QuoteBizarre... I feel like we're not being told the hole story.
We're in a bit of a hole now with all these injuries.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
Bizarre... I feel like we're not being told the hole story.
Last edited by DeLorean; 03/03/2015 at 7:28 PM.
So, you're hoping they'll fill you in?
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
Apparently Steve Bruce told he he wanted him to play in the hole
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/socc...jury-1.2136802
Brady "desperate to feature" against Poland.
Hmmm... so which is it?Originally Posted by The Irish Times
Does it mean Delaney was offered a call-up but refused it on the basis that he would be fourth or fifth-choice centre-back?
http://www.the42.ie/robbie-brady-pol...05073-Mar2015/
Bruce expects Brady to be available for Poland match; should be in match day squad tomorrow against Chelsea.
It mustn't have been that big a hole.
Fit enough to make the bench v Chelsea
"We lost because we didn't win"- Ronaldo
http://www.independent.ie/sport/off-...-31109879.html
"A laminate white sheet was eventually sourced, there was an exchange between the pair, positions on the sheet were pointed out and Robbie took his place at left-back. This was happening less than a minute before kick-off in a huge qualifier and one has to wonder why.
Martin O'Neill's tendency to name the team 90 minutes before kick-off is odd. A player, particularly in Brady's situation, should know early on where he's playing, who is in front of him and who is beside him. Brady and Aiden McGeady took a good 20 minutes to figure things out on that left-hand side".
Pretty sure that McGeady didn't have a clue where he was supposed to be playing or what he was supposed to be doing after the Scotland game had already kicked off.
Slightly perturbing..
Hahahahaha such horse****
I heard this a few days ago my mates were on about it, I didn't notice it, but its odd to say the least.
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
I read that this morning and thought it sounded like nonsense, or like The Indo preempting an oneill out campaign in anticipation of worse results. And just because oneill doesn't announce his team until late doesn't mean the players only get told at the same time.
What is difficult to understand about "Robbie, you're playing left back"? Some people are such professional miserabilists. Who the f knows what Brady was asking? The Indo probably doesn't.
Generally-speaking, naming a team late on can ensure the whole squad remains motivated in training throughout the week, whilst it also denies your opposition a needless advantage. I know he loved organisation, but Trap's policy of publicising his starting eleven so early always baffled me, even it was extremely predictable anyway. Why would you give the opposition information like that unless you were obliged to?
But as if Brady wouldn't have trained at left-back at some point during the week anyway or as if the first inkling he had of what he'd be doing if he was to start was when Martin drew it out for him on a page whilst the rest of the team were being photographed before kick-off... That's simply not plausible. The story isn't an April Fools, is it?!
Yet another example of how football and rugby are treated in the media, methinks. Schmidt tactical genius and God-like figure despite this campaign being Trap reincarnated as a rugby coach (pragmatism versus flair for the first few games) but with better players, O'Neill an uncertain numpty who can't even explain basic positions to his players who are as thick as ten planks anyway. Or more subtly, look for the good in the rugby, emphasise the bad in the football.
Still, at least we're not Gaelic football which by all accounts is about six weeks away from becoming extinct.
Sadlier, Niall Quinn and Eoin Kelly talking about just that on Second Captains Live now.
What? Rugby versus football, or O'Neill being utterly clueless?
Rugby v football, they've moved on now but basically talking about how soccer players always have their salary mentioned and rugby players never. It's easy to put in a tackle and make yourself look like you're trying really hard in rugby, not so in soccer, etc.
Good, about time people started raising this issue. I've just been watching BBC news and they made big fuss over Raheem Sterling and what his peers earn. Sterling says he's only interested in trying to win things. Either way, so what if footballers get well paid? They are the actors in the world's most popular TV drama. Nobody gives a hoot if Brian Whathisname in Breaking Bad makes a fortune, but footballers are no different.
How many actually make a lot of money around the world anyway? 2,000? 3,000? I'd bet Barclays pays more people over a million a year than the whole global football industry. I wouldn't bet much mind you! But I'd say you could come up with a neat statistic showing just how few footballers earn a packet versus better performers in media, finance or whatever. I'd say maybe 500 million people worldwide know who Robbie Keane is. Over a billion people are said to have watched the Man U v Chelsea CL final. Do the players not deserve a penny each?
Anyway, I loved Mary Hannigan on Monday: "thanks to the rugby guys for filling the gap between November and now". Ken Early had a good piece that could have gone further (Zebo and Murray allegedly bedding a girl together) and Declan Lynch ran a piece saying that rugby being the sport of "Official Ireland" leaves him disconnected.
Bookmarks