QuoteThat they all made choices to withdraw from selection. It's pretty clear really.Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
So, what's their relevance to Gibson in that case?
That they all made choices to withdraw from selection. It's pretty clear really.
You can't ask a player to skip a game he's fit for just so he can be potentially sit on the bench for a game the following week. It's madness.
I don't believe anyone did.
Incomparable choices. Wasn't your implication that all mentioned withdrawals could be viewed in a similar light to Gibson's?
Bert van Maarwijk could be a good shout. He was very impressive in qualification for Wc 2010 and Euro 2012, in tournaments he did very well in South Africa, getting them to the final. Euro 2012 was a stinker for his side though.
That's your opinion. They're similar in the fact that they all made choices. We can all compare and judge them how we like.
But you admitted yourself that Joey O'Brien "doesn't really have a choice due to the limits of his body and the fact that he has to earn a livelihood". He clearly doesn't enjoy the luxury of unrestrained choice that Gibson does.
Of course they didn't, because common sense prevailed. Yet you'd say he put his club before his country, when in fact all he was doing was playing football.
He doesn't really have a choice because his club is his one and only viable choice. I'm sure Gibson could argue that he had little choice either, rather than the 'luxury of unrestrained choice' that you put it as. Maybe he is to stubborn like he admitted but he might see it as giving in and therefore damaging to his psychological well-being if he gave in.
Again totally disingenuous and misleading. In the previous post you took two quotes in 'plain English' and misread them to make a redundant zero sum rebuttal.
But in this post you've referred to just one quote (which you got right), conviently left out the other and completely ignored the actual substance of what I wrote in my last post - like you've ignored pretty much everything else I've written today. Either respond to the substance of my points or stop trolling.
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
Yes, for his club.
I'm not misreading anything. It's there for all to see.
There's been a bit of over-lap between threads since the loss to Austria and Trap's departure, so I'm not sure if yous saw it, but I posted the following in the "Ireland-Sweden" match thread which could be seen as a response of sorts:
Do we genuinely have the ability to consistently compete with the more technically-proficient sides though? A team like Croatia will always be favourites in a game between themselves and ourselves. Qualification will always be more likely for them than it is for us. I use them as a standard or as an example of where we could be with some astute organisation as we share similar populations but they make such a better job of the resources they have available to them.
I suppose what I'm saying is that things could be a lot better than how they are now where we're talking about merely competing with second or third-seeded teams. Can't we hope of consistently beating them some day? It sounds a bit clichéd, but last time we beat a team ranked above us in a competitive game?...
Obviously, I'm not saying we can be Spain or Germany, but we could at least give ourselves a better chance than what we offer ourselves at present.
Someone mentioned it earlier, Stan beating Slovakia.
Had overlooked that, for some reason. It seems you're right; we were ranked 51st in March of 2007 and Slovakia were ranked 37th.
Why is the Holland game in 2002 often cited as the last time we beat a higher-ranked opponent in a competitive fixture?
Edit: Holland game was in 2001, of course.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 13/09/2013 at 5:41 AM.
It's because they were a top 2 seed. There was a piece floating around the other day on how ineffectual we have always been against the 1st & 2nd, 2nd & 3rd or 1st & 3rd seeds throughout the last 25 odd years of qualifying.
Yes, his managers both agreed that the best place for him to play would be his club. He has numerous serious knee injuries, injuries that aren't helped by sitting on a plane unnecessarily. The management clearly decided that he wasn't the right fit for this international but if he kept playing football and managed his injury that he was still in the frame. You've attempted to spin this as an example of O'Brien choosing his club over his country similar to Gibson or Given when it is patently untrue.
To salvage something from a heartbreaking amount of time wasted on Gibson, I'm wondering - is there anyone currently considered in exile you wouldn't want back?
The slate should be wiped clean for everyone, I feel, although as aforementioned (ad nauseum) I'll always have reservations about Gibson. Still he gets a couple of years under his belt trouble free, and plenty would be forgiven and forgotten.
What about Stokes? Would you have Andy Reid back in the squad? Ireland?! I'd have thought Stevie's blown it simply because he ain't that good, no matter how paltry our resources.
If (big if) a manager was in place for Germany, it'd almost be like unearthing new players to see Gibson, Joey O'Brien et al in the squad and given active roles.
Last edited by SwanVsDalton; 13/09/2013 at 12:08 AM.
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
I don't think there's anyone I wouldn't have back in principle. On form, Ireland is definitely out and S Reid and Gibson's chronic injury situations mean they're very much in the maybe pile.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks