Am I the only one who feels Whelan is used as a scapegoat for this Irish team?
He looked for the ball more than McCarthy in the game, had a decent shot in the first half and was left on his own to try to stop Anya and Maloney linking up for the goal when others around him seemed to fall asleep.
The Scottish midfield had nothing likt the control they had in Glasgow when Whelan was missing
Folding my way into the big money!!!
Whelan's always been a scapegoat. Granted, he's had some bad games for us, but we always play worse when he's not there.
I thought he was more positive on Saturday than normal. I've watched the game back and he certainly in the first half was getting the ball forward and screaming for a pass to get on the ball.
To be honest, we battered Scotland. We just switched off for 30 seconds and couldn't score that second goal. Overall we played pretty well and at times played some of the best football we've played so far in this campaign.
But I do wish MON had left Hoolahan on
Folding my way into the big money!!!
I know Stutts agrees with you. I've come round to appreciating him and his role more. I don't like the type of criticism he receives either; it nears the level of hateful abuse from some. That's not on. He shed tears when he scored against Italy. You can only warm to passion like that if you're a well-wisher/supporter of the team.Originally Posted by Fixer82
I envisage qualification being mathematically possible going into the last week of the group. That's not to say I see us grasping it by toppling Germany and/or Poland, but we'll pick up six points in our next two games and I sense other results will at least ensure qualification is still a possibility for us then.
Not sure if it's been posted already, but here's what needs to happen if we are to miraculously qualify: http://www.balls.ie/football/what-ir...nd-draw/296878
Do Carlsberg do pipe-dreams?
You can re-watch it all you want, but it'll only ingrain the false impression that we were dominant in this game. To have truly grasped just how crap we were, you'd have needed to have been viewing from the lofty vantage point of Paul's seat.
Let me give you a scenario Mr Crosby. Martin O'Neill steps down next Monday morning - doesn't even wait for this campaign to end. I am appointed as new manager of Ireland and I call my three longest serving players together for a meeting (on how we are going to approach the next campaign - ie the one that is going to take us to Russia 2018). I ask one question of all of you three and it's this: "How do we go further in the competition (World Cup 2018) than Brazil?" That is something you have to provide me with an answer with. Think about it. Do you say - "no way boss, it's just not going to happen" Do you say "let us put a plan in place and bring through as many players as possible" or do you say "let us change completely the way we approach the game". Or better still, do you say: "this cannot be achieved in two years - we need to put a realistic plan in place to achieve this goal, something which is realistic over seven or eight years." Now there's a mountain load of responsibility for you. WHat would you do? I would be interested to know your thoughts and other peoples' thoughts
Forgot to say Crosby that you were one of my longest serving players and one of the three at the meeting
He never seems to get left on for Norwich he is usually subbed at around 75 mins, sometime earlier.
Maybe he just gets too knackered, but then towards the end of the game the managers usually go
for height as the game approaches the aerial bombardment stage.
I think Crosby would want to know whether he would be flying economy or club class.
We need to get cfdh_edmundo in here to debate the pros and cons of these guys! Preud'homme is the only one I've even heard of and that's from his playing days. A quick Google indicates a Bundesliga/central European theme.
Are they all similar type coaches? Why would they suit us exactly?
Agree with you entirely. He is often criticized as being slow etc. but I don't think he looked cumbersome in possession. On Saturday, I thought he added to our urgency through his passing and movement and showed a willingness to press Scotland. Even from the pocket, there was one stage where he picked out Brady on the left with a delicious pass in the first half.
I think it was unfair on Hoolahan to be taken off but I think it was unfair on Whelan to be taken off so early. I couldn't get my head around it. I thought that O'Shea, Whelan, Brady and Hoolahan were the four players most responsible for the pressure we put on Scotland in the first half. As I've stated before in this thread, I thought McCarthy was turned backwards while Whelan provided an outlet in tight positions for our defence, as usual.
I didn't see it but a mate said that on telly it looked like Whelan was fairly frustrated on being taken off. Anyone see it?
This scapegoating of Whelan is growing pretty tiresome. I thought his performance Saturday demonstrated why it's unfair but that common perception is unlikely to shift at this point.
I'd say so. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if we were 3rd in the table going into the last series of games, a point or two ahead of Scotland. But we face Poland away while they face Gibraltar.
Yeah he was well ****ed off as he came of the pitch. Probably wondering what he has to do to shut up some of those criticizing him for no other reason than to be on that particular bandwagon. Getting subbed off didn't help.
Anyone think this is realistic:
NEXT 4 GAMES
Team Results Points scotland DLDW 5 poland LWDD 5 ireland WWDD 8 germany WWDW 10 georgia DLWL 4 gibraltar LLLL 0
I suppose I am putting a lot of faith in Germany who haven't shown great form so far. Above leaves the standings at the end like this:
Pos Team Current Pts Final Pts 2 Poland 14 19 1 Germany 13 23 4 Scotland 11 16 3 Republic of Ireland 9 17 5 Georgia 3 7 6 Gibraltar 0 0
Havin a weekend away is quite frankly,lettin ur team mates down!
Hoolahan is fine. He's a final third specialist but who can dr deep. What we need to complement (not replace) Hoolahan is a guy who can pick the ball up deep and work the ball, by carrying it, 1-2s, or by passing it to the final third. We simply lack the ability to develop play through the middle. I could take possession of the ball from a CB and pass it to a full back or wide midfielder. That's something any primitive footballer can do.
I'm sure we have all played with a guy who just stands out. A guy you know wants the ball and isn't afraid to receive it. Gibson is a great receiver of the ball, in fairness. Look at the best continental midfielders, demanding the ball even when tightly marked. As Richard Sadlier brilliantly said, if we pass the ball to a guy who is marked it's considered a stitch-up in our culture. We lack that type of player.
I do think Whelan is a scapegoat. He does nothing accretive and although I agree with Giles' assertion that there's no need for a holding midfielder, he is our holding midfielder. It's McCarthy I want to see more of, setting the tempo, passing the ball forward, making himself big to receive the ball again. It's his job.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 17/06/2015 at 9:53 AM.
Too much Hookah I'd say went into that post.
Ah, crap, he has edited it.
Last edited by osarusan; 17/06/2015 at 9:54 AM. Reason: he sobered up
Who is actually scapegoating Whelan now? McCarthy seems to be taking most of the flak from what I can see.
CD - It's simply not true to say we're always worse when Whelan's not there. For a start, it's very rare that he's not there so it's a difficult thing to measure. Were we worse in Sweden without him? No, we were considerably better than most of the games Whelan has played in. We also played very well against Italy in London without him. We were set up atrociously in Glasgow but Gibson going off could be identified as a reason for losing a goal every bit as much as Whelan's absence. Our formation and application cost us more than any absentee though. I can't even think of any other time Whelan was absent, maybe a few friendlies where we were severely understrength anyway. Actually he did miss the 1-6 against Germany, maybe he would have helped keep the score down but they practically scored from every shot they had and we were at a pretty low ebb anyway. The games he was present for in Poland would suggest he wouldn't have made any major difference I think.
Fixer - I think it's simplistic putting the difference in the two midfield performances against Scotland solely down to Whelan. For a start, we were set up completely differently, and far more effectively in Dublin. Secondly, McCarthy also missed Glasgow so one could just as easily assume it was down to him or at least a combination of both. Hendrick was used in a lot more effective way in Dublin also, and helped with the intense pressing, of which, we saw zero in Glasgow. Our whole game plan revolved around stopping them controlling the middle, we even disposed of our wingers to serve the purpose.
This sounds like I'm bashing the guy, I'm actually not, just pointing out that other variables need to be considered. I've even come around to the fact that Whelan knows his role very well and there's a certain amount of security and control when he is present. I don't necessarily think we'd be up sh!t creek without him though. I also think he has played reasonably well in the three games against Poland, England and Scotland. I would agree with you that he has done more than McCarthy recently, certainly on the ball, unfortunately I think that says more about McCarthy than Whelan though, although I remain a fan of the former.
I'd love his opinion on them actually.
They've all had relative success in the Bundesliga, the Eridevisie or in Preud'homme's case a number of leagues.
By relative success I don't necessarily mean winning bucket loads of trophies, but other means of success. I've tried to limit the scope to managers who coached a team around, rather than bought a team through a sugardaddy - something that is of no use to use.
Ralf Rangnick - probably the most well-known for what he did at Hoffenheim (albeit they were bank-rolled) but he did well at Hannover and Schalke too.
Thomas Schaaf - is a manager I love. I liked his Werder Bremen teams, and they played excellent football.
Mirko Slomka - did extremely well with a functional Hannover side. Did relatively well at Schalke.
Christian Streich - has worked wonders at Freiburg, and has brought youth through to the first team.
Lucien Favre - a non-runner. He's done quite well with Gladbach, and will only gone on to better things.
Ron Jans - an interesting proposition. a bit of a header, but has done very very well at Groningen, Heerenveen and now the same at Zwolle
Gert Verbeek;
Laszlo Boloni; - too much to go into, the guy's been a success wherever he's been.
Michel Preud'homme; as with Boloni, just look him up.
I suppose what I'm looking at, is exceptional cases of a team punching above it's weight, and why it did so, in leagues with a similar type of player and style of football that we'll be playing against in a group. It's for that reason I'd be happy to discount the majority of British managers, could a lot just are not that good at all.
Here they come! It’s the charge of the “Thanks” Brigade!
68 mins. Probably not as early as I had thought but I thought his influence was still needed as we pushed for the second goal. That was my feeling at the time.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks