman tweeting that Keane and Walters both trained this morning

No Randolph has done nothing wrong, he didnt come out in no mans land flapping around the last day against Holland. Or completely misjduge his positioning for one of Polands goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

Randolph has done little wrong to warrant being dropped in my view. Westwood is undoubtedly the better goalkeeper, but I think more game time of recent in the Irish shirt for Randolph stands to him.

---

"Stands to him", as in you think it'll boost his performance/ability to a lever superior to Westwood's?

I agree that Randolph hasn't committed any major or "drop-worthy" clangers, but why is there a special rule for a goalkeeper? If it was an outfield player, there'd be none of this "he has the jersey" talk. We'd simply be talking about who's the better player - whether he's made errors in the past or not - and discussing whether he should start on that basis. It's not as if there's some unwritten obligation to stick with the same 'keeper every game, surely.

I think it's unhelpful conventional wisdom to keep selecting a 'keeper because he "has the jersey". It doesn't make any rational sense to me. Sure, you could say that it might damage Randolph's morale, but any player has to be prepared to accept they're not in the starting line-up. He'll have to be dropped at some point. Goalkeepers should be no exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

That's probably true, but at the same time I'd probably prefer MON just to take a ballsy view and pick Westwood even if it is harsh on Randolph.

I'm not sure too much can be read into the ten-a-side selections, other than Walters and Keane are still crocked. I actually have no real firm view on our CB pairing. I'd probably go with Clark and O'Shea.

Westwood
Coleman O'Shea Clark Brady
Whelan McCarthy
Hendrick Hoolahan McClean
Long

I'd be a bit worried about bench options, not much to come on that'd spruce things up.

---

You don't think Walters will just slot in for McGeady, Hendrick to move forward and Whelan to come back in to Hendrick's training-team slot to pair up with McCarthy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

"Stands to him", as in you think it'll boost his performance/ability to a lever superior to Westwood's?

I agree that Randolph hasn't committed any major or "drop-worthy" clangers, but why is there a special rule for a goalkeeper? If it was an outfield player, there'd be none of this "he has the jersey" talk. We'd simply be talking about who's the better player - whether he's made errors in the past or not - and discussing whether he should start on that basis. It's not as if there's some unwritten obligation to stick with the same 'keeper every game, surely.

I think it's unhelpful conventional wisdom to keep selecting a 'keeper because he "has the jersey". It doesn't make any rational sense to me. Sure, you could say that it might damage Randolph's morale, but any player has to be prepared to accept they're not in the starting line-up. He'll have to be dropped at some point. Goalkeepers should be no exception.

---

Football doesn't make rational sense. Sometimes you have to measure the player for the role, or sometimes you have to manage an ego or a crisis of confidence, or look at how they interact with teammates or communicate with their defenders or captains.

Some keepers do better when confidence is placed in them. So do some players - I wouldn't limit the concept to goalkeepers meself, though as you point out it seems fairly prevalent with goalies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

That's probably true, but at the same time I'd probably prefer MON just to take a ballsy view and pick Westwood even if it is harsh on Randolph.

I'm not sure too much can be read into the ten-a-side selections, other than Walters and Keane are still crocked. I actually have no real firm view on our CB pairing. I'd probably go with Clark and O'Shea.

Westwood
Coleman O'Shea Clark Brady
Whelan McCarthy
Hendrick Hoolahan McClean
Long

I'd be a bit worried about bench options, not much to come on that'd spruce things up.

---

I'd pick Clark over Duffy. Just would prefer someone with a bit more top-class experience up against Ibrahimovic. And Clark is no slouch from set pieces even if he doesn't offer quite as much as Duffy.

Clark and Duffy? Or do we really need O'Shea's experience in there? Has Keogh dropped to number four?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

"Stands to him", as in you think it'll boost his performance/ability to a lever superior to Westwood's?

I agree that Randolph hasn't committed any major or "drop-worthy" clangers, but why is there a special rule for a goalkeeper? If it was an outfield player, there'd be none of this "he has the jersey" talk. We'd simply be talking about who's the better player - whether he's made errors in the past or not - and discussing whether he should start on that basis. It's not as if there's some unwritten obligation to stick with the same 'keeper every game, surely.

I think it's unhelpful conventional wisdom to keep selecting a 'keeper because he "has the jersey". It doesn't make any rational sense to me. Sure, you could say that it might damage Randolph's morale, but any player has to be prepared to accept they're not in the starting line-up. He'll have to be dropped at some point. Goalkeepers should be no exception.

---

i didn't say what I think will be the team!

I think by "stands to him" Nigel just thinks possession is 9/10 of the law, if it ain't broke don't fix it (or similar cliche). I think you're over analysing.

I think foot.ie groupthink has us all fretting over Randolph when he's actually a very big part of why we're going. Huge save in Bosnia at 0-0.

I wonder what David Forde makes of the 9/10 theory. :)

I'm with Danny completely on this one. Long is almost certain to take Murphy's place in the team because everybody knows he's better. I know it's probably not as clear-cut but I don't see any major difference with the goalkeeper side of things. Long is likely to score a goal that Murphy wouldn't, well I think Westwood is likely to make a save that Randolph wouldn't, and less likely to make a mistake (Martial's goal and the Dutch equaliser both very recent).

The save in B&H was the one where he came out and spread himself after Henrdick's mistake wasn't it? Fair play, big save, but a fairly standard piece of goalkeeping at the same time. It's not like he pulled something out of the top corner that most other keepers wouldn't get near. And I'm still kind of iffy about Poland's first goal as well as Dzeko's, not sure his positioning and/or reactions were great.

I agree about the Poland first goal but the B&H save was more than a standard spread. He got a high arm to it which involved reflex reaction rather than the starfish / hope it hits me type block.

You'd swear he was a walking calamity though. Any blame for the Dutch goal is marginal and I don't think he did much wrong for Dzeko's goal.

Still, I think O'Neill should make an executive decision on Westwood. RTE saying Given hopes to be picked.

As you say above, don't rule out Given: http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2016/...gainst-sweden/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

You'd swear he was a walking calamity though.

---

No, he's not at all. I just think the difference between the two is significant enough to matter.

Wouldn't worry about what Given says, he's not going to say he's there to make up the numbers. I'd imagine (and hope) that he's very much third choice.

Stockholm-based Irish journalist Philip O'Connor on how to stop Sweden: http://www.newstalk.com/Philip-OConn...ffer-than-Ibra