Germany V Republic of Ireland - Tuesday, 14th October 2014 - Euro 2016 Qualifier

[Stuttgart88]

That wasnt quite it, his arm was interlocked like ye see a lot of gaelic footballers do, so it fools the ref into thinking he has grabbed and is holding his arm, when in fact the striker has cutely placed and locked in his arm. Never a penalty but at the same time O'Shea was a bit dopey letting him pull him down with him which makes it look a bit more like he dragged him down.

...which is why my heart was in my mouth!

[DeLorean]

I think the majority of the credit has to go to Hendrick, the last thing anybody (and probably Hummels) expected was for him to manage to put the ball into the danger area first time. O'Shea's finish was incredible really, working off pure instinct which was probably a help.

I would have thought Dortmund's high concession rate was probably down to their gung-ho approach but I wouldn't argue too much, as I say I've haven't seen enough of him overall.

[The Fly]

Terry, Varane, Kompany, Ramos Pique, Chiellini, Garay, etc. In recent years, Ferdinand, Vidic, Puyol, etc.

Don't get me wrong, he's a very good footballer but he's a useless defender, which is a luxury a team like Germany can afford but most teams couldn't.

If you're including Ramos, Pique and Garay in a top bracket of present world class centre backs then Hummels is there too.

[BonnieShels]

Just don't ask him about 80s power metal. (In joke)

Oh no. That just won't do. There's a foot.ie meme in there asking to come out. Just like Paul.

[Charlie Darwin]

I would have thought Dortmund's high concession rate was probably down to their gung-ho approach but I wouldn't argue too much, as I say I've haven't seen enough of him overall.

I'd counter their gung-ho approach is down to the attributes of their players, including their defenders who are better going forward than defending.

If you're including Ramos, Pique and Garay in a top bracket of present world class centre backs then Hummels is there too.

Respectfully disagree.

[DeLorean]

I'd counter their gung-ho approach is down to the attributes of their players, including their defenders who are better going forward than defending.

Just assumed it was the manager's philosophy. Take Man Utd's treble winning side for example. They were pretty relentless in terms of all out attack, conceded a fair few goals but it didn't necessarily mean Jaap Stam was bad at defending. Would Thiago Silva make your list? I think he's far better than some on it.

[The Fly]

Respectfully disagree.

Fair enough. I suspect that you're in a minority though.

[paul_oshea]

Credit to O'Shea though. He showed a great instinct to get ahead of Hummels like he did. Reactions are slower at that time of a game too. Hummels can be criticised but I think more credit is due to JOSH.

Hummels is a winner and a strong character, big attributes that are missing in other prominent CBs.

He clearly wanted it more. He got well ahead of him, and I think had he not got on it as cleanly would or at least should have been a penatly. It was a great worked goal, I dont say the goal was lucky, but i dont think we would be able pull that type of goal again and again and I dont think Oshea would have got it as good as he did. Just remember the glaring opportunity 10 years ago in paris!

[paul_oshea]

Fair enough. I suspect that you're in a minority though.

CD is definitely in the minority.

[Stuttgart88]

I enjoyed this analysis on thescore.ie

http://www.thescore.ie/analysis-subs...28200-Oct2014/

He confused Meyler and Hendrick at one point, but only a minor quibble.

[Stuttgart88]

He clearly wanted it more. He got well ahead of him, and I think had he not got on it as cleanly would or at least should have been a penatly. It was a great worked goal, I dont say the goal was lucky, but i dont think we would be able pull that type of goal again and again and I dont think Oshea would have got it as good as he did. Just remember the glaring opportunity 10 years ago in paris!

What goals are ever scored again and again though?

We did enough to get a goal when we needed one twice in a row now, for all intents and purposes. Of course we won't always but it's a good sign especially as I think we all agree there is potential improvement in this team. So far so good, but still work to be done is how I see it.

By coincidence (or quantifiable certainty) I was sitting beside a guy I used to work with in Dublin. We joked that O'Shea owed us that goal for Paris in 2004!

[Stuttgart88]

I only just read liam Mackey's delightful match report. Great stuff.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/s...ue-291397.html

However, go to the footnotes by Miguel Delaney. One of his points is that Whelan is essential for his defensive organisation, and that the players all know it. I've been kind of leaning to that view, not with very high conviction!, even though I think as a fully functional midfielder its hard to see anything else in him. But underestimate his importance at your peril?

Stephen Hunt in the Indo on the day of the Georgia game said something different but not entirely dissimilar, that he's a very streetwise player, able to handle himself in tough company and always in the ref's ear.

I think Whelan will divide opinion for decades. Maybe someone like John O'Shea knows best though.

[mark12345]

He clearly wanted it more. He got well ahead of him, and I think had he not got on it as cleanly would or at least should have been a penatly. It was a great worked goal, I dont say the goal was lucky, but i dont think we would be able pull that type of goal again and again and I dont think Oshea would have got it as good as he did. Just remember the glaring opportunity 10 years ago in paris!

I don't know of a bigger John O'Shea critic on this board than myself. I have questioned his position in the Irish team for years now, even going back before his two blunders versus Italy at Croke Park. However I am glad to see his wonderful contribution against Germany and glad that he proved me wrong on the night. As happy as I am for O'Shea, I was just as impressed at his command of the penalty area. Time and again German attacks were thwarted by the O'Shea led defence. Haven't heard too many people speak about the new look defence, but they seem to be doing their job nicely at the present time even if the parts don't appear to be equal to the sum of parts (or however that goes).

[geysir]

He clearly wanted it more. He got well ahead of him, and I think had he not got on it as cleanly would or at least should have been a penatly. It was a great worked goal, I dont say the goal was lucky, but i dont think we would be able pull that type of goal again and again and I dont think Oshea would have got it as good as he did. Just remember the glaring opportunity 10 years ago in paris!

You just mentioned we were lucky about 6 times in the one post

I doubt whether McAteer or Whelan or Houghton could come close to replicating their goal, even after a 100 attempts, I doubt o'shea could come close to replicating his.
That is not luck nor does the rarity of it have any reductionist meaning, that has to do with anticipating and taking the chance when offered and instinctively doing exactly what was needed at the time, to get the ball (gloriously) into the net. That game is over and we are extremely unlikely to ever see us score a goal like that again, just like we don't see a replication of most every instinctively brilliant goal ever scored.

[DannyInvincible]

Unfortunately I agree with you. The end justifies the means, and herein lies the fickleness of the fan. Had that goal not gone in at the end, I'd be fuming.

Thing is, though, after going a goal down, O'Neill quickly effected the change that allowed the opportunity for us to score to arise. There wouldn't have been a goal had there not been a plan B. He should be rightly commended for that.

We got lucky against the Germans, and one who thinks differently is misguided.

In what sense did we "get lucky"? For all their possession, Germany never truly penetrated us. We kept them out very well. We were brave, organised and dedicated. The effort required great focus, concentration and discipline. It was nothing like the last-gasp backs-to-the-wall stuff in Moscow. We made Germany look like total duds.

ONeill was 1 min away from getting slaughterd in the media, but a lucky goal and he's the new messiah.

Nothing lucky about it. The goal was well worked. It was majestic; a thing of pure beauty. It came as a direct result of us quickly changing our game-plan. We could have had another goal had Hoolahan placed his earlier effort a bit better!

Cannot understand why the so called superfans even give a crap about it to be honest. How does it affect them?

It's self-congratulation, isn't it?

[Predator]

I only just read liam Mackey's delightful match report. Great stuff.

Someone have a word with the editor...Tony Kroos anything to Toni Kroos? Good report overall, that said.

[tricky_colour]

Those few sloppy errors, they are now consistant errors, and it's constantly coming from two players - Marc Wilson, and Stephen Ward.
I'm tired of Wilson. He's just bloody lazy. I've no personal issues with the guy, but it's the small, really small things, and I'd love for some of you to watch out for it. When he gets the ball, he always insists on taking an extra touch. His basic passing, for a guy considered to be a ball-playing centrehalf, is off. Watch how many times when he is making a pass, the receiving player has to check back in/out because the pass is either behind or aschew. It's probably pettiness on my part, but as far as I'm concerned these little things are what add up to big mistakes.
Ward, I'm loathe to criticise, because he defended very well last night, but again, if he just tightened up some of the sloppiness he'd improve to a huge degree. He's a full-back - our only full-back - therefore he knows he is going to be taking throw-ins. It is astounding how many times he takes a bad throw, and how many times the ball is just not good enough to the player receiving the ball. It was the cause of one great German raid in the second half - the ball was thrown to Quinn at throat level, the ball was lost and Germany broke. Such a small and easy thing to eradicate.

I don't know if I have noticed Ward or Wilson being anyone sloppier than anyone else, (well maybe I recall an error from Wilson)
I don't particularly recall one from Ward though, mind you I am watching on a stream much of the time and it is not easy to
tell which green blob is which (unless it is Andy Reid where the blob is somewhat larger ). I was disappointed with Wards bad pass because
it will be ammunition for his enemies.

Even though the consequence was worse, I can almost be lenient on criticising the backing off for the goal, because it's more of a result of tiredness than it is of laziness. Remember you've a guy in Stephen Quinn (who was visibly puffing in the first half at a German free-kick) who is not playing week-in week-out for Hull Tigers, against Toni Kroos, leader of the new free galacticos over in Madrid. Fatigue is what happened there, and with the greatest of respect to our lads, it's bloody understandable.

Well I don't know if it was tiredness, it requires more energy to back off than stay still!!!!

Which beggs the question why did he back off? I am trying to mentally put myself in the same position
and ask if I would have backed off and why? I am kind of stumped for an answer.

We were stuck inside the two most defensive thirds of our half for approximately 50 mins until Germany scored. It was inevitable that a side with so much possession was going to seize on a moment of weakness.

I didn't think were looked a bad as in he Euros were were more forced into that position, it seemed more tactical and indeed we had
a lot more possession I think. certainly the result was better.

[DannyInvincible]

mind you I am watching on a stream much of the time and it is not easy to
tell which green blob is which (unless it is Andy Reid where the blob is somewhat larger ).

You'll have to sort that out. Why not install Hola on Google Chrome and enjoy RTÉ live in high definition?

[tricky_colour]

what exactly was lucky about a quick throw-in followed by some decent wing play, a deep cross brilliantly turned back across the goal and our centre half (yes, miles from his own area) getting across a world class centre half to turn the ball brilliantly into the corner on the net?

please advise.

Indeed you could say the German goal was lucky an inch or two the other was and it would have came back out (unless it hit the keeper).

Indeed as the game drew to a close I though it was a reasonable result away to the World Champions. The draw was a bonus.

[tricky_colour]

I was heavily involved with Irish Pitch and Putt. There's a put-down brandished by the older crew to the younger upstarts that transcends sports.

The fella who is credited with saying it in our game won his first Irish championship many years ago by 1 shot; the fellow who was leading pitched directly into the cup from the teebox, the ball crashed out of the hole and went out of bounds. The chap shot bogey and missed out on the championship by 1 shot. The fella who beat pitched big on the final hole, went out of bounds but the ball struck concrete, came back onto the course, and the chap hit par to win by 1 shot. Approached by the defeated rival at the end, to be told how lucky he was, he responded with: "There's no room for that story on your scorecard, and there's no room for that story when I'm engraving the cup."

Of course such competitions are not played over one hole. In a golf championship it is over 78 holes (or thereabouts, this is not a maths test!).

Luck only really comes into play when the sides are fairly evenly matched.

Anyhow I would maintain that there is room to putt a (lucky) beside the winners on the score card and indeed an (unlucky) on the losers score card.

Indeed it would just require a small asterisk by the name, eg *, **.

* lucky
** unlucky

Something I think it would be useful to introduce on the grounds of fairness.