Pilkington probably played his best game for us against Italy at Craven Cottage.Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
And Doyle was probably our best player in Gdansk.
Ah well.
Anyone see Lukaku running up to celebrate with Wilmots after he scored? Thought he was going to punch him.
Surprised Witsel didn't plant a Walloon flag in the middle of the pitch à la Souness after he scored.
Sadly, if there were any divisions in the team it didn't show. Neither did most of the Ireland fans for that matter.
Haunting memories of the home game with Austria with the disconnect between 9 outfield players and one ploughing a lone furrow up front.
Denis Walsh in the Sunday Times thinks Brady should be moved into central midfield for the Italy game.
I also read that we need Sweden to beat Belgium as well as beat Italy ourselves. Is that true?
I think the Sweden result was more disheartening than this one to be honest. That was our opportunity to get the one result we needed and take the pressure off ourselves but we just didn't have the backbone to take it, as per usual. Draw = win. Same old Irish mentality.
If we can't beat Italy we don't deserve to be in the competition. It's bloody embarrassing to see Wales and Northern Ireland taking their chances yet we can't.
Pilkington probably played his best game for us against Italy at Craven Cottage.
And Doyle was probably our best player in Gdansk.
Ah well.
They beat the weakest team in their group though.
And I would give Wales a better chance of taking something off Russia than England; this Russia team is abject.
Don't know why people are brushing off the Long penalty incident.
https://www.theguardian.com/football...n-oneill-italy
If you look at the picture that accompanies this article it's a clear penalty all day, both for Vermaelen and Alderweireld's fouls. Two offenses for the latter who has an iron grip on Long's wrist and delivers a kick to the midsection; one for Alderweireld's high boot.
To make matters worse they go up the field and score.
It makes a huge difference. Even if we lost it would only have been 1-2 if you count the other two goals and we dispatch our penalty.
Our goal difference looks a lot healthier, the players confidence isn't nearly as sapped; it could have turned into a completely different game.
It's very disappointing, and this referee has priors with us. Every 50/50 decision he gave to the opposition team the last time he refereed us before this game.
Are people brushing it off? The general consensus seems to be that it should have been a penalty but would probably not have made any difference to the result
If the penalty was given and converted then the game changes drastically. We're 1-0 up, Belgium are then under huge pressure to win or else their going home. It's not a case of 'sure they still scored 2 and would have beaten us 1-2'.
The penalty does change the game but I think there's an aversion around here to making this another Irish hard-luck story, hence the lack of chat about it.
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
Interesting perspective from Hunty.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/euro-2016/stephen-hunt-we-werent-quick-enough-or-cynical-enough-against-belgium-but-we-can-still-beat-italy-34813540.html
Why did he [McCarthy] go to ground for the De Bruyne run in the way he did? There was a reason that, at Reading, Steve Coppell wouldn't allow us to slide-tackle in training because he thought it was a lazy and cheap way of defending. You stay on your feet, work your legs. In that sense, it's criminal what he did from a football perspective. I mean, it's not like it was at the end of the game either. He was fresh.The Robbie Keane substitution was ludicrous. He couldn't play up front on his own in his prime, let alone now that he's 35 and doesn't look any way fit. It must mean that Daryl Murphy is either out of form or training like a granddad because it's amazing then that he didn't come on. It's all the more bizarre because Martin O'Neill has persisted with him in the past despite his lack of goals but didn't here.And I'd go further. From that, I expect us to beat Italy. I think that the five to 10 per cent drop-off in their performance, combined with the five to 10 per cent lift in ours, could be the difference.
Terrible stuff, yesterday. Very disappointing.
Could Randolph have done better for their second goal? The save he pulled off in the first half to palm the ball onto the cross-bar was impressive, even if it wouldn't have counted anyway, but I'd like to see Westwood given a game against Italy.
The Long incident definitely should have been a penalty. Dangerous play in the box without contact warrants an indirect free-kick, like here:
It was dangerous at the very least, but there was also contact on Long by both defenders, so it should have been a penalty. I've read some commentary elsewhere stating that Alderweireld won the ball (with the implication being that it shouldn't have been a penalty as a result), but that's completely irrelevant. Nowhere in the rules does it state that winning the ball negates the calling of a foul.
He was booked in the opening game for pulling an opponent's arm to halt a potential Swedish counter-attack, so another booking would have meant a suspension for the Italy game.
