we just love making excuses for the opposition when we take big scalps. on paper i wonder how many of our players would get into italys "reserves" that was full of juve, psg, roma and milan players. i thought we were excellent against italy, for an hr today and an hr against sweden. i doubt conte would tolerate a team of his, whatever the circumstances, to not be up for it.Originally Posted by pineapple stu
would love to see how we would have fared in the 2nd half with a 7 day break rather than the 3 days we had since wed match. we were superb for the first 50 min but visibly tired badly from there which clearly helped france up their game.
very proud of our lads today. we just have to admire the spirit and no little skill we showed this tournament
In fairness, we were even saying on here that we were luck to get Italy when we did. There was the counter argument put across that their resreves would have played to impress, but either they didn't, or they couldn't.
I just don't see that we need to automatically reject objective criticism of the team just because we want to focus on how Euro 2016 has gone a long way towards getting us over the past few years.
Fuct!
That's how Trapattoni left us. A withered husk of a team with its confidence shot to pieces, told for 60-odd games that they were no good and playing in a formation last effective when balls had laces on the outside.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
Having watched the highlights again. No doubt France really lifted it in the second half with de griesmann move to the centre being crucial.
Tiredness was def a big factor. Hendrick looked for wrecked for example. Also the space govrn to Sagna for the cross that led to the goal, wasn't happening in first half. I think both goals are attributable to poor management by the centre halves.
I don't think anyone here is doing that, in fairness. That tweet was just ridiculously harsh. He's usually much better than banal observation plus hefty does of snark. Our performances deserved better too.
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
I think the small Irish ticket allocation played a part, seemed like Irish fans were out numbered by about 10-1,
I think that was detremantal to us in a number of ways, not least that we failed to get a corner, that would never
have happened to France.
I was going to look at the incident on my recording (on my PC) but unfortunately it has a problem leaving only
the last 10 mins, however I am recording the replay.
When the French scored it looked like the whole stadium was French, well I suppose technically it is as they built it,
but you know what I mean..
Seemed 10-1 cause it was 10-1 (or thereabouts).
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...sh-France.html
Republic of Ireland ticket allocation 'scandalous' according to striker Shane Long as assistant boss Roy Keane slams 'unfair' split for last-16 clash with France
- Republic of Ireland play host nation France in Euro 2016 knockout stage
- Ireland