Keeping the lead

[Stuttgart88]

I was just about to say the same Noely. Dumb individual errors are what have cost us. Circumstances have been different: in Bulgaria we were caught by a long ball when we were playing well, at home to Bulgaria we allowed them to dominate possession, at home to Italy we made a dumb error, forgetting our shape and playing higher up the pitch.

As a general rule I'd say any top team will find it easy to put us under pressure territorially when they want to. Whether they can get through is down to how well we defend and how well midfield protects the defence.

[OwlsFan]

The trouble is, much and all as I like Kilbane, he is nearing the end of his career and he is prone to "dumb errors". You can say to players "No dumb errors" but the mind says one thing and the body the other. There was no excuse for O'Shea being caught out though.

I really fear that even if we were 2 up with 5 minutes to go, our opponents could score 2. Because we can't keep the ball, we will always be under pressure and liable to give a goal away.

[Wolfie]

In addition, if the game is tight and we are pegged back and defending deep - no matter how well and desperately we defend - you just can't legislate for a moment of genius from the likes of Henry.

We tend to play Russian roulette by effectively handing over full possession of the ball to the opposition.

That said - it what it is at this stage, and will have to stick with it to the bitter end now.

[paul_oshea]

How do you hand over half possession?

The russian roulette point is good though, as henry showed against us a few years ago, it was the only thing that put us apart. Our system doesn't cater or manage individual brilliance/moments of magic and hence giving away possession and inviting the oppossition upon us allows for more of these opportunities.

[Junior]

How do you hand over half possession?

The russian roulette point is good though, as henry showed against us a few years ago, it was the only thing that put us apart. Our system doesn't cater or manage individual brilliance/moments of magic and hence giving away possession and inviting the oppossition upon us allows for more of these opportunities.

What system does?

We do need to keep the ball better in these circumstances, higher up the pitch as well - where any missed place pass (and there will be plenty knowing us) has less chance of leading to an opposition goal. Wide men need to win frees or throws in the oppositions half - Gives us the chance to regroup and keep shape and talk to each other! Keep it simple!

[Wolfie]

How do you hand over half possession?

Easy there, pedantic Paul.

My point re "effectively full possession" being that our system and style of play hands the opposition an inordinate amount of possession of the ball that other teams systems of play would not.

The game doesn't ebb and flow when we're up against it - it tends to feel like we're coralled into the alamo and are under attack from the Mongul Horde.

We're cautious, defensive and lack no creative spark in the middle of the park. That's not a criticsim per se - just reality.

[Emmet7]

My own view and we all have a view, is it's because of the limitations of the players we have.

The right back and right midfield area cost us a goal in Bari. The left back area has cost us a goal or two.

Systems can get you so far, but once the players cross the white line, systems and managers can do little to stop players making their own stupid mistakes from a rush of blood to the head. They can only learn from their mistakes.

Personally I think Brian Clough had the best method of helping players remember their mistakes, eg punching Keano in the face. I'd say Keano decided from that day on never to make the same mistake again.

I'm sure Trap feels like doing the same to some Irish players so they won't do it again.

[Mise Le Mas]

I think this is a myth perpetrated particularly by Father Time, Johnny Giles. What happens when we take the lead is that the other side takes the game more to us (e.g. Italy). We don't sit back - we are pushed back and don't have the ability to keep the ball and thus have to defend for our lives. If we sit back, wtf were John O'Shea and others doing caught out of position when we should have been defending a 2-1 lead against Italy.

I fear that top teams, when they raise their games, can push us back and there isn't a whole lot we can do about it.

I would be reasonably happy with a 0-0 in Dublin. I feel we can score in France. Our home form for most of the games has been terrible. Trap's formation is better suited for away games. Of course I wouldn't complain if we win at home either but I would be surprised if we do.

I agree 100% with your post, you have summed it up Exactly how it is!!

[geysir]

I agree 100% with your post, you have summed it up Exactly how it is!!

100% ?

Imo the issue is not about good teams pushing us back. It is about the version of the system which allows average to below average teams to push us back, even on our home ground. In fact, often we are not pushed back, we volunteer up the space.

Unless the strategy is, practice make perfect.

[paul_oshea]

What system does?

We do need to keep the ball better in these circumstances, higher up the pitch as well - where any missed place pass (and there will be plenty knowing us) has less chance of leading to an opposition goal. Wide men need to win frees or throws in the oppositions half - Gives us the chance to regroup and keep shape and talk to each other! Keep it simple!

You pulled out half the sentence and maybe the word system wasn't correct, but the way we PLAY DURING a game(as oppossed to perhaps how trap sets us out to play i.e. the system), we dont hold onto the ball long enough therefore giving more time to the oppossition more often hence they get more time/chances to create a moment of brilliance things liking holding off for example give players like henry that little bit of time/space to create brilliance.

I didnt think i needed to explain that exactly junior but thats what i was infering.

[Junior]

Okay - Sorry. I wasn't trying to be pedantic but Id say its obvious if you let the opposition have more of the ball there is a chance they will do something with it?

My point I suppose was that no system can really negate 'moments of brilliance' Henrys goal against us, Bergkamps against Leicester/Newcastle etc..

I think we are in agreement in that ball retention has to be better though!!!!

[paul_oshea]

Okay - Sorry. I wasn't trying to be pedantic but Id say its obvious if you let the opposition have more of the ball there is a chance they will do something with it?

My point I suppose was that no system can really negate 'moments of brilliance' Henrys goal against us, Bergkamps against Leicester/Newcastle etc..

I think we are in agreement in that ball retention has to be better though!!!!

Ok, the word chance then, maybe im begining to realise that when i make a point i amn't descriptive enough. Having less of the ball, means these moments of brilliance, are more likely to occur as there is a CHANCE of more of them occuring, given the fact we have given them more ball/space.

I agree on your earlier point about keeping them further up the field. These individual moments of brilliance can be negated by that, unless of course its 2 or 3 players involved in that moment of brilliance

[Emmet7]

100% ?

Imo the issue is not about good teams pushing us back. It is about the version of the system which allows average to below average teams to push us back, even on our home ground. In fact, often we are not pushed back, we volunteer up the space.

Unless the strategy is, practice make perfect.

I agree with the poster who said it's not about us being pushed back, and the fact we were caught out for the second Italian goal by pushing forward when we actually should have tried to keep our shape in defence.

Certain players got over-excited and went up the field. It's a very natural intinct, especially for defenders, who rarely get credit but who want to get in on the scoring/attacking act.

If you examine the goals we conceded during the campaign, hardly any were conceded by us being 'pushed back' or 'sitting back'.

Against Italy in Bari, if our right back had sat back rather than ball watching and moving up the field, we might have stopped that goal, again a case of us being pulled out of shape.

In Dublin, the first goal conceded was a badly defended corner, again maybe if there was someone standing on the line and the rest along the 6 yard box it would have been cleared. The second Italian goal was conceded because we were attacking when we should have been sitting back.

Against Bulgaria away, from what I remember we conceded a goal from a long hoof of a ball over the top which no defender attacked, hardly a case of inviting the team on.

The Bulgarian goal in Dublin, yes it might be argued we sat back a little, it's hard to know. The fault there really was no-one following Petrov's run.

I can't remember the other goals we conceded, but we conceded few if any from sitting back or inviting teams on. It's a bogus accusation, like many accusations against the current Irish team and management.

[DeLorean]

Imo the issue is not about good teams pushing us back. It is about the version of the system which allows average to below average teams to push us back, even on our home ground. In fact, often we are not pushed back, we volunteer up the space.

That would be my take as well. Good team always pushed us back for periods in a match, no matter what system we used. The problem is that teams we're supposed to be better than also do it and that's a direct result of us not keeping the ball for any length of time. Montenegro and Cyprus both did it in Dublin, albeit without creating a huge amount of chances but it's playing with dynamite in my opinion. Cyprus had a great chance near the end and Montengro should have had a penalty. I don't think what Johnny Giles says is a myth at all, I think he's dead right and if anything I'd consider him guilty of stating the obvious.