Lawlor had an operation on his leg recently, so he was unavailable.Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Strange enough, considering reactions to this game, I am a good deal more positive about MON after the game, than before. Mostly I was pleased with the way MON impressed his idea of how we should play and how the players took that on board, with gusto. For the first time I could see a game plan that could work without the need for a midfield maestro and seeing as we have no maestros, bar a fading Wes, this type of thing matters.
And flexibility can be induced with introduction of McGeady and to a lesser extent McClean.
We deserved our goal regardless of margins, we were made work for it but we gifted Scotland one for free.
I concur with MON about the goal, Scotland waltzed unimpeded into our box with the ball from the half way line and the going nowhere shot took an awful deflection. There were 10 errors in our play before Shay comes under scrutiny. We were collectively shoddy. Perhaps the effects of the half-time toke?
Wilson was shoddy at times, a pity because he has ability. O'Shea was a decisive leader, everything we wanted him to be in 2002, when he had youth on his side. Coleman showed signs of some rust. The rest played to their limits on the day. MON deserved better for this game but the pressure was on to win because of our last 2 results.
I think you get the point though. It's not something O'Neill would do. Can't prove it, but there's enough circumstantial evidence.
People forget that we had NINE friendlies with MON before this campaign started. That's a lot of game time to throw in young players and develop a new style of play. We will have the bones of 12 months to prepare for the World cup qualifiers if we don't get to France. Ample time for a manager to try new players / formations and come to conclusions. Don't see why we need to sacrifice a whole campaign just to give players a chance.
13 to 8 is a significant enough difference, especially when we had double the number on target than they did. If you don't see it that way, fair enough. Corners are still indicative of territorial dominance/advantage and persistent pressure; we had 9 more corners than they had.
You initially said, however: "i didnt think we had played that well, but i could sense those watching on TV thought we would have, and all my mates texted me saying exactly that. I texted and said we have created absolutely nothing, and we hadn't!"
I've demonstrated with stats you sought to rely on why it was unfair to say we created absolutely nothing in the first half (the goal being the most glaring and important example of something we created), but, really, what I was interested in knowing was why you thought the way we played in the first half would have impressed or encouraged only television viewers? Never mind the air of superiority about it, I just thought it an odd comment considering numerous respected professional writers/commentators/pundits (as I've pointed out) who were also at the game saw it differently to how you did. Either they lack your insight or you hadn't been paying attention.
For arguments sake, if MON were to step down after Ireland fail to qualify, who would be the front runner as next man up? Is there one?
No Somos muchos pero estamos locos.
Also Henderson ALLEGEDLY had a big falling out with Seamus McDonagh at Aston Villa, hence why he is never considered.
DI we had 6 shots in total on target, 3 in the second half, 6 in total. On the tele you see a small piece of the pitch at a time, so if you see us with the ball all the time it gives the impression that we had loads of the ball over all over the place.
That wasn't really the case and that's what i was pointing out. We held the ball well, I never disagreed with that, in their half more than ours, as you suggest by the heatmap, but so what? They were happy like every other team apart from top sides that come to dublin to sit back and soak it up. We had way more fouls committed, you don't normally commit fouls when you have the ball. The important stats are shots on goal really, and we had 6 in the whole game. That is terrible. Scotland had 3 not a great deal less.
If we had created 20 shots to their 10 then fair enough but we didn't, we had 3 more, its very insignificant really.
Last edited by paul_oshea; 16/06/2015 at 2:49 PM.
I'm a bloke,I'm an ocker
And I really love your knockers,I'm a labourer by day,
I **** up all me pay,Watching footy on TV,
Just feed me more VB,Just pour my beer,And get my smokes, And go away
Philippe Troussier.
The 'write-off' suggestion has to be taken in context - I not sure anyone's said we should just forget about a qualification campaign. I certainly haven't.
What Malone was talking about was in the overall trajectory of Irish international football - an aging side, with not much apparent talent coming through, facing fourth seed status and a probable extremely tough draw in the next campaign.
His point was any long-term solution to the decline is hampered by a don't lose at all costs, qualify-or-bust attitude. I'm inclined to agree. It's not necessarily about playing Ian Lawlor or Ian Henderson or Noe Baba or whoever, or playing 352 or tika taka or any number of experiments. It's about giving the players we have the room to play football free of fear.
The team look scared. They've looked scared for a long time, certainly post Euros and realistically before them. It's a deep-seated, chronic problem that may require disposing of certain players and ways or thinking - or maybe not. But either way, it has to be looked at long-term rather than game-to-game.
When Mick McCarthy took over post-Jack, everyone knew the craic- that team was done. It was transition time and we faced an uphill task to make France 98. We made a play-off, but it was a poor campaign. Acceptable in context.
Next time out, we beat Croatia and Yugoslavia - still didn't make the finals, agonisingly, but those were some games to cheer about. Those guys didn't play with fear, they had intent, particularly at home. And next time we made it.
Those were painful years, but they had progress too and there was a feeling that the team had room to grow and improve. Granted, that team had some decent talent in it but it also maxismised its resources, something we desperately need to do.
Sometimes playing without fear comes from having nothing to lose. Scotland don't have anything to lose - things couldn't have got much worse for them and they're playing like a team who has seen darker days but knows it can play out of them. We need to find that confidence too.
I'd like to think a managerial change or picking Wes Hoolahan or going 433 would be enough to do that - but so far, it hasn't. I don't want a write off, I just want to feel like we're playing with freedom and building towards a better future rather than drawing/losing every game with no benefit.
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
This is something that has really annoyed me about MON.
Bringing back Shay Given was ridiculous. Shay is 39 and has no future in the team after this campaign. I'd understand if we had an injury crisis at the time but we didn't. Westwood has been a regular for Sheff Wed all season while Shay warmed the bench. Westwood should have been given his chance, a few more caps under his belt & establish himself as our No.1 for the next few campaigns. Randolph & Henderson were both playing regularly too.
The team/squad has been crying out for energetic youthful players, but MON goes for the old "reliables" Given, Murphy, Kelly, Green, Sammon etc.
When young lads who are the future of the team (good or bad) are ignored. Hoban, Doherty, Williams, Egan, Kavanagh, Kiernan etc.
From our U19 squad that reached the Euro semi finals in 2011 only Hendrick has been given a chance. Granted some of the others haven't set the world a light, but sometimes you just have to give youth a chance.
When you compare that U19 squad to the Spanish squad that beat us in the semi final, they've had 5 players go on to be capped at senior level.
The majority of that U19 team then went on the beat the Italian U21 team in 2012 which had Gabbiadini, Immobile, El Shaarawy, & Perin who've all been capped by Italy since.
Trap had no interest in youth, MON seems to be going down the same route.
We need someone in charge who's not afraid to use young players & drop the "names" in the squad, if we take a few beatings along the way so be it. Is it much different from what's been happening lately??
Last edited by IsMiseSean; 16/06/2015 at 3:58 PM.
I couldn't agree more. We have players with midranking Premiership clubs who show no fear when they're up against Chelsea and Arsenal and the like. Put on the green, and it's a different story: confidence has leached out of the team, and it's not helped by successive managers griping that the players aren't good enough. I've said here a few times that the team needs a psychologist to sort this out, but maybe that low esteem is too ingrained in some players at this stage and a ruthless cull might be just as good.
Again, I couldn't agree more. If they're good enough, they're old enough. Young players may have the fearlessness we need to take risks, or try new things. And there's every chance that being a regular international with 10-20 caps by the time they're 23 might put them in the window for moving to better clubs. Would it be such a bad thing if we had a reputation as a nation that gave youth its fling? Messrs Bamford, Grealish and so on might want to weigh up the attractiveness of being seasoned internationals against waiting 3 or 4 years for an England call-up.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
I suppose the same old names would be trotted out - Mick, Dave O'Leary, Pat Fenlon as the token LoI suggestion; a slew of mediocre Championship level managers; maybe Troussier as IMS says. No more than playing unheralded youth, I'd rather see a manager from left of field - a complete unknown even - with an eye for a young player who can instil confidence and adopt 2 or 3 formations than some tired old has-been who's been around too long.
But we'll probably get whoever returns Ray Houghton's call first!
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
Didn't our U-21s get beaten by an England C team recently? Our squad is fine. IMO, if MON left Hoolahan on, took off Murphy for Long on 50mins and then put on Keane for Walters after another 10 minutes we'd have gotten our goal and none of this soul-searching, radical idea-making would be going on. International football is generally awful and the pick of managers seems to be awful too. Wes is an excellent little schemer but our team is just missing that world-class or almost world-class player to drag us up and get us the wins we need. Hopefully someone comes through.
Our underage managers have basically been FAI yes men for years. Givens, King, Doolin. Our U21/U19 managers should be someone who has a realistic chance of becoming senior manager. Kerr is the exception.
Of our recently retired players I'm not sure which ones have gone into coaching but these guys should be considered for our underage teams.
Wouldn't the U21 job have been perfect for Roy? But perhaps not for his ego. Even Stan was thrown in at the deep end.
And the Troussier comment was in jest
Last edited by IsMiseSean; 16/06/2015 at 4:57 PM.
if that side was similar to the side that played England a few days later, they were only just qualified for u21, IE at the start of their 2 year cycle.
Roy Keane, Mick McCarthy and Owen Coyle are most likely according to Paddypower. I cant see any of them getting it or going for it, maybe Coyle.
Ray said it was Roy Hodgson way back in 2007. Everything almost signed and sealed but Fulham stepped in late in the day and offered him a real job.
AFAIR, Roy was thought of very well here at that time. I wouldn't poke fun at Ray's first choice.
Something similar was put to the RTE panel on Saturday evening. Brady didn't like the question and dismissed it, but Dunphy suggested Neil Lennon. Not a bad shout I thought.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks