Martin O'Neill and Roy Keane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingdom

It was suggested somewhere that this was leaked to one or two well-placed journo's to float online to see the reaction, before entering discussions.

At this juncture, it would be madness to offer them a new 2 year contract. Absolute madness.

Jbyrne, we've agreed on plenty in the past; however, I can't agree with this: "Well capable of beating Wales and Moldova". If anything this campaign has proven we're incapable of beating most teams.

---

Hasn't it proven we're capable of beating Georgia, Moldova and Austria?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbyrne

Don't believe its as small as people are saying. Well capable of beating Wales and Moldova. Do that and I believe we will be in the play offs.

---

I agree that we're capable of beating them since they are on a par with us, Bale aside. However, to beat two of our rivals away from home in the same campaign is asking a lot but I do think it will favour us if Wales only need a draw. However, looking at the permutations as regards best runner-up, it looks like Wales will also need to win. We might have McCarthy and Hendrick back by then and hopefully be able to put out a strong side. I haven't given up hope yet.

With us, hoofball never dies, it just redirects.

Aiden O'Hara writing in the Irish Independent wonders, if Ben Woodburn was Irish, would Martin O'Neill have given him an opportunity yet: http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-36119032.html

He's probably right to think it less likely than more likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden O'Hara

[L]ast week the Irish focus switched to Ben Woodburn, the 17-year-old who injected the impetus into the Wales campaign that allowed them to go from trailing Ireland by four points after six games, to being one ahead after eight. Where could we get one of them? The answer, frankly, is nobody has a clue. Because, despite being identified as a potential Welsh player at the age of eight, it's Liverpool, rather than the Welsh coaching structure, who have made him the player he is.

Whether Ireland are doing enough to produce or develop young players isn't really part of O'Neill's remit, but the key question around Woodburn, in an Irish context, is whether he would have been given a chance with a career total of just nine first-team appearances behind him? That is very much in O'Neill's control. It's unlikely to bother Chris Coleman that Woodburn's only first-team action between now and next month's final two qualifiers will come in a League Cup game against Leicester City next Tuesday, a competition used by managers either to judge potential or punishment and which, as a result, means every impressive individual performance comes with an asterisk.

For obvious reasons Woodburn hasn't proved himself at any level, but Coleman saw enough to trust him in a crucial qualifier, while 16-year-old Ethan Ampadu - whose father Kwame hails from Dublin - watched from the bench. Ireland, arguably, have a greater depth of talent than Wales, but Coleman seems far keener to trust his own judgement of a player rather than waiting for them to prove themselves in the club game.

---

The contrast between the cautious O'Neill and Coleman, who has enough faith in his own judgment to take a risk, is stark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Aiden O'Hara writing in the Irish Independent wonders, if Ben Woodburn was Irish, would Martin O'Neill have given him an opportunity yet: http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-36119032.html

He's probably right to think it less likely than more likely.



The contrast between the cautious O'Neill and Coleman, who has enough faith in his own judgment to take a risk, is stark.

---

oneill has taken risks too at times but obviously that's generally been forgotten. was kevin long starting against Austria not a risk? or the new ctre back partnership in the win against Italy in the Euros?
its not as if woodburn started either of wales last two games and he was instead thrown on only when wales were struggling and running out of ideas. maybe the risk oneill took last week against Serbia was to put on odowda.... not oneills fault that odowda isn't the same quality player as woodburn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbyrne

oneill has taken risks too at times but obviously that's generally been forgotten. was kevin long starting against Austria not a risk? or the new ctre back partnership in the win against Italy in the Euros?
its not as if woodburn started either of wales last two games and he was instead thrown on only when wales were struggling and running out of ideas. maybe the risk oneill took last week against Serbia was to put on odowda.... not oneills fault that odowda isn't the same quality player as woodburn

---

Fair enough points, although I would have thought going with Daryl Horgan might have been the "risk" option against Serbia as Horgan had/has yet to play in a competitive fixture. I think Horgan is a more dangerous and penetrative player than O'Dowda with an explosive yet deceptive burst of pace, but O'Neill clearly doesn't have enough faith in him yet, which is unfortunately. Of course, I do acknowledge it's all very subjective and personal preference can lead to bias or weigh heavily on whether or not one thinks O'Neill made a "safe" call or took a "risk".

Kevin Long's inclusion against Austria was an odd one. It was very much out-of-the-blue, but I'd actually put it in the reactive (rather than proactive) bracket. Two or three EPL appearances for Long in the run-up to that game appeared to heavily or disproportionately influence O'Neill's decision-making process at the time, as if it all-of-a-sudden proved to O'Neill that Long was a safe choice, and then Long was effectively dropped again for the next game for no apparent reason. Would O'Neill have checked Long out of his own volition and selected him purely on the basis of his own personal judgment if the player hadn't been fortunate enough to get those appearance for Burnley at the end of the last EPL season? It's hard to know. Personally, I don't think O'Neill's trust in his own judgment would stretch that far; it just seems very reliant on the calls of club managers, as if they provide O'Neill with a sort of defensive/supportive crutch, shoulder for potential blame-sharing or something to fall back upon if the call goes wrong. That's just how it seems to me.

People say O'Neill was unlucky with the Coleman injury, but the way Ireland approached that match is partially to blame for why it turned into such a reckless display of violence. A Welsh or Irish player was bound to get seriously hurt. A more positive approach and less hoofball and it might have been a more amicable match.

All our best results from the past 20 years are from when we got the ball on the ground and played football. We didn't beat Holland from set pieces.

O'Neill's management fairly being shown up by Maguire's Championship form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brine3

People say O'Neill was unlucky with the Coleman injury, but the way Ireland approached that match is partially to blame for why it turned into such a reckless display of violence. A Welsh or Irish player was bound to get seriously hurt. A more positive approach and less hoofball and it might have been a more amicable match.

All our best results from the past 20 years are from when we got the ball on the ground and played football. We didn't beat Holland from set pieces.

---

Would you go away? The only person responsible for Coleman'ss injury is Taylor for the ridiculous tackle.

It's like Shawcross on Ramsey. He probably didn't want to break Coleman's leg but you can't tell me he didn't mean to hurt him (not to that extent) to send a message.

I'm sure he feels gutted.

People punch people in the face and people end up in comas because they fall like a sack of potatoes and hit their heads on concrete; something that wouldn't be as dangerous if it happened on softer surfaces.

Maybe, you shouldn't put your whole bodyweight behind tackles like that, because, similarly, you cannot legislate for the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Would you go away? The only person responsible for Coleman'ss injury is Taylor for the ridiculous tackle.

---

There are multiple people responsible.

Taylor is responsible, yes. The managers are also responsible for instructing the players to play caveman football. Glenn Whelan nearly maimed a couple of Welsh players as well. The referee is also responsible for not cracking down on the match in the first half.

What I'm saying is that when you instruct your team to play rough, people will get hurt. So O'Neill shares responsibility. He also picked James McCarthy when he clearly wasn't fully fit yet, and James McCarthy's injury got even worse. Is O'Neill also unlucky because of that?

Nobody else is responsible besides Taylor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

O'Neill's management fairly being shown up by Maguire's Championship form.

---

sure murphys form for forest is similar.

Murphy would have been the prototypical Trapattoni forward.

Imagine him coming on instead of Sammon against Austria when we drew 2-2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

Murphy would have been the prototypical Trapattoni forward.

Imagine him coming on instead of Sammon against Austria when we drew 2-2.

---

Murphy played in Trap's first ever game but Trap obviously didn't rate him too highly as he preferred Caleb Folan and Sammon over him.

I think Daryl was playing most of his football out wide, for club and country then.

Didn't he set one up for Andy Keogh in that Serbia game?

Amazing amount of analysis occurring on here. Would O'Neill play Woodburne? We don't have this situation, so why ask the question. Maguire is also being portrayed as the Messiah and we should condemn O'Neill for not picking him. Yes, he is a good player, and hopefully will develop further, but he has scored two goals in the Championship. Hourihane has scored more. Maybe we put Hourihane forward as per some of the supposed logic on here. I am being highly cynical, but give me patience, there is far too much garbage being portrayed as debate on here presently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brine3

There are multiple people responsible.

Taylor is responsible, yes. The managers are also responsible for instructing the players to play caveman football. Glenn Whelan nearly maimed a couple of Welsh players as well. The referee is also responsible for not cracking down on the match in the first half.

What I'm saying is that when you instruct your team to play rough, people will get hurt. So O'Neill shares responsibility. He also picked James McCarthy when he clearly wasn't fully fit yet, and James McCarthy's injury got even worse. Is O'Neill also unlucky because of that?

---

No, it's complete nonsense. The only over-aggressive tackles on the day came from Welsh players. Blaming O'Neill for Wales players going over the ball is next-level bull****.

I don't know why you're bringing up picking McCarthy as it has nothing to do with your badly-conceived point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Nobody else is responsible besides Taylor.

---

The match was a feast of lunging in left, right and centre into 50/50 tackles. Somebody was bound to break somebody's leg eventually. As it was, it was Taylor's boot connecting with Coleman's leg.

Sure, Taylor is responsible for that. But, on another day, with two different managers playing different football, it's possible that all 22 players would have left the pitch injury-free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

I don't know why you're bringing up picking McCarthy as it has nothing to do with your badly-conceived point.

---

Well if you don't want to engage me on the McCarthy point then you don't have to.