Coleman out
Coleman out
I would play 3 guys a 10 plus parrott roaming and a 9
Where is he in ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bielsa´s irish
I would blood that kid in Switzerland as a 10 or this McGrath. 3 mids and 4 at a back. I like 3 at the back bit it needs a lot of práctice any tiny mistake as in serbia and u get a goal down or a one on one chsnce
Dont know but i sense he will be a great football coach once he gets 40. He is coaching football matherial brains and work ethic
I blame Trap for not giving him more chancesQuote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
Spinning discussion on the Hungary game off into its own thread
On this you are right. Trap wasted a few years of Coleman at international level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bielsa´s irish
And james McCarthyQuote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
It wont happen, but McGrath at 10 and troy 9. Is absolutely worth a shotQuote:
Originally Posted by Bielsa´s irish
. 4-5-1
I like it. 4-4-1-1 ideally with one of the midfielders ( at least ) being able to get down the wing and cross the ball. O’Dowda can do that but he is always injured / unavailable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
Brian Clough’s whole career was based on 4-4-2 with at least one midfielder / winger able to get down the wing and cross a ball. He done very well, very well indeed.
That kid in Switzerland is 23, four years older than Parrott, and has a broken bone in his foot
When you're a small nation, like we are, with limited playing resources, I think the players available to you more or less dictate the formation and the way you play, or at least it should do.
Given our surfeit of centre-backs, the availability to us of players capable of playing as a wingback (Coleman, Doherty, McNamara, Christie, Manning, Stevens, McClean) and shortage of wingers of adequate standard, allied to our obvious weaknesses in midfield and toothless attack I think this more or less demands we play a 3-5-2, or at least a variation on this theme.
It offers us defensive solidity, the ability to play our best players, and in their natural positions, numbers in midfield and, importantly, allows us to play two strikers.
Kenny and his seemingly dwindling number of devotees seem to believe this in fact should be reversed, that based entirely on ideological dogma we ought to play a certain predetermined way, regardless of the players we actually have and with a system and style of play often at odds with those players' capabilities.
It would obviously take some work to make a back-3 system work effectively, and I understand it has been tried a couple of times before to little effect under McCarthy and Kenny, but a number of our players are used to this formation at club level and I think it would be well worth persisting with.
My team for Hungary would be something along the lines of...
Kelleher;
O'Shea, Duffy, Omobamidele;
Doherty, Knight, Cullen, Manning;
McGrath;
Parrott, Idah.
It gives some of the players who didn't start in the poor performance against Andorra game-time. Manning provides reasonable set-piece delivery in the absence of Brady/Hourihane and in-form McGrath gets a chance to show what he can do. Omobamidele and O'Shea are both good in possession and should be comfortable in this system. Doherty plays in his best position and Idah and Parrott should provide a complementary partnership.
With 4-3-3 the front 6 need to be of very good quality to worry the opposition enough to basically keep them defending a lot. We don’t have a front 6 of that quality.
Stephen Kenny, welded to his dogmatic preference for 4 at the back....played 3 5 2 for our last two compettive games.
He is due a lot of critisism, but i dont get having a go at him for not trying something that he has tried (with minimal success) in our most recent compeitive games.
I accept that Kenny has used a back three and and made reference to this in my post. And clearly our problems run a great deal deeper than simply individual systems. I think my point was more to do with the logic of persisting with the formation based on the players available to us and, more importantly, allowing the players available to us to determine our style of play and formation rather than the other way round. We need to be consistent with what we are trying to do. We reverted to a 4-4-2 against Andorra and, taking into account the standard of opposition, it was as bad as we've seen under Kenny.
For what it's worth I thought the 3-5-2 as used in the away game with Serbia showed some promise, with a penalty call going against us and an iffy goalkeeping performance serving to undermine us. Set against that, the way we played against Luxembourg at home was horrific. It's about finding the correct balance.
A quasi-irishman got the pirates out if the gaol
Are we playing a match tomorrow ~ ~ Tis very quiet in here !
Pro SK are busy reinforcing their shields and the anti crew are busy sharpening their knives seanfhear. There are no neutrals :)Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
I think many of us are quietly worried about it tbh. Hungary aren't going to tire like Andorra did.
I'll tweak my suggested team from the tail end of the Andorra thread (assuming still playing 4-3-3) as Coleman's out, which means -
Kelleher
Doherty
Egan
O'Shea
Manning
Cullen
Knight
Molumby
Parrott
Idah
Horgan