I'd have gone with Duffy from the outset, but I don't think there's a huge deal of difference between the central defenders we have at our disposal. Would you not even have him in the squad? If not, who would your alternative be?
Quite likely. Yellow cards only expire after completion of the quarter-finals. Italy have already secured top spot in the group, so a loss to us can't really hurt them other than damaging their morale/ranking.
If we want to finish second, we'd want Sweden to beat Belgium but I think it'd mean we have to win by at least 4-0 or more (depending on how many Sweden score) as we're presently on a goal difference of -3 whilst they are on -1. A victory against Italy will secure us at least third place and will likely be enough to see us through if Germany beat NI, England beat Slovakia and/or Romania fail to beat Albania. I think all of those other results are likely to happen; we'd only need two of them.
I think everyone was terribly disappointed that we didn't win the opener. Who was celebrating it or treating it as a win?I think the Sweden result was more disheartening than this one to be honest. That was our opportunity to get the one result we needed and take the pressure off ourselves but we just didn't have the backbone to take it, as per usual. Draw = win. Same old Irish mentality.
Well, indeed, we will no longer be in the competition if we don't beat Italy.If we can't beat Italy we don't deserve to be in the competition.
Yeah - it's both these posts really isn't it. We can't cry hard luck because the (by far) better team won comfortably. But the missed penalty and immediate concession of the goal changed the script 1000%.
Twenty four hours later, that's a tough one to digest. I think O'Neill and co sent the team out with the wrong plan. The worst thing was the Plan B was the same plan as against Sweden. That is, there is no plan b. That's worrying. It's becoming more apparent by the game that two things have occurred here - our game plan does not allow us to compete with teams that hold on to the ball and 2) that major mistakes have been made in the squad selection. It's eerily similar to what happened with/to Trap. McGeady and Keane shouldn't be in the squad in all truth let alone our first call from the bench. As an aside, McClean looks like a clueless kid on the pitch at times. Looks really bad in the competitive games.
I really hope for a complete changing of the guard in September where youth, form and merit are the predominant selection criteria.
Pineapple Stu has been regularly alluding to something that quite a few of us on here have been saying since the Staunton days. We are light years behind most of the world and Europe in our approach to football and youth development. This will cause many many more nights of frustration for us. I think he is a little off in saying that we likely won't qualify for any tournaments for a long time but only by virtue of the fact that qualification is way easier now especially for the euros. We will never really compete again. That dream is truly over. What compounds this is the apparent satisfaction with just being there amongst a significant majority of the fan base. That is enough to stifle the calls for the change that is needed. A radical overhaul of our youth structures and coaching philosophy along with a significant investment in the domestic league as the pinnacle of football and an intentional restriction on the movement of young players to British clubs at such young ages. We need to keep 90% of our best young talent at home and invest in the league. We need control over our footballing destiny. Relying on diaspora and the British system to produce the quantity and quality needed is lazy, not sustainable and deluded. It's not an easy journey and I don't know how to even get such a movement started but it is crucial to our future even if it doesn't reap dividends for 20-30 years, it is the right thing to do.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
I'm looking forward to this. But I'm not sure MON is the right man to lead it.
Re Randolph's first half save, was the flag not for the rebound rather than the first effort?
I think he might have saved the second. In real time I expected to see the ball go last the post given the touch he got to it. My mates on various whatsapp groups all said he was blameless (except for one guy, ahem, who we know here) but I still think he could have saved it and Randolph banging his fist on the ground leads me to think he knew it.
The point about not harping on about the penalty because we knew we were outclassed is probably fair, although it was clear half time was a chance to reboot and I think it might have been fair to see how the first 5-10 mins panned out to see if a change in the balance was coming. We played the first minute like we'd had a boot up the ar$e in the dressing room.
I really think there is a changing of the guard coming in September. There are some obvious ones, the guys who were given a chance to audition in the 4 friendlies. I think these will all be fixtures soon enough. For me Doherty and Cunningham - neither of whom was given a chance to impress - are the ones whose inclusion will most indicate a boldness.
Anyway, 48 hours ago who'd have thought we'd be watching Albania v Ronania on tenterhooks?
The flag was already up before the first effort.
Connected, but the old fellas in the pub I watched the game all had the same line - "We just don't have the players" - but when I asked what they would do about it there was a general shrug, like they think the right kind of players just spring up at random. It isn't just that we need to do all the things that you said, but we need to combat the attitude that Ireland should be happy with their lot and that there's no way to change things. When I tell people about what Iceland has done they look at me like I'm describing a magic spell.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
I agree with the guy who will remain nameless.
