Darron Gibson

[Charlie Darwin]

I think having a midfielder willing to take the ball in any circumstances sets the whole tone for everyone in the team. It was just so blatantly obvious at Wembley that Whelan's lack of composure under even very little pressure sent the jitters throughout the whole team. Much is written here about lack of technique, kick and rush culture etc etc but I think we're better than that and just one player like Hoolahan or Gibson, but ideally two, will make everyone else more composed. It follows then that we would be less inclined to cede all initiative and seek to play without the ball in circumstances like the Austria game's last 20 minutes.

This "one player will make a difference" attitude tends to spring up from time to time. We've had Gibson in the team before and he hasn't made an ounce of difference. What we need, and what we needed in the Euros, was a number of personnel changes which would have enabled us to play with a bit of composure in possession. We're finally, slowly, getting there with the introduction of Coleman, Wilson, McCarthy, possibly Hoolahan and Clark.

[Fixer82]

For example, Hoolahan was class against Georgia, the creative cool-headed midfielder that buys us the time on the ball we so desperately need.
He will not start against the Faroes

And now I must eat my words.
In my defence though, I'd forgotten McCarthy was suspended

[geysir]

"Revisionism" is often a term used disparagingly, but if new facts come to light, surely it is only logical to revise one's view accordingly. That's a different form of revision from re-interpreting, or twisting, what we already know.

Of course, that would be to assume that what Irwin is saying is true. I only became aware that Trap may have humiliated Gibson in front of the squad and poked fun at his "weight" within the past few days. It may or may not be true. If it is true, it's poor form from Trap and perhaps justifies a greater level of sympathy for Gibson's stance. Not that it would necessarily mean that Gibson has been mature about matters after all and all along, but it would perhaps help us better understand his reasoning and difficulty with pulling on the jersey. I'd find it difficult to respect and follow the instructions of someone who not only I felt didn't respect me in return, but who had actually insulted me in front of my peers. I'd like to think I'd be able to overlook it in order to play for my country, but then I'm not Darron Gibson nor have I been insulted by Trap.

When the new facts come to light, surely then would be a time to revise opinions.
Better than a - 'if he did do that - then I might be outraged' speculation on a one sided account which quite frankly reads as if it's lifted from the Beano.

[Irwin3]

I see no reason why the source wouldn't be being truthful. He also called Gibson's move to Everton weeks in advance and knew that he wasn't coming back before Trap and the FAI. I believe that he knows someone that knows Gibson. I doubt that he's making this aspect up at all.

It was published that Gibson confronted Trap and was ready to walk. With that in mind I can easily see the possibility that Trap insulted him after Gibson's questioning of him.

You're right in that it's a one-sided account and that is because neither side has openly discussed these matters. All we are left with is the reality that Gibson is not playing for Ireland. A sad outcome for all parties really.

[Stuttgart88]

This "one player will make a difference" attitude tends to spring up from time to time. We've had Gibson in the team before and he hasn't made an ounce of difference.

I think he has actually, and I've not really noticed the "one player" argument much before. Much more prevalent has been the"we're all abunch of useless donkeys encouraged to play kick and rush from the age of 5 and England and the FAI are all sucking natural brilliance from our kids". OK, slightly exaggerated, but I would seriously have to question your judgment if you don't think having a midfielder who actually likes having the ball at a high level would "make an ounce of difference". Central midfield is the equivalent of half-backs in rugby. Slow ball is no ball at all.

[Charlie Darwin]

I think he has actually, and I've not really noticed the "one player" argument much before. Much more prevalent has been the"we're all abunch of useless donkeys encouraged to play kick and rush from the age of 5 and England and the FAI are all sucking natural brilliance from our kids". OK, slightly exaggerated, but I would seriously have to question your judgment if you don't think having a midfielder who actually likes having the ball at a high level would "make an ounce of difference". Central midfield is the equivalent of half-backs in rugby. Slow ball is no ball at all.

You're taking the rugby analogies too far. Look at the competitive games Gibson has started for Ireland - have we retained the ball to any significant extent? Or did I imagine the home game against Cyprus where they bossed the ball and their coach said we were one of the worst teams they'd played? I am a big fan of Gibson but we need more than just him to turn around the culture of this squad. I'd love to see Gibson, McCarthy and AN Other in our midfield, but playing Gibson alongside Whelan or Andrews is no panacea.

If you want evidence of the "one player" attitude, see the furore over Stephen Ireland, Andy Reid, Steven Reid, Wes Hoolahan, etc. All central midfielders and all players who would be handicapped as long as we keep playing the way we are, yet all of whom were held up as the missing link that would enable us to play a more expansive game. My point is that having one ball-playing midfielder in a conservative, defence-oriented side is not going to make a huge difference. Even Hoolahan in the first half against Georgia was overwhelmed at times.

[CraftyToePoke]

Even Hoolahan in the first half against Georgia was overwhelmed at times.

I think that's strong CD, he was more eye catching in the second half, certainly but I thought he did simple things well in the first 45, was available for the ball at the right times and kept us in decent possession with the options he selected and the tempo they set.

Why would you say he was overwhelmed ?

[Charlie Darwin]

I think that's strong CD, he was more eye catching in the second half, certainly but I thought he did simple things well in the first 45, was available for the ball at the right times and kept us in decent possession with the options he selected and the tempo they set.

Why would you say he was overwhelmed ?

Well we hardly dominated possession despite having an extra man for 70 minutes. The video of him posted in the other threa shows him passing back for most of the first half before he became more aventurous in the second. His conservative approach in the first half was largely a result of the pressure the Georgians were putting on us in midfield.

[CraftyToePoke]

Well we hardly dominated possession despite having an extra man for 70 minutes. The video of him posted in the other threa shows him passing back for most of the first half before he became more aventurous in the second. His conservative approach in the first half was largely a result of the pressure the Georgians were putting on us in midfield.

More adventurous in the second spell, certainly but I cant agree he was overwhelmed in that match at any stage. Also, if he came short for a ball off the CB and rolled it back to the CB a few times, It was nice to see a player in our midfield wanting the ball, and happy to be on the ball, and if he rolled it back to the CB half a dozen consecutive times, I'd sooner that to a 60/40 launch up the field.

[Charlie Darwin]

More adventurous in the second spell, certainly but I cant agree he was overwhelmed in that match at any stage. Also, if he came short for a ball off the CB and rolled it back to the CB a few times, It was nice to see a player in our midfield wanting the ball, and happy to be on the ball, and if he rolled it back to the CB half a dozen consecutive times, I'd sooner that to a 60/40 launch up the field.

I'm not criticising Hoolahan here. I'm saying that he was overwhelmed by the fact the Georgians were pressing him and he wasn't being presented with the options to pass the ball forward. I am in full agreement that if Whelan had the same options in the second half, he'd still have taken the conservative pass backwards. Hoolahan is a more positive player but he was only able to do so after half time because his teammates bought into the policy and made themselves available, and in many cases were still unable to make the best of it.

[paul_oshea]

Would ye all leave CD alone, picking on him because he is "different"...

I see his point here. But CD I think if we had messi in our side regardless of the rest, it would make a big difference, cos he would find space and time to create something. We don't have messi but although a lot of us harp back to the partnership of reid and whelan that did show potential for ball retention and some good slick passing. What I did notice with Reid was he was hitting a lot of long balls to the wingers though, not short passes, so CDs point does hold water. If you don't have players who are showing or capable of creating space for themselves or openings, it doesn't matter(to an extent anyway) who you have in the middle of the park.

[Stuttgart88]

Or did I imagine the home game against Cyprus where they bossed the ball and their coach said we were one of the worst teams they'd played?

Are you seriously suggesting a performance of Darron Gibson's from 5 years ago is a valid comparison?

[DeLorean]

I would agree that Gibby Gibbo would be more at home minding the house as part of a 5-man midfield. Certainly looks that way for Everton even if the goals have dried up as an inevitable result.

[Stuttgart88]

Charlie, I think the calls for the likes of Reid (x2) were simply because they're better players than Trap was picking. I don't think anyone felt some kind of magic transformation would come about.

I think you're exaggerating the extent of the improvement I'd expect if Whelan was replaced.

I don't necessarily think a "huge improvement" would come about either, but I do believe there'd be enough of an improvement if Whelan was replaced by a better player, even under Trap's system and approach. Sweden away was a very good example - but about the only example one can find. Midfield functioned well, so by and large the team functioned well.

I think Hoolahan's first half showing against Georgia - and Ireland's overall - was tempered by not having an orthodox wide man on the right - either at full back or RHM.

Also, you say that Hoolahan was more effective in second half because his teammates bought into it more. That's pretty much my point though - teammates appreciate a guy who wants the ball and keeps it moving. It sets the tone and in the absence of such a player we play hoofball all the time.

[DeLorean]

Sweden away was a very good example - but about the only example one can find. Midfield functioned well, so by and large the team functioned well.

True, but it's also worth pointing out that if the majority had got their way, half of that functioning midfield would have been nowhere near the squad in the first place, i.e. Paul Green.

[Stuttgart88]

But what's that got to do with it? I suppose it shows that the majority aren't always right, but I don't care about the majority! I just think that replacing Whelan with a better ball player will improve us - not transform us - and I want everyone here to agree or I'll get upset.

[Closed Account 2]

This "one player will make a difference" attitude tends to spring up from time to time. We've had Gibson in the team before and he hasn't made an ounce of difference. What we need, and what we needed in the Euros, was a number of personnel changes which would have enabled us to play with a bit of composure in possession. We're finally, slowly, getting there with the introduction of Coleman, Wilson, McCarthy, possibly Hoolahan and Clark.

I think this is the key. particularly the full backs. When I was in Poznan I remember O'Shea and Ward being the full backs and they kept shying away from the ball. When the central midfielders got the ball most of the attacking players were marked by the Croats so there usually wasnt a release ball up the pitch to Keane and Doyle, even when Keane dropped back into midfield to try and pick up the ball his marker would go with him. McGeady and Duff would try and open themselves up for a ball from the center but again they were well marshalled by Croatia. What was really telling was how timid the full backs were, they generally didn't get up the pitch but also more crucially they hid from posession even in their own half. And on the rare occasions that O'Shea or Ward got the ball they would often just aimlessly launch it upfield and the idea that they would carry the ball forward themselves was a total anathema. When Whelan and Andrews were pressed by the Croatian midfield they had very few options, Andrews is more mobile than Whelan so his agility gave him a bit more leeway, but Whelan was pressured he had no options and lacked the phisique to get himself out of touble. At least with Coleman and Wilson we have full backs who will show themselves as options to be passed to a lot more than Ward and O'Shea (as a full back).

[paul_oshea]

That's what i meant earlier, if you have players who are willing to find space and take the ball then a player like hoolohan makes a huge difference. I think that's the kernel here, we have moved away from players in positions who are afraid to take the ball from the midfield, the team has evolved and transitioned where we have good ball playing full backs and midfielders, except Whelan. The team is being held back by the inclusion of Whelan which limits or ability to play the expansive passing game we are now capable of playing with the players we have. Now more than ever, is there a justification for dropping him.

I think if we are trying to hold onto a lead, he is the player to have on, but not starting a game, he offers us nothing only less ball retention.

[DeLorean]

But what's that got to do with it? I suppose it shows that the majority aren't always right, but I don't care about the majority! I just think that replacing Whelan with a better ball player will improve us - not transform us - and I want everyone here to agree or I'll get upset.

Don't worry, I wasn't even a fan of Whelan in the days of his masterful motm performances against Georgia and Montenegro, so I agree completely with replacing him.

I wasn't really making a point a such, just thought it was worth mentioning seeing as the majority would have been more anti-Green than anti-Whelan before that match. I'm not sure Sweden away was a very good example if your solely talking about getting a better ball player in for Whelan. Green still offered the energy that Whelan lacks though to be fair and I think that was the major difference.

[BonnieShels]

The sensible people here remember the horror of the Russia game at home and how Whelan made Green look like the plodder. I've never had much of a problem with Green. He's limited but his job is not the sort of job that requires someone of great skill.

Having the 2 of them in the middle is suicide.