Trapattoni - who would you replace him with?

[paul_oshea]

Remember the staunton era, when we could confidently beat the likes of slovakia at home? And go over there and score two goals. Long time since then.

Trappatoni shored up the defence but limited our goalscoring. IF only we could have the scoring we had before that with his defensive record. Proved that the negativitiy outweighed the positivity i.e. nullified our scoring ability and wasnt good enough to stop shipping goals.

[DeLorean]

Remember the staunton era, when we could confidently beat the likes of slovakia at home? And go over there and score two goals. Long time since then.

Yeah great times. Comfortably beating Slovakia 1-0 at home. And getting a 2-2 draw away is so much more impressive than a 1-1 draw away under Trap, with Keane missing a penalty also.

[paul_oshea]

And a bore draw at home 0-0!

It was tongue in cheek, but for all the goals we conceded under Staunton, we always looked more likely to score than we did under trap.

[Deckydee]

Dick Advocaat?

http://www.examiner.ie/sport/oneill-...ey-243301.html

[paul_oshea]

Guus Hiddink?

[DannyInvincible]

you can't transfer list players you have fallen out with and buy in a replacement. A manager who was good at wheeling
and dealing in the transfer market might come undone.

Well, there's no obligation upon an international manager to select players who won't work with him. He can always select someone else as a replacement.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Dick Advocaat?

http://www.examiner.ie/sport/oneill-...ey-243301.html

DA or someone who denied he was him was at the Sweden game...


As for all Trap's many faults, at least we never got humped by Cyprus, under Stan. Our worst performance ever. Probably.

[DeLorean]

And a bore draw at home 0-0!

It was tongue in cheek, but for all the goals we conceded under Staunton, we always looked more likely to score than we did under trap.

In Staunton's campaign (even though he was gone for final match):

PLD 12 GF 17 GA 14

Trap's 1st camapign: (including playoff)

PLD 12 GF 13 GA 10

Trap's 2nd campaign: (including playoff)

PLD 12 GF 20 GA 8

Trap's 3rd campaign: (unfinished)

PLD 8 GF 13 GA 13


Looks to me like we were every bit as likely to score under Trap, especially taking into consideration we had San Marino in our group under Stan. We had nowhere near that level of opposition under Trap at any stage really. I would even put Andorra and the Faroes at a much higher level to them. In Trap's first campaign the weakest team was Georgia who are always relatively competitive.

Of course, you did say that we "looked" more likely to score... but looking likely doesn't count for all that much really.

[paul_oshea]

Well ye can't compare because its over 2 campaigns. San marino, andorra, faroes are all bottom seeds, faroes are probably the strongest but still easy to get 3 past them.

For one campaign against the other though I see:

GF 17 for Stan. GF 13 for Trap. You can only compare like for like in the context of what it is. 1 campaign, and while we were awful in that campaign, we scored 4 more goals.

Whats very intersting about this campaign is that, we could still have ended up with maybe 17 GF, yet nowhere near qualifying, similar if not more to the previous campaigns with less games. It drives the point home even more now about the previous 2 campaigns.

[Junior]

You could just as easily compare it to traps 2nd campaing (20 goals) or his 3rd and most disappointing where we scored 1.625 goals per game versus Stauntons 1.416.

So what does that tell you?

Pretty much nothing.......

[Stuttgart88]

I'm not sure comparisons between the two are worthwhile. Both had to go.

The most telling statistic of all is Trap's home record. The worst in 40 years.

[DeLorean]

Well ye can't compare because its over 2 campaigns. San marino, andorra, faroes are all bottom seeds, faroes are probably the strongest but still easy to get 3 past them.

For one campaign against the other though I see:

GF 17 for Stan. GF 13 for Trap. You can only compare like for like in the context of what it is. 1 campaign, and while we were awful in that campaign, we scored 4 more goals.

Whats very intersting about this campaign is that, we could still have ended up with maybe 17 GF, yet nowhere near qualifying, similar if not more to the previous campaigns with less games. It drives the point home even more now about the previous 2 campaigns.

I think you're being very selective Paul in fairness. Even comparing Trap's first to Stan's first, you can't just disregard the quality of San Marino compared to Georgia. We got 7 of our 17 goals against San Marino... that's 41% of our goals in just 16% of our matches in the group.

Also, we only got one goal in four games against the best sides in the group, Czech Rep & Germany under Stan. One of those games was at home to an already qualified Germany, and one of them was a must win game in Prague.

In Trap's first campaign we scored five goals in four games against the best two teams in the group, Italy & Bulgaria... granted Bulgaria wouldn't have been anywhere near as good as the Germans or Czechs.

[geysir]

Traditionally we don't do well in dead rubber games.
Is it worth having a new manager in for the last game against Kazakhstan?
Financially? possibly a good few thousand more bums on seats, a better chance of a moral boost win, a taste of whats to come? rather than a bore draw.
Or would a prospective manger want to wait until next February, want to start with a clean sheet, having no connection with this campaign?

[DeLorean]

I'm not sure comparisons between the two are worthwhile. Both had to go.

The most telling statistic of all is Trap's home record. The worst in 40 years.

Completely agree with your general point but not sure why that is the most telling stat of all?

[paul_oshea]

You could just as easily compare it to traps 2nd campaing (20 goals) or his 3rd and most disappointing where we scored 1.625 goals per game versus Stauntons 1.416.

So what does that tell you?

Pretty much nothing.......

You can only compare it to the first campaign because they were both coming into the job fresh for full campaigns.

We also never played Georgia at away, we played them at "home" twice. THe same scoreline as we got against San Marino away. But you are right San Marino are nothing compared to Georgia.

[Stuttgart88]

Completely agree with your general point but not sure why that is the most telling stat of all?

Because it proves that he had to go!

Out of curiosity though, was Stan's points haul (17?) much worse than Trap's in any campaign?

[paul_oshea]

Thats what i was getitng at with my interesting bit.

I'm begining to wonder was the points haul very similar? The difference being for stan that we looked awful at times, and we were up against a clinical Czech team who finished on 29 points and a German team who finished behind them.

I'm begining to think how simple our arguments were all along though we made them more complicated. That group is very similar to this group, and we got well beaten in both.

Czech Republic 12 9 2 1 27 5 +22 29
Germany 12 8 3 1 35 7 +28 27
Republic of Ireland 12 4 5 3 17 14 +3 17

[Deckydee]

http://talksport.com/football/dunphy...de-13091359974

[DeLorean]

Out of curiosity though, was Stan's points haul (17?) much worse than Trap's in any campaign?

We're only allowed compare first campaigns (Paul's rules ).


Stan had an average of (1.41 pts per game if you include Wales game when he was actually gone... otherwise it's 1.45 per game)


-We got 18 points from 10 matches in Trap's first campaign... two games less than Stans with no San Marino. (1.8 pts per game)


Oh to hell with it...

-We got 21 points from 10 games in Trap's second campaign... again two games less. (2.1 pts per game)

-We have 11 pts from 8 games in this campaign... (1.38 pts per game)


The latter is the real telling stat and why he had to go, not his home record even if they are slightly connected.

[IsMiseSean]

What's Philippe Troussier up to these days?