Allow me clarify my penalty comment. In real time at the game I didn't think it was a peno. I'm giving the ref the benefit of doubt. Having seen the replay when I came home I defo think it should've been a peno. Linesman I think had a better view than he ref.
By that stage in the game the ref was, for some reason, starting to give us a bit more having given us nothing in the first half. He may have given a free had it been outside the box.
But all in all we were outclassed by a far superior team
I agree with Fixer. In real time I thought that the tackle looked a bit dangerous but that it'd have been a stretch to have expected a penalty.
Ah lads I'm so frustrated after Saturday, I nearly don't know what to do. I hope to watch a re-run of the game tonight, just to try and see was it as bad as I thought, or were certain players worse than I thought they were (as has been suggested elsewhere). Until then, nowhere better to vent than here!
I can accept an Irish team not playing well. It is easier to accept when there really aren't that many other options picked in the squad. I certainly wouldn't try to make out our players are world-beaters when that obviously is the case, but nor do I believe they are as poor as they have shown in some cases against outstanding players, and in other cases against not-outstanding players. From memory I struggle to remember a game where so many players in green could not control the ball properly.
if Martin O'Neill directed those 11 players to perform the way they did in the first half - then he should give himself a serious dressing down. From the first minute, as a team they dropped back, dropped back, dropped back and allowed Belgium to dictate play. If this was a Belgium team riding the crest of a wave, then I'd accept that. But it wasn't. It was a Belgium team that needed to rise a performance, and they were given the perfect platform to regain their confidence. Their back 4 has always been vunerable, yet we didn't employ the tactics (arguably we didn't employ the personnel) to try and put pressure on them. How could we go from defending offensively so well against Sweden, to defending defensively so poorly against Belgium?
Why does "keeping it tight" have to result in Irish teams retreating 30 yds and hoofing the ball away at every opportunity?
If Martin O'Neill didn't direct the players to play that way, then he needs to make wholesale changes to the first team. I actually don't have access to Irish tv at present, but am aware that Clark and McCarthy were hung out to dry after both games. I personally feel it's unfair. I think Clark has made 2/3 obvious mistakes in two games, but has been the better of the two centre-backs picked, while I actually thought McCarthy played quite well against Sweden for a guy who was doing two jobs- that of his own and that of Johnny Walters (no blame attached to Walters - he was clearly unfit). He didn't do well against Belgium, but he was no worse than Hendrick or Whelan.
I think it's fair to say this: I personally have no idea what James McCarthy is supposed to be doing for Ireland in the current guise. He looks like a player who doesn't know what he is supposed to be doing either. But then look at the options that are in midfield: there's Whelan, McCarthy, Hendrick, Meyler, Quinn; there is very little to choose between them.
If Jimmy Mac isn't doing what he should be doing, or isn't playing well enough, which of Meyler or Quinn would you pick? If McCarthy isn't doing his job right, then it's safe to assume the team are either not dominating or are under the cosh, or not retaining possession. If you want a link man for possession, then you've to pick Darron Gibson - and I have my reservations there too - as he is completely different to them all; to be fair to O'Neill, I think the loss of Arter was unfortunate, his best work is definitely in the opponents half of the pitch, but O'Neill should have been planning without Arter, and without Arter, a fit Gibson was a must for the squad.
Similarily up top. Our options are crude. If Robbie Keane is to play, it's either as part of a conventional two up front, in which situation you cede the midfield battle and we play long-ball, or you play him ahead of Wes Hoolahan, in which situation you cede the flanks and stock up the middle. The only reason Murphy was brought (in my mind) was as a direct replacement for Walters. If you don't play him with Walters out, then don't bring him.
I keep coming back to O'Neill however as the chief source of my indignation, and the FAI management secondly. Largely speaking, there appears to be very little between many of the squad picked, and to a large extent, those that were on the fringes.
There has been a policy of picking enlargened squads in the past two years, almost as a way of saying - you're in our thoughts - but how many of those in the thoughts are just lesser versions of what is there already. If you took out Stephen Quinn, replaced him with Chris McCann, would it make any difference? I don't believe so. They are fundamentally jobbers, don't create a lot, don't do a whole lot wrong, are energetic and whole-hearted. The goalkeeping situation is unacceptable. Shay Given, nor David Forde given their age and situation should not be near the squad.
Please be fair with this next point, and take it as it is meant. Around these pages, there are more enlightened football fans than the general population. Or hipsters, call them what you prefer. But there are different options out there. Not better necessarily, but different. Chris Forrester left these shores roughly a year ago, and we expected him to succeed. He has most definitely done that, but differently to how anyone could have imagined, dropping far deeper than he had previously and being the origin of a teams creativeness from deep, changing the way a team play football, reducing the long ball.
Jack Byrne is another. If a callow teenager can go to a team in the depths of the Eridivisie and prosper, then why not take a chance on him? We've a situation that has developed now, where in our remaining must-win group match, our sole creativity outlet is a 34-year old who looks so tired from all the pointless chasing around that has been demanded of him, that if he suffers the effects on Weds night, then we're poxed.
It is all-related. The substitutions are the same. It's like O'Neill has a play-book, with set substitutions, at set times and that's the lot. Why take Hoolahan off, and bring Keane on? Robbie is clever, but he's never had what Wes had. If we've decided we're sitting in for 60 minutes or whatever, then don't start Wes; don't start Long. Start Murphy up top, with Hendrick off him, and McClean on the line. Don't run your only creative outlet into the ground, so that when the time comes when you really need him, his legs are two inches shorter due to being knackered.
I don't think this is a restrospectively damning post either, I would argue that a lot of these issues have been coming for a while now. Although I post here less and less, I feel I've pointed towards a 352 formation suiting us best, given the seemingly paucity of options at both full-back and wingers. I've always said that my preference for a manager is to examine the players at his disposal, and pick a formation based on the best players, or the best players for a specific formation. Unfortunately I feel we've fallen between the stools somewhat.
------------------ GK -------------------
------- RCB ----- CB ----- LCB --------
RWB ------------------------------ LWB
------------ DMF ---- DMF -----------
-----AMF -------------------- AMF ----
--------------------CF -----------------
------------------Gk--------------------
---- RCB ---- SW/DMF ---- LCB ------
--RWB -------- DMF ----------- LWB
-----AMF ------ CM -------- AMF -----
-----------------CF -----------
I referenced the FAI management earlier. I'll save the last for them. I am sick and tired of seeing managers "rewarded" before it is due. This is the third time that I can recall a manager getting a new contract before the onset of a Championship finals. Why do we make mistakes like that time and again? Are we afraid that we'll be left without a manager????
If we perform above ourselves, and our manager is out of contract and moves back to club football, then great. It's a sign the FAI have recruited well, the team has done well and we're on an upward curve. If the team don't do well, then we're not locked into another two years of dourness and the same-old same-old. There are literally thousands of managers across Europe alone. I'm not advocating this, but using it as an example. How many would have expected Michael Laudraup to rock up at Swansea? Or Flores at Watford? Or Ranieri at Greece? if there's a job with a big paycheque, then people will be interested.
O'Neill's tenure has been poor, pock-marked with a few extraordinary results. I really thought we'd turned a corner with the performances against what I classed as a competent Bosnia side. I was really impressed by 75/80% of our game against Sweden, but Sat really upset me. I hope there's a change on Weds, but I don't see how. And really when we're in a WC 18 qualifying group that is very very negotiable, I think we could be in big trouble. Sorry for the ramble.
Here they come! It’s the charge of the “Thanks” Brigade!
I didn't need to make my post, I should have just read the thread properly then thanked your post.
I think there are some changes made recently that will make a big difference quickly. The underage National League should help improve the League of Ireland, although I think there is more scope for abuse and dodging the rules rather than true reform. As an aside, if the FAI decided that only clubs aligned to the League of Ireland would be eligible to have players selected for the National Team then that would help also, as I think there still is the carrot of youth caps at play just as much as getting the next prodigy over the water.
I'd like to see the FAI start building bridges with the continent, the Department of Education and the Department of Sport, and not necessarily in that order. I am seeing it week in and week out, there are very very talented children playing football in this country, and I'm not talking about the elite Saturday teams either. We'd a situation a few months ago where half of Dublin collectively jizzed themselves when one of our "elite" schoolboy clubs drew with a famed Spanish youth outfit, nevermind the fact that the Irish team had players 18 months older than their counterparts.
Have links with some of the more progressive - not elite - outfits on the continent where children can be schooled and educated and shown that there is a world outside of the United Kingdom, where most of them will be better suited, and to stop using language as a barrier to pursuing a road better travelled.
Here they come! It’s the charge of the “Thanks” Brigade!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks