well, yeah. If it's a disaster, he'll deserve it. Did you think he'd be praised by the media following a disaster?Originally Posted by OwlsFan
I'll reserve final judgement until the Euros but I am happy that we have had both managers. As we all know, a manager is only as good as his last game and if we have a disastrous time in France, O'Neill will be crucified by the media.Darida mist play a lot then because Rakitic is a Croat
O'Neill versus Trap?
Both like solid systems and mistrust real creativity
Both like, in an ideal world, the wide positions to provide a threat
O'Neill trusts full backs to get further forward
Trap started with the ball more in the deck, finished with only hoofball
O'Neill started confused, seemed to prefer hoofball, then added more nuance and flexibility
O'Neill prefers to press without the ball, Trap preferred to stand off
Trap responded to accusations of not looking beyond core players by picking and persisting with strange choices
O'Neill, so far, seems to be serious about blooding new players at the right time even if his extended squads include some dinosaurs
ONeill got a great result at just the right time for him /us
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
The point is that even though we've qualified and lots of nice things are being said at the moment, the three games in the Euros will determine his standing with the media. Praise no. Understanding yes, as it's another very tough group and ratings wise we should only come out with 3 points.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
I hope they paid their sources handsomely for that enlightening information.
Darida mist play a lot then because Rakitic is a Croat
Okay, i suppose it's too late to mention Modric
For me, I'm not that interested to compare O'Neill to Trap, but just pass comment on what O'Neill does now.O'Neill versus Trap?
Both like solid systems and mistrust real creativity
Both like, in an ideal world, the wide positions to provide a threat
O'Neill trusts full backs to get further forward
Trap started with the ball more in the deck, finished with only hoofball
O'Neill started confused, seemed to prefer hoofball, then added more nuance and flexibility
O'Neill prefers to press without the ball, Trap preferred to stand off
Trap responded to accusations of not looking beyond core players by picking and persisting with strange choices
O'Neill, so far, seems to be serious about blooding new players at the right time even if his extended squads include some dinosaurs
ONeill got a great result at just the right time for him /us
O'Neill is still undecided, it's chronic with him and he vacillates.
Playing hoof ball against the Swiss was bizarre, what's the point of re examining that option at his late stage, when we have Judge and Hoolahan?
The performance in Hampden was just chaos against a moderately technical but organised team.
Can he be seriously considering that we will start a game with that same tactic in mind, against much better teams than Scotland, who we have to be defensively solid against and depend on counterattack?
How many even have full total confidence that we will start with Hoolahan v Sweden , in the same way that we have full total confidence he will start with Whelan and McCarthy?
As I said above, the Germany result changed everything. Poland afterwards was demoralising but both Bosnia games seemed to have earned him credits.
I'd be amazed if he hasn't learnt important lessons from thus week, an unusually enlightening pair of friendlies.
Anyway, I enjoyed this analysis:
http://www.the42.ie/diamond-formatio...89192-Mar2016/
That analysis is extremely flawed, to say the least.
For a start, Ireland have been favouring a diamond formation since the home fixture against Scotland in June. "Experimental"?
Secondly, that includes the home leg of the Bosnia playoff, in which the writer claims that O'Neill employed a 4-2-3-1.
I could go on.
I was thinking the same. The players selected for the B&H home leg and the Slovakia game were very similar when it came to their roles. I would have thought that a diamond was in place for the B&H home leg anyway although the players selected would easily suit a 4-2-3-1, but that wasn't really how they were set up. The major difference wasn't the formation, but the approach, we didn't press as high up the pitch or with as much aggression against B&H. The intensity of the pressing may have been slightly experimental against Slovakia, or it might have been just that we had players on the pitch that are better at it, most notably Long and McClean.
I think the latter, DeLorean, and I commented on it here:
http://tacticstruck2.com/2016/03/29/...ond-formation/
Good to know there are others out there that notice these nuances; makes me feel a little less like I'm wasting my time.
Last edited by AlanOB; 02/04/2016 at 4:10 PM.
I thought the same thing when I read it. Ireland haven't used the diamond exclusively but it's been in place since that Scotland game. Also saying we stuck with the 4-4-2 against Spain at the Euros I think is wrong - thought Cox was in a five-man midfield that day, and it was one of the reasons we looked so bad.
Correct.
Cox played as a ten that day and was a complete fish out of water.
Much like Keith Fahey when he was asked to play as an anchorman and mark Ozil once upon a time!
Ye should speak up if ye feel bull**** is being written lads.
Pretty sure McGeady was played in that position in a friendly once under Trapattoni, and it accomplished nothing.
Ha ha! It certainly wasn't to spare anybody looking bad, you can't get away with much around here! Think I read it last thing at night and pretty much forgot about it. I'm sure it was written in good faith as opposed to a spoofing exercise. Formations can be interchangeable and not necessarily defined for ninety minutes, but I do agree with your take on it. One thing is for sure, the formation itself on Tuesday wasn't experimental.
McCarthy played there against Uruguay once. Think it was in Thomond.
O Neill to be fair has shown a willingness to experiment and give players such as Hayes and O Kane a chance to impress, He also shows a capacity to learn from his mistakes which is refreshing. The only disappointments from the 2 most recent friendlies was (a) not giving Judge a second chance and(b) not giving Pilkington more game time as a Striker in 2nd game. Overall the Positives far outweigh the negatives.
There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with 99% of the article which focuses on the effectiveness of the diamond as it pertained to the friendly and the pros and cons of using it again. I found it interesting and informative and pretty accurate. To put emphasis on a couple of minor inaccuracies about when it started or previous experiments, which are really just footnotes to the article, is not really to do justice to the analysis itself.
The decision to go with a diamond formation certainly did raise some eyebrows both on here and in the media when it was announced so he is not the only "journalist/analyst" guilty of some of the critique in your post.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
If the underlying narrative that supposedly justifies the piece is wrong, then any claim of 99% accuracy doesn't pass muster for me.
On a granular level, the analysis/word count ratio is pretty low. And blaming Christie for being out of position for Stoch's second half chance is just patently wrong. That's the position a full-back in a diamond takes up in the attacking phase; if the attack breaks down and a counter is instigated, it's up to the right-sided shuttler, holder or right-sided centre-back to cover. Such covering is what Ireland did poorly for both goals; McShane for the first, McCarthy for the second.
If indeed it did raise eyebrows - which I'm unconvinced of - being just as wrong as everyone else is not a positive. Some take the time to get it right before they attempt to speak with authority.
Last edited by AlanOB; 02/04/2016 at 10:11 PM.
As I said, I found it informative, interesting and pretty accurate.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
Do you think there's a credibility question though when the writer didn't seem to understand that we've not only used that system before, but that it's become our preferred formation? The whole article was based around the so called 'experiment'. There were obviously some relevant points in there, it was a pretty long piece, but overall you'd have to question his actual understanding of what was taking place. His whole analysis is based on the pros and cons of this 'new' system.
As I said, the fact that it was experimental was mentioned once. He doesn't use the word new. In fact, in the article, he used the words "revert to a diamond formation" which of course means "to go back" to something. Indeed, if I'm being a ***** about this, the very word experimental does not mean "new", it could easily just be interpreted as a departure from some other perceived norm. Many, many posters and pundits have referred to us playing a variation of a five man midfield formation in recent times.
Even not giving him the benefit of the doubt by way of the above, it doesn't really matter. The substance of the article was around the pros and cons of a diamond formation. As an article it stands alone on that basis. No credibility issues at all on that count.
Last edited by SkStu; 03/04/2016 at 3:11 PM.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks