Zidane set to retire?

**tiktok** · 13/08/2004, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by carnstien

I meant was that there best 11 players wouldn't be much better than ours

I don't disagree with this, but I think it's worth noting that the French squad listed in post #6 is missing a few that'll be in line to start against us (or at least feature) becuase they were involved in CL Qualifiers/injured

Silvestre/Saha from Man United
Trezeguet/Zebina from Juventus
for example

**NeilMcD** · 13/08/2004, 10:55 AM

"That France squad does not look much better than what we have"

That was your quote above, now to me and to lots of others a squad means the 22 or 23 players in it. It does not mean the starting 11. So when you said the squad does not look much better than what we have, i can only go on what the common meaning of squad is, which is the 22 or 23 players. if you meant the starting 11, why did you not say the starting 11.

Regarding O shea, You have a feeling, does not add up to much fact, it is just a sense that you have that O shea will be better than Makele in midfield, despite the fact that makele has a better proven record at playing midfield at the highest level.

In another point to Davros, I will let you thilnk what you think, but I do suggest you get over it as it is like a poison, inside you and you should reach some sort of closure for your own sake. Unfinished business does not actually mean win the world cup. It just means that he feels he wants to play in anotehr world cup. The original point I was making is, that we have gained a world class player in Roy Keane and they have lost one, in Zidane,> Them two facts have to be good for the Irish football team regardless of your views on Saiplan, Keane, Mc Carthy etc.

**carnstien** · 13/08/2004, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

"That France squad does not look much better than what we have"

That was your quote above, now to me and to lots of others a squad means the 22 or 23 players in it.

OK, that's what I said but I obviously did not articulate what I meant very well, it's obvious to evryone that France have far more strenght in depth than us, what I should have written was that their first 11 wasn't much better than what we have.

**eirebhoy** · 13/08/2004, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by davros

If he was the player of 3-4 years ago,he might be reluctantly accepted.

...now he's just pure sh*te

.....Vieria's miles better........whilst skill-wise the only Irish people who can be equated with Zidane are Brady,Best & Giles!

I can't remember Vieira ever getting the better of Keane in a United-Arsenal match.

BTW, sorry to bring this old chestnut back up again (but you bring him up in every second post

), but what exactly do you have against Keane? I'm sure you can accept that he had no choice but to leave Saipan and he wasn't accepted back by his teammates, who for obvious reasons backed their boss. Is it because he officially "retired" when Kerr took over? I'm sure you'd accept Kiely or Kelly back with open arms if they could get into the team. It took some balls to turn his back on Fergie and come back to play for us.

**carnstien** · 13/08/2004, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by davros

now he's just pure sh*te

When you come out with crap like that you loose all credibility.

**brine3** · 13/08/2004, 12:51 PM

Japan was before the full truth came out and people only had BBC and CNN coverage to go on.

At the game in Basel the vast majority of supporters had realised what a fool Mick was.

RMK is overhyped,over-rated

But Manchester United still can't win without him. Strange that.

**eirebhoy** · 13/08/2004, 1:16 PM

Originally Posted by davros

How about last season?!

FFS,Even Alf Inge-Haaland got the better of him.....RMK is overhyped,over-rated & definitely Over The Hill

Any specific match? They both had equal games in the first game at Old Trafford and the FA cup match. Keane had a better game in the league match at Highbury AFAIR. Vieira is a lot more overrated IMO and doesn't even play half as well for France.

**tiktok** · 13/08/2004, 1:26 PM

Originally Posted by davros

RMK is overhyped,over-rated & definitely Over The Hill

There's no doubt that he's not the player he was a few years ago, but his contribution at united (and ireland) has always been about more than just his game. It's not easily explained, but United are a better team with him there, I'm not sure if he inspires or frightens his team-mates but he brings more out of those around him, he seems to put himself on the line when it's needed and that lifts others to raise their game.

He still reads the game as well as anyone else I can think of, and while he has that ability his legs fading is not such an issue (in exactly the same way that it wasn't with McGrath).

I still think he has a load to offer both United and Ireland, if only because of his influence on a decent crop of young players both at Club or country. One thing I'll guarantee, Liam Miller will become a vastly better player for Keane's influence.

**carnstien** · 13/08/2004, 1:29 PM

Originally Posted by davros

PS.Incredulously,you have spelt'credibility'

........However 'lose' has only One 'o'.......

Wow, you can spell, I'm sorry for every thing I said about you losing credibility. Now I think you should be made Emperor of the World and worshiped as a God.

**Metrostars** · 13/08/2004, 7:06 PM

Why does every thread here have to turn into another endless battle between the Pro-Roy and the Anti-Roy factions?

Can't we all just get along?

**1MickCollins** · 13/08/2004, 10:44 PM

No because Roy is a symbol of the new Ireland, he wants to win and feels that just putting in a good performance is not enough, moral victories don't do it for him. Just like Brian O'Driscoll in rugby terms or U2 in music etc. They want to be the best.

Gary Kelly is a good example of the old Ireland...

**1MickCollins** · 13/08/2004, 10:53 PM

I think he is right in not wanting to play friendlies, I don't watch them - they're a waste of time. Could you question his commitmet to Utd? Remember he has to put up with the hacks in Merrion Sq, can only imagine how depressing it must be to run sholuders with thos f**ck-offs. Rooney in fairness seems to be going in the right direction.

**eirebhoy** · 14/08/2004, 7:07 PM

Originally Posted by 1MickCollins

I think he is right in not wanting to play friendlies, I don't watch them - they're a waste of time.

I really find it strange that you don't watch Ireland play in any kind of match. I'd watch the U-16 play Azerbaijan if given the chance.

**1MickCollins** · 14/08/2004, 10:43 PM

So would I if it was a competitive game - FIFA should reduce the number of friendlies a team can play to say 2 a year. If you like watching friendlies, good for you, I don't.

**eirebhoy** · 15/08/2004, 11:12 AM

1MickCollins, you have never seen Andy Reid, Miller, Colgan, Maybury, Barrett, Quinn, O'Brien, Rowlands, Kenny, Delap, Douglas, Clarke, Crowe, Byrne, Murphy, Thompson, McGeady and Doyle play for Ireland?

**1MickCollins** · 15/08/2004, 5:11 PM

Yes I have, I shouldn't have said "I don't watch them" - I meant I really don't get too excited about them, I do watch most of them but with an eye only on new faces. To me it's a scrimmage and nothing more, the result doesn't count - you are really looking at individual performances and looking for indications of possible quality.

Why would Roy Keane or Shay Given or Steve Carr want to play as many friendlies as we do? Even if the opposition is decent, what's the point of them playing meaningless games when we know what they can do?

I think an early season friendy is important for getting together and maybe one in January but once the season is going strong they are a waste of time and just another games these premership guys don't need and an injury risk. We play more friendlies than most other countries because it is pretty much the only revenue that the FAI gets.

Do you honestly think a friendly result means anything? If we beat Argentina or Brazil or Germany in a friendly so effing what! I want to beat them in the World Cup!! I think that is what Roy and a few others in the squad feel.

**eirebhoy** · 15/08/2004, 5:58 PM

Originally Posted by 1MickCollins

Why would Roy Keane or Shay Given or Steve Carr want to play as many friendlies as we do? Even if the opposition is decent, what's the point of them playing meaningless games when we know what they can do?

Ok, we know what Carr, Given, Roy, Robbie and Cunningham can do so lets not play them in friendlies. We should just stick them in our first qualifying game when they're not as familiar with each other's game. Why do you think they have the phrase, "money doesn't buy success"? Players have to gel and they can only do that by playing games. Look at Arsenal they are so familiar with each other that they make more chances than any other team and could virtually pass to a specific teammate blindfolded. Chelsea could probably make a better team on paper but it'll take time before they can match them.

Here's an example of why we need everyone for friendlies. We had just drawn with Russia and our next group game was against Switzerland. Kerr still hadn't found the right partner for Robbie. We were playing Turkey in a friendly and Keane was unavailable so Kerr played Doc and Connolly up front. Connolly played a stormer, scored and won man of the match. Kerr played Connolly and Keane up front against the Swizz and they just couldn't play together. If Keane was available for the Turkey game Kerr could have at least tested the Keane-Connolly partnership and would more than likely have seen they weren't the best partnership we could put out.

Other partnerships that need to be formed are at the centre of defence and midfield. Aswell as that we need see how well Duff links up with the left back (Pires and Cole know each other's game inside out at this stage). And Carr with the right midfielder.

Have you seen Sven G Eriksson's squad? He is in the rebuilding stage after Euro 2004 with the likes of Shaun W Phillips, Defoe, Johnson and Jenas in the team. Kerr has played 8 friendlies and now probably knows his starting 11. I'd bet my house that Kerr would not stick Macken up front with Keane in a competitive game without testing them in a friendly.

**1MickCollins** · 15/08/2004, 6:20 PM

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

Ok, we know what Carr, Given, Roy, Robbie and Cunningham can do so lets not play them in friendlies. We should just stick them in our first qualifying game when they're not as familiar with each other's game.

If these guys aren't "familiar with each other's game" after playing 50 games together when will they be?

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

Kerr played Connolly and Keane up front against the Swizz and they just couldn't play together. If Keane was available for the Turkey game Kerr could have at least tested the Keane-Connolly partnership and would more than likely have seen they weren't the best partnership we could put out.

So Kerr has never seen Keane and Connolly play together before? Is that right? Mr VCR Kerr couldn't find a tape? Not a very convincing example.