No, really, if you would prefer to see Ireland lose and play what you think is "pretty" football, it is you who doesn't understand. I'd love Ireland to play like Brazil 1970 every game, but if that means losing, I'll take the deflected goal and parking the bus every time thank you very much. It's football, it's a competitive sport, not an interpretive dance routine.Originally Posted by brine3
At the moment we are playing **** football AND losing, including by record margins, so maybe we should give the good football a go.
Now you're judging things on effectiveness.
Germany got to the final in 1982. France didn't. Is it always the result that counts?
The Dutch team of 2010 got to the final. The Dutch team of 1998 only made the semis. History will remember Bergkamp's goal against Argentina and Nigel de Jong's karate kick against Xabi Alonso. Is it always the result that counts?
Football is called the beautiful game for a reason. If you only care about the result and not the way the game is played, then you should start following 100 m sprinting or high-jumping, sports where everything can be quantitatively measured.
The result isn't the only thing that matters, but it's by far and away the most important thing. Ask Dennis Bergkamp if he'd trade that goal against Argentina for a World Cup winner's medal. I think I know what the answer would be. I honestly can't understand people who'd prefer Ireland lost so long as they played "beautiful" football, which is a subjective concept anyway.
Questionable analogy at best.
What's that to do with Trappatoni's replacement?
We can improve our style, but even Pep (or insert your preferred name) couldn't transform us into Barca, Brazil' 70, whatever.
Get real.
And? A few hundred views on youtube does't make up for the lack of a trophy. Do people remember the goals from 1954 world cup, or that Brazil won it? In time, nobody will care who kicked who in what final, they'll care that Spain won it.
That's not what I was saying and you know it.
Off topic: What kind of tea would an Irish person prefer who is visiting another country? I know you all hate lipton.
No Somos muchos pero estamos locos.
Hmm. So what are you saying?
Being less disingenuous would help.
I thought we were outplayed in Moscow and even Estonia had much the better of it between 1 and 2 nil, and with ten men. I don't think Armenia outplayed us but they played better than we should have let them.
I don't think we should wish for pretty football for pretty football's sake, but I thought that as Trap's tenure developed the willingness to play without the ball started to play against us more and more. As his tenure developed further the tendency to play hoofball was increased and added to an increasingly ineffective containing game. We had the worst of both worlds, incohesive with the ball and poor without it.
If there was a way of improving this by primitive football I'd be ok with that, but the reality is that the game has moved on of late and some degree of measured and precise / crisp football is what works these days. It's not for vanity reasons I want to see more guile and less huff and puff (as Junior says there will always be a fair bit of the latter anyway), it's because that's what I think will work. Trap saw it differently and results didn't support his methods.
PG Tipps or Barry's tea for me Crozzer.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 21/09/2013 at 1:51 PM.
We're not going to win trophies like Brazil and Barca, but we should be looking to the likes of Uruguay, Denmark and Croatia for inspiration. Countries with similar populations who have always at least tried to play football - even when they didn't have the players they have now. They often don't qualify, but they try to play football.
There's no point in playing hoofball if the most it leads to is a first round exit. We may as well give it a proper lash as far as playing football is concerned.
There is something seriously wrong with Irish football culture if passing the ball is derided as "tippy tappy" and compared unfavourably to ballet (what's wrong with ballet, by the way?). That attitude is something that needs to be addressed at all levels. We can play football. We outdid Germany and Spain for possession at the 2002 World Cup. Trap has told us that we are no good and that we have no choice but to play hoofball and certain people are lapping it up.
Last edited by brine3; 21/09/2013 at 3:39 PM.
Except we don't have the players. To refer to your last paragraph.
Tbf, 90% of other countries don't either. What's your point?
Should we kidnap '000's of Brazilians, Germans & Spaniards?
Sure, we don't have fantastic players. But if players can't win by passing the ball, what makes you think they'll do better by hoofing it up the pitch?
There's never an excuse to play hoofball. To revert to that is to give up.
A lot of the foreign media credits Jack Charlton with getting Ireland to win by playing hoofball. I would argue that Jack's team did well because he had great players at his disposal.
So great tactical genius, who do you replace Trap with;that's going to lead us on this path to football enlightenment...
Only if we want to compete with Brazilians, Germans and Spaniards. I'd be happy to compete with Sweden & Austria right now, and be able to look convincing against Kazakhstan. We DO have the players for that (look at Brady today) and we do have the players to play something other than hoofball. It's extraordinary how you and Peadar are playing into brine3's hands. Hoofball wins nothing in modern football and we all know it.
"We don't have the players". For what?
"We must play pretty football". No, we don't have to, but playing a more contemporary game will suit contemporary situations.
We should do better than Trap's 'hoofball', but don't believe as per my last post, we have the players to play the sophisticated style some fantasists are suggesting.
Telling one of them didn't answer my question about a replacement...
Agree we should compromise and try to match the other mid-ranking sides, but that to me is as much about organisation and passion as inherent ability.
Co Adriaanse
By organisation I'm assuming that includes determining our style of play? I'd contend that allowing players like Brady, Hoolahan, Gibson, and even the likes of Reid and Ireland, (not necessarily all together) to play the ball around a bit more but in among a well organised unit is something we can aspire to quite quickly. Stan trusted his ball payers but forgot about the balance and organisation of the team. Trap wanted organisation without trusting his ball players. I'd fancy any of MON, Keane or Mick to find a balance. I think MON and Mick would have the players running through walls for them. I don't know about Keane.
I hear what you're saying AB, but I think stuff like "90pc of all teams don't have the players" is RTE daytime radio standard of analysis
About 10 years you might have had a point.
He's not done much recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co_Adriaanse
That's as maybe, but 90% of international side IMO either don't fufill this Utopian requirement of either winning competitions or playing attractive football.t I think stuff like "90pc of all teams don't have the players" is RTE daytime radio standard of analysis
Though we can and play will play better with more organisation and passion, at least in the first instance.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks