Isn't, er this the wrong thread?
As numerous posters passim have been quick to point out. S.Stu to thread.
Rules must be applied consistently across the board though. We can't have one standard for players we deem crap and another for players we deem more valuable. Anyway, I won't harp on about it; there's a World Cup on...
Yeah last word I'll say on it too it that I have absolutely no problem with the rules at all, just that I could understand annoyance in losing a player in SOME casesOriginally Posted by DannyInvincible
Rules must be applied consistently across the board though. We can't have one standard for players we deem crap and another for players we deem more valuable. Anyway, I won't harp on about it; there's a World Cup on...
Its really not that complicated!!!
I was only stirring / joking when I mentioned him. I think and hope GR got that. There's good stirring and bad stirring. Mine was intended to be good.
Rookie mistake..... this is the internet, stirring can cause 15-20 pages of utter idiocy. Please be more careful in future
Its really not that complicated!!!
I agree AB. A disgraceful lack of respect for the well established forum rules. And the internet generally...
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
Ha ha Stu. Fair play.
The only stirring our rotund correspondent is really interested in, is what's cooking in the pot as part of many imminent courses, each and every night...
interesting how oneill viewed the goal against Australia and playing the offside. He blamed the centre backs for not following van Persie even tho they kept the offside line.i see what he is saying and with offsides often missed it makes sense to an extent but I still don't agree!!
Didn't we concede the same goal against both Serbia and Turkey, with Coleman and Wilson getting left behind the other 3 to play the goalscorer onside? Wilson had just come on as CB against Turkey I think.
I can see both sides of the argument, O'Neil side is if you can't be sure the centre back has to follow van Persie in
On the other hand if the full-back are doing their job you don't need to.
I think it's better to be safe than sorry, if you try to play offside and get it wrong it's an easy goal often,
if you follow them in when you didn't need to they still have to beat the defence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEXYgacc-dw
Yep about 2.20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEXYgacc-dw
Not sure if it is the same as the CB was trying to block a shot.
Rather disorganed generally but good movement form the turks.
The guy who was central who made the through pass should have been marked.
Nice little quote from Strachan on ITV: Speaking about Rooney, "People talk about playing in the hole, but if the hole's not there you've got to go and play somewhere else." To be fair to Hoolahan, any time he's played there for us he's managed to find a hole.
Ya its an interesting one, if you are asked to play a way for your country completely different to your club then it will cause all sorts of confusion, and we have looked very confused at the back under oneill.
O'neill seemed to get thick towards the end of the piece actually, always thought he was a bit sore and I think he showed it yesterday again.
I'm a bloke,I'm an ocker
And I really love your knockers,I'm a labourer by day,
I **** up all me pay,Watching footy on TV,
Just feed me more VB,Just pour my beer,And get my smokes, And go away
Are we still talking about football?
I knew somebody was going to read something like that into it, but I expected it would be one of the louts. Not you, tricky
The thing about Hoolahan is that he also worked so hard in our half against Portugal to get on the ball and moving up to try and direct the play in front of our midfield.
I was of the opinion that under Trap it would have been futile to have a skilled player like Hoolahan 'in the hole' because we wouldn't be able get the ball to him against better teams.
We have 2 holes to fill, one in front of the back 4 and one in front of CM, a player with the energy and skill of Modric could do both, Hoolahan showed against Portugal he could do both but is shipping water when it's just him and against a quality pressing team.
It was unfortunate in these friendlies that that we didn't see any game with both McCarthy and Hoolahan starting.
What Hoolahan put to bed was the idea that he would be a liability in CM against the (growing list of) better teams.
Do you think a 4-4-2 with Hoolahan and McCarthy would work? Or would you have Robbie dropping in to the hole behind Long in a 4-4-1-1 formation?
Folding my way into the big money!!!
Robbie has never convinced me as anything but a pure striker.
I think the biggest lesson of all the recent games is that we are at our most effective using 4231. I think Doyle should be the 1.
Interesting. I'd like to see it. I didn't see Costa Rica game (are there any links to decent highlights of it?)
I agree about Robbie. He ca play in the no.10 role but he is far more effective as an out and out striker.
Which means, if O'Neill is to continue this kind of formation Robbie's days are numbered
Folding my way into the big money!!!
If we had to play 442, then why not Hoolahan beside McCarthy, compared to other options, against our 2nd place rivals?
Players still have to be technically proficient and confident on the ball to make whatever system they play in, work at this level.
Greece made the cautious tactics work when trailblazing at euro 2004 but they also had an outstanding technically proficient playmaker in Karagounis at CM.
They could play it without him but not as good.
We are just desperate to insert some technical ability into the engine room. I would think McCarthy & AN Other, playing in front of the back four
with Hoolahan in the front 3.
We don't have obvious players for the role of the lone frontman, Doyle is still a theory, Long has more ability about him for that role.
Robbie I'd think is a sub, an important sub, a captains sub, still indispensable.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks