Ireland V Germany(A) 11th October & Kazakhstan(H) 15th October 2013 - World Cup '14 Q

[ifk101]

He told King there was a lack of penetration and we didn't play with enough width.

But he didn't. He said "in terms of possession" - "maybe the lack of wingers" - "was this an issue for us?".

[geysir]

Tony O'D asked "we had more possession but in terms of penetration ... (interrupted by King's laughter) .... maybe the lack of natural wingers ... was that an issue for us?". Perfectly valid question btw - does nobody else here want to know the reasoning behind King's team selection/ tactics? King replied to that question with "Germany scored 3 goals, we scored 3 goals, don't talk me about that will you please". That's a ridiculous response to the question and it set the tone for the rest of the interview.

King answered it but Tony couldn't move on.

Tony; We had more possesion but in terms of penetration,
the lack of natural wingers, was that an issue for us ?


Noel ; Germany scored 3 goals we scored 3 goals, don't talk to me about penetration

Tony ; well I have to say when Doyle Stokes are played out of position?

Noel ; they are not played out of position, if anyone wants to do their homework etc etc Stokes plays for Celtic in that position. I don't know what you mean

Tony; I'm saying that Mcgeady came on we had a different emphasis, an orthodox winger playing in his usual position.
Noel ; What youre saying is incorrect, Doyle has played there, Stokes has played there umpteen times, so this conversation is incorrect,
Tony ; well I think its a fair point to say that if we had brought on McGeady beforehand we would have had more chances, because (disparagingly) this Kaz team just how good are they?
Noel; I know theydrew with Austria and Sweden beat them one nil, this is typical, don't degrade thew players performance, dont degrade what they have done, they put on a marvelous show tonight, Ive nothing but praise for our players, against a very tricky team, thats the one i'll bring home, I can walk around dublin with my head high, im happy to be the irish manager and thats it.

[Emmet7]

Alexis Sanchez usually plays wide for Barcelona and he's a striker. I don't think it matters too much who plays wide.
Credit to King for getting rid of the "hoof ball to target man and hope Robbie gets the scraps" mentality. Giles and Dunphy wanted to go back to that last night, put Doyle up top, hoof the ball to him or give it to him in the channels or facing away from goal and then hope Robbie gets something of it. That approach is hopelessly outdated in the modern game. It's what Charlton and Trap relied on and it seems to be what the RTE panel want to return to.

I think the 4-2-3-1 model with Keane or Long up top could be good for the long run - certainly better than 4-4-2 with Doyle or Long as a target man facing away from goal.

As for TOD, he's just a puppet of the panel in the studio. They rely on him to generate controversy only King shoved it back down his throat. Fair play to King. We don't need an antiquated RTE panel dictating selection or team shape.

[NeverFeltBetter]

O'Donoghue has spent the Trap years lowering himself to be this terrible "Gotcha" merchant, trying to egg people on and get the "media moment" they all crave. He hit the target last night, more's the pity. The man's a clown.

[DeLorean]

Unfortunately we are giving Dunphy and RTÉ exactly what the crave, a big fallout debate about what went on last night. That said, it's impossible to ignore it. I feel King was reacting from the gut on behalf of Trap as much as anything else, mostly aimed at the RTÉ panel but I'm sure he was happy enough that Tony was the one on the receiving end. TOD has been shamelessly goading Trap on behalf of Dunphy, in particular, for months and King would have been familiar with his interrogation methods. Dunphy doesn't deserve analysis at this stage, we know what he is.

To be fair to Maloney, he does pull Dunphy as much as he can but it only results in him being shouted down by Eamon, like the bully that he is. Maloney has two choices, stay calm and let Dunphy have his rant... or get involved in a shouting match and be lowered to his level. Brady is in the same boat when himself and Dunphy's conversations become heated. I have sympathy for Giles in that his criticisms are of a constructive nature for the most part, but he is tarnished with the same brush as Dunphy when 'the panel' is referred to. Dunphy is the cancer of the panel, although Sadlier appears spiteful enough to become a capable protégé.

King should have reacted better, for his own sake as much as anything. If he had kept smiling, made his point about selections and had a cheap dig or two at the panels lack of knowledge he'd have been served much better. Instead he basically played into Dunphy's hands and might as well have sent him an early Christmas present.

Anyway, and far more importantly... the match itself! I wasn't too impressed with the starting line-up, I would have definitely preferred to have seen some 'real' width and thought ninety minutes alongside Dunne could have served Ciaran Clark well. I would have dropped Wilson, who is playing poorly, and accommodated O'Shea at left back. In hindsight though, I'm glad he went with Stokes as he played the roll very well. Unfortunately Kevin Doyle isn't cut out for it in the slightest tough and McGeady could have offered far more.

I thought McCarthy was a deserving motm. He was the key man in our attempts to play possession football, he kept the ball moving and was constantly and option. I'd be interested to see how many times he touched the ball but he seemed to be on it an awful lot. I'm starting to realise that he always looks poor, when we're poor. His game really depends on others doing the right things and, if they are, he acts as a great link to keep things flowing. It was a real shame that Gibson got injured because the two were just starting to gel nicely, after a sloppy opening. Gibson had lost possession a few times but looked to be finding his range. In fairness, he's bound to be rusty. I think it was his poor header that Coleman compounded for the Kazak goal, but not entirely sure. There was something uplifting about hearing that Roberto Martinez was there with Gibson and the medics, I suppose that would be expected but the guy seems like a class act.

It was definitely a step forward. I'm happy that King was only a two game appointment, but he has cleaned the slate with regards the exiled players and has got the ball moving with regards a new, hopefully more effective, brand of football.

[ifk101]

King answered it but Tony couldn't move on.

"Germany scored 3, we scored 3 .... don't talk to me about that". Is that the answer you are referring to?

[SwanVsDalton]

But he didn't. He said "in terms of possession" - "maybe the lack of wingers" - "was this an issue for us?".

I think Geysir's transcription is more than sufficient, but regardless I wasn't quoting verbatim - my view is it's fairly clear that TOD's line of questioning was of the 'I'm telling you' ilk rather than actually asking questions.

As pointed out before - he could've asked Noel King (caretaker) about an Irish side uncommonly dominating possession or clearly trying to play a possession game for the first time in god knows how long. I understand the argument that King has to answer questions - I agree with it in fact. But when those questions are relentlessly negative, barely questions at all and delivered off the back of a completely unwarranted shellacking a few days previously, then King losing the rag is understandable.

Overall RTE's football coverage credibility has been totally demolished (if it wasn't already) in the last week over them conducting a completely baffling vendetta against a caretaker manager.

If anything I'm disappointed Kinger lost it because tearing the questions/criticisms apart wouldn't have been too hard with a bit of composure.

[BonnieShels]

King answered it but Tony couldn't move on.

Tony; We had more possesion but in terms of penetration,
the lack of natural wingers, was that an issue for us ?


Noel ; Germany scored 3 goals we scored 3 goals, don't talk to me about penetration

Tony ; well I have to say when Doyle Stokes are played out of position?

Noel ; they are not played out of position, if anyone wants to do their homework etc etc Stokes plays for Celtic in that position. I don't know what you mean

Tony; I'm saying that Mcgeady came on we had a different emphasis, an orthodox winger playing in his usual position.
Noel ; What youre saying is incorrect, Doyle has played there, Stokes has played there umpteen times, so this conversation is incorrect,
Tony ; well I think its a fair point to say that if we had brought on McGeady beforehand we would have had more chances, because (disparagingly) this Kaz team just how good are they?
Noel; I know theydrew with Austria and Sweden beat them one nil, this is typical, don't degrade thew players performance, dont degrade what they have done, they put on a marvelous show tonight, Ive nothing but praise for our players, against a very tricky team, thats the one i'll bring home, I can walk around dublin with my head high, im happy to be the irish manager and thats it.

Thanks for that. I'm sure Osa can now evaluate the above passage as an example of TOD the WUM.

I think Geysir's transcription is more than sufficient, but regardless I wasn't quoting verbatim - my view is it's fairly clear that TOD's line of questioning was of the 'I'm telling you' ilk rather than actually asking questions.

As pointed out before - he could've asked Noel King (caretaker) about an Irish side uncommonly dominating possession or clearly trying to play a possession game for the first time in god knows how long. I understand the argument that King has to answer questions - I agree with it in fact. But when those questions are relentlessly negative, barely questions at all and delivered off the back of a completely unwarranted shellacking a few days previously, then King losing the rag is understandable.

Overall RTE's football coverage credibility has been totally demolished (if it wasn't already) in the last week over them conducting a completely baffling vendetta against a caretaker manager.

If anything I'm disappointed Kinger lost it because tearing the questions/criticisms apart wouldn't have been too hard with a bit of composure.

I still don't really think he "lost" it. Other than that yourself and myself and the Icelandic one are singing from the same hymn sheet.

[Stuttgart88]

I just got an email from a mate, a casual fan who watched the game probbaby because there was little else on. He felt that RTE manufactured controversy for the sake of it and I agree.

That's exactly what it was - manufactured controversy. The rational response, like that from most print journalists this morning, would have been to query the selection of Doyle ahead of a natural wide player but to recognise that Doyle was put in to have some height in the front line, so there was at least some justification.

Dunphy made out like it was crazy to play Doyle and Stokes either side of Keane instead of a natural wide player like McGeady. But look at what England picked last night: Rooney, Sturridge and Welbeck. Exact same type of line up, all orthodox forwards (just better players!). Germany don't play wingers either - they used to deploy Podolski and Moller either side of a centre-forward. Their width comes from the full backs getting forward and King has encouraged this. Trap didn't like full backs going beyond the half way line!

Personally I WOULD have played at least one natural wide player (probably McGeady instead of Doyle) or at least an inventive player like Hoolahan cutting inside from wide, but not doing so was not a random act of madness by an incompetent fool. That's what Dunphy was claiming. Dunphy really showed his ignorance of how other teams deploy 4231. It's actually quite rare for 2 wide men to be included in that shape, Bayern's Robben and Ribery being a stand out example, as Chuck D pointed out a while back.

It was utterly churlish not to recognise that King had told his players to try and play a bit. Look at David Forde - always rolling the ball short so they could at least try to play it out from the back whereas under Trap it was always launched long. It was a facile win full of flaws but at least we owned the ball for large periods and showed some bits of invention. Trap always preferred us NOT to have the ball! We are starting from below scratch and last night's second half was a step in the right direction.

As for Sadlier, he's just mini-Dunphy. He's a miserable ****.

And Dunphy felt King was bullying Tony O'D! Did Dunphy see TO'D's assault on Trap last year? He practically had Trap pinned to the wall! That's bullying. Probably the only moment in the last 12 months where I fully supported Trap. I think King should have bitten his tongue but actually I was glad somebody stood up to them.

For years Dunphy slated McCarthy. Then when we beat Holland he called him a great manager! I reckon he's bipolar.

It's absolutely clear the panel never does any research other than watch the EPL and CL on telly. Giles' insights are often useful though.

[ArdeeBhoy]

All this is irrelevant.

King will be gone by the next campaign anyway...

Dunphy clearly has substantial MH issues; undoubtedly part of his 'appeal'.

[ifk101]

......

"Relentless negative, barely questions at all" ... maybe you feel this way because of events prior to last night. But as to the actual interview itself .... there wasn't anything imo wrong with the questions posed.

[DeLorean]

If anything I'm disappointed Kinger lost it because tearing the questions/criticisms apart wouldn't have been too hard with a bit of composure.

Exactly. It was an opportunity lost because King is articulate and knowledgeable enough to have really shown Tony up for what he is.

[jbyrne]

It's absolutely clear the panel never does any research other than watch the EPL and CL on telly.

spot on. one incident really stuck in my mind during the 2010 wc. it was an afternoon ko and giles was one of two analysts with peter collins as presenter for ivory coast and n korea if i recall. anyway, no matter what giles was asked about the teams he just kept saying "ivory coast? i dont know much about the ivory coast team peter" and then reverted to his usual global view on the game. its gas how the panel expect such high standards of research from our managers (trap not attending matches as an example) yet giles obviously doesnt even bother reading up on any pre wc pull outs from one of the papers!

it's the the same all the time with him knowing little about teams and players other than what he's encountered while on rtes panel covering the EPL and champions lge

[BonnieShels]

I just got an email from a mate, a casual fan who watched the game probbaby because there was little else on. He felt that RTE manufactured controversy for the sake of it and I agree.

That's exactly what it was - manufactured controversy. The rational response, like that from most print journalists this morning, would have been to query the selection of Doyle ahead of a natural wide player but to recognise that Doyle was put in to have some height in the front line, so there was at least some justification.

Dunphy made out like it was crazy to play Doyle and Stokes either side of Keane instead of a natural wide player like McGeady. But look at what England picked last night: Rooney, Sturridge and Welbeck. Exact same type of line up, all orthodox forwards (just better players!). Germany don't play wingers either - they used to deploy Podolski and Moller either side of a centre-forward. Their width comes from the full backs getting forward and King has encouraged this. Trap didn't like full backs going beyond the half way line!

Personally I WOULD have played at least one natural wide player (probably McGeady instead of Doyle) or at least an inventive player like Hoolahan cutting inside from wide, but not doing so was not a random act of madness by an incompetent fool. That's what Dunphy was claiming. Dunphy really showed his ignorance of how other teams deploy 4231. It's actually quite rare for 2 wide men to be included in that shape, Bayern's Robben and Ribery being a stand out example, as Chuck D pointed out a while back.
It was utterly churlish not to recognise that King had told his players to try and play a bit. Look at David Forde - always rolling the ball short so they could at least try to play it out from the back whereas under Trap it was always launched long. It was a facile win full of flaws but at least we owned the ball for large periods and showed some bits of invention. Trap always preferred us NOT to have the ball! We are starting from below scratch and last night's second half was a step in the right direction.

As for Sadlier, he's just mini-Dunphy. He's a miserable ****.

And Dunphy felt King was bullying Tony O'D! Did Dunphy see TO'D's assault on Trap last year? He practically had Trap pinned to the wall! That's bullying. Probably the only moment in the last 12 months where I fully supported Trap. I think King should have bitten his tongue but actually I was glad somebody stood up to them.

For years Dunphy slated McCarthy. Then when we beat Holland he called him a great manager! I reckon he's bipolar.

It's absolutely clear the panel never does any research other than watch the EPL and CL on telly. Giles' insights are often useful though.

This morning I read the comments below the RTE review of the game and all of them were peddling that “lack of width” line.

But I was trying to work out why they would want orthodox wingers playing wide in a central (narrow) three.
Of course playing someone like McGeady or even McClean either side would have automatically brought this much desired “width” but that is as a result of the players’ skill-set than as a result of the desire of the coach.

I came to the conclusion that 442 is all we can really grasp as a concept as a nation.

Again I have to reiterate that I haven’t seen the game yet but I was keeping up-to-date as always with here, but even without seeing it is clear how it progressed. I’ve been on this forum long enough to read certain comments during a match to use this as my update site of choice. It’s clear that the comments under the RTE review are the usual “barstooler” kind that take on the comments of the panel as the word of God.

In an ideal world we would all play 352 but alas we will keep that for my super-teams in PES.

[DeLorean]

I came to the conclusion that 442 is all we can really grasp as a concept as a nation.

You're probably right BS. To be honest, the main problem with the system last night was that a bang out of form Kevin Doyle was one of the front three. Stokes played his part pretty well and Keane doesn't have to do anything, as long as he's ready to poach a goal when the chance arrives, which he always is. I said McGeady for Doyle above, but even if it was Long it could have improved things dramatically, without changing the 'two strikers being played out of position' notion.

[rebelmusic]

Nothing wrong with the questions. Watch it again and listen to Tony's tone. Just aggressive and silly.

Saying all that..If you listen to the below interview Tony comes off very well. He starts speaking after Dunphy at 14.25
http://www.rte.ie/sport/player/734/480393/

[SwanVsDalton]

"Relentless negative, barely questions at all" ... maybe you feel this way because of events prior to last night. But as to the actual interview itself .... there wasn't anything imo wrong with the questions posed.

We'll agree to disagree. Personally I think the questions were too negative given what happened in the game, and were phrased less as questions rather than criticism.

But they shouldn't just be examined on their own imo, they should be taken in the context of a personal, crass and belittling attack on a caretaker manager just to drive ratings/controversy (as Stutts pointed out). Just the latest in a long-line of personal, crass and belittling attacks from RTE on various footballing personalities just to drive ratings/controversy.

This morning I read the comments below the RTE review of the game and all of them were peddling that “lack of width” line.

But I was trying to work out why they would want orthodox wingers playing wide in a central (narrow) three.
Of course playing someone like McGeady or even McClean either side would have automatically brought this much desired “width” but that is as a result of the players’ skill-set than as a result of the desire of the coach.

I came to the conclusion that 442 is all we can really grasp as a concept as a nation.

The great irony of Trap's times - can't live with 442, can't live without it.

I think if someone said we lacked pace, rather than width, I'd agree more with that view. If Long was one of the wide players we might've had a bit more joy. And no one would've talked about him playing out of position. But I do think the team lacked an extra gear of speed to combat the massed away defence.

I also think the formation works better as a team looks to counter attack and there's a bit more space to work with. But King committed to it and clearly thinks it's the way for the team to go and he may be absolutely right. He certainly isn't a total fool for giving it a go.

[Dodge]

Apologies for the plug, but balls.ie asked me to write an article on King v RTE, so here it is

http://balls.ie/football/dunphy-rant/

[back of the net]

http://www.rte.ie/sport/player/734/480393/

Dunphy and T.O.D on radio post last nights game


Usual sh*t talk from Eamonn ........T.O.D not agreeing with some of Dunphys comments on Friday

[Spudulika]

Just wondering, does Dunphy have a book out?