Republic of Ireland V Gibraltar(A) 4th Sept & Georgia(H) 7th Sept 2015 - Euro 2016 Q

**DannyInvincible** · 05/09/2015, 1:40 PM

Originally Posted by brine3

Look at it this way: Robbie had 90 minutes to score against Poland and didn't. Long was given only seven minutes and he got us the equaliser which has kept us in this group.

Anyone can cherry-pick fixtures. How many did Long score when he started against Scotland? Zero.

Long just isn't prolific and hasn't the same pedigree in front of goal as Robbie has. As a result, he clearly hasn't yet won O'Neill's confidence (judging by recent comments too). There's a debate there, but I don't think O'Neill favouring of Robbie is quite scandalous or anything. O'Neill showed he was prepared to give Long a chance/start (in a big game at Celtic Park), but Long didn't really impress enough to permanently imprint his name on the starting team-sheet.

**brine3** · 05/09/2015, 2:30 PM

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Anyone can cherry-pick fixtures. How many did Long score when he started against Scotland? Zero.

Did you even see the post were I showed that Long's goal per minute ratio in this campaign is much higher than Robbies?

**Stuttgart88** · 05/09/2015, 3:26 PM

Which is a stupid statistic to introduce. Both players have their strengths and weaknesses and they should be the decisive factors on any given day. Long should have played more in this campaign, especially at home against the Scots. No statistic in the world will convince me otherwise.

**SkStu** · 05/09/2015, 4:23 PM

Long should be our default starter. He is the "future" (though he's no spring chicken). Even if he's not a prolific scorer he brings a lot to the team and by virtue of his pace, power and aerial ability he disrupts defences and creates chances for the team. He can also scores goals. Robbie looks impotent against the better teams in fairness. Longs time is now.

**DeLorean** · 05/09/2015, 6:30 PM

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

RTE saying Monday will be the defining game of O'Neill's tenure. I agree.

At the risk of asking a silly question, but can you elaborate on that a bit? Obviously if we drop points it could very well be a defining game, but otherwise it's just a fairly standard qualification game where three points are required and very much expected. I would have definitely seen other games as being more defining, I wouldn't have gave the statement a second thought if it was made before the Scotland home game, for example.

**geysir** · 05/09/2015, 6:58 PM

It's a defining game in O'Neill's tenure, no question, it's anything but a standard qualification game, it's got pressure because there are no fallbacks.
Dropping points means we are out,
winning it means we are still in the hunt for 3rd place.
As well as the type of performance we should put in to win it.

All assuming the Scots don't beat Germany.

**DeLorean** · 05/09/2015, 7:45 PM

I understand the importance of the game. There's a difference between 'a' defining game and 'the' defining game though. It's crucial but having no fall back isn't entirely true, although obviously it will make things very difficult if we drop points. I just think in terms of defining games I'd have identified the games against our direct rivals for second and third place. There's no getting away from the fact that it's vital we win though, but it will only be one of a number of failures if we don't. I wouldn't say O'Neill's ability to oversee a home win over Georgia will define much really in the context of his overall tenure to date. In the context of enforcing the momentum shift in the group it's clearly massive though.

**geysir** · 05/09/2015, 8:08 PM

Originally Posted by DeLorean

I understand the importance of the game. There's a difference between 'a' defining game and 'the' defining game though. It's crucial but having no fall back isn't entirely true, although obviously it will make things very difficult if we drop points. I just think in terms of defining games I'd have identified the games against our direct rivals for second and third place. There's no getting away from the fact that it's vital we win though, but it will only be one of a number of failures if we don't. I wouldn't say O'Neill's ability to oversee a home win over Georgia will define much really in the context of his overall tenure to date. In the context of enforcing the momentum shift in the group it's clearly massive though.

If I was claiming to be speaking the entire truth (as distinct from 99% truth) then wouldn't I sound like POS, complete with ??!!!

Nevertheless, should O'Neill drop points to Georgia then he's well and truly fcked as irish manager, if not de jure fcked, then de facto fcked.
Therefore this game will define him.

**Stuttgart88** · 05/09/2015, 8:10 PM

Aren't we arguing over semantics? Both Scotland games and Poland were crucial games and I'd say O'Neill was particularly culpable for the Glasgow performance, less so the other two. Now, having "got away with" some poor results we have been handed a reprieve and a chance to push on, by beating a tricky but eminently beatable opponent. Failure to do so will be a very damning indictment of the manager, in my opinion. It'd be hard to have faith in him for the next campaign if we fail to beat Georgia. So in that sense I'd say failure to beat Georgia will "define" his tenure so far as being below par and not worth the money.

I think he'll oversee a win, that said. But this team isn't used to winning tight games so I think there'll be some hairy moments. I'll excuse that, the win is the main thing.

**DeLorean** · 05/09/2015, 8:23 PM

The semantics are critical to the discussion though. If RTE had just called it a crucial game you wouldn't have even mentioned it I presume. Dropping points could well define a generally catastrophic campaign should that occur. If it goes according to plan though I don't think it will register too highly in the final analysis, that's all I mean really.

**geysir** · 05/09/2015, 8:25 PM

If the game goes according to plan then he will be allowed a lifeline to carry on and possibly hold onto his job.

**DeLorean** · 05/09/2015, 9:05 PM

Yeah I think we're kind of coming at this from totally different angles and I'm not even sure we're discussing the same thing. Not to worry, it just caught my attention for some reason when Stutts felt it was worth mentioning.

**outspoken** · 05/09/2015, 10:46 PM

Anyone got 3 spare tickets for 25?

**brine3** · 05/09/2015, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Which is a stupid statistic to introduce. Both players have their strengths and weaknesses and they should be the decisive factors on any given day. Long should have played more in this campaign, especially at home against the Scots. No statistic in the world will convince me otherwise.

I don't see why it is a stupid statistic.

Robbie Keane is in the team because he gets goals. We set up our forward line around him. He doesn't offer aerial threat and his pace is gone. He's there for the goals.

He played 258 minutes in this campaign against all the non-Gibraltar teams and got no goals.

He and Shay Given are legends of Irish football. But they should have quit while they were ahead. Like the Duffer and the Honeymonster.

**backstothewall** · 06/09/2015, 7:46 AM

Originally Posted by Crosby87

What do you all think the starting lineup will be vs Georgia?

I'd think O'Neill will pick

---------------- Given -----------------
Coleman -- O'Shea -- Clark --Brady
McGeady Whelan Hendrick Hoolahan
------------ Walters Long -------------

**Stuttgart88** · 06/09/2015, 1:53 PM

Originally Posted by brine3

I don't see why it is a stupid statistic.

Robbie Keane is in the team because he gets goals. We set up our forward line around him. He doesn't offer aerial threat and his pace is gone. He's there for the goals.

He played 258 minutes in this campaign against all the non-Gibraltar teams and got no goals.

He and Shay Given are legends of Irish football. But they should have quit while they were ahead. Like the Duffer and the Honeymonster.

I hate those statistics because if you relied on them you'd think that Long would have scored 8 from the start against Poland and about the same against Gibraltar. Last time we played Georgia Long made a right eejit of himself in front of goal and then Keane showed him how to do it.

Each has his strengths and weaknesses, plain to see. They key is to pick the right people at the right time. I personally think that despite his age Keane looks sharp right now but I also thought he looked finished at home to Poland - but he had been returning from injury. Long has been a bit-part so far this season.

I wouldn't be against Long starting instead of Keane tomorrow at all. He's got to prove he can be our starting forward sometime. He was given a chance on Glasgow and had a poor game I thought, but so did everyone really.

I only got into this debate to take you to task on your "goals of no consequence" claim when some of them very much were of consequence, and also to dismiss the idea that goals per minute prove something. I just don't believe that. Cyrus Christie would start every game if true

**DeLorean** · 06/09/2015, 2:15 PM

We could go very offensive and play all three of Keane, Long and Walters. Given McGeady's fitness/form and Brady seemingly at home at left back, it might make a bit of sense. I wouldn't mind seeing this...

---------------------------- Gk ---------------------------

Coleman ---- O'Shea ---- Clark ---- Brady

----------- McCarthy ------ Hoolahan -------------

------ Long ------- Hendrick ------- Walters ----

----------------------------- Keane -----------------------

We really shouldn't need two out and out holding midfielders and Hendrick/Hoolahan can take turns of supporting McCarthy, both in terms of defensive work and providing an option for a pass, which Whelan doesn't really offer. Coleman and Brady should be instructed to get plenty of crosses in with Long and Walters getting in at the back post, but we would still retain the potentially productive link between Hoolahan and Keane so we could mix it up and be less predicable.

**Stuttgart88** · 06/09/2015, 2:21 PM

That would be offensive - to MON's judgment!

**Crosby87** · 06/09/2015, 2:54 PM

I'd like to see if y'all have time...what do you THINK will be the starting lineup and what do you HOPE will be the starting lineup...

**SwanVsDalton** · 06/09/2015, 3:02 PM

Think it'll be the same team as Gibraltar except Coleman in for Christie.

I probably wouldn't hope for much different. Only one I'd like to see included would be Long, but I think it's right to start Keane and with it bound to be a cagey, nervous affair, Whelan will be needed to keep things settled and tight in the first 60.

Georgis arn't great, but they're not bad and they have goals in them. I'd resist any attempt to go all-out-attack from the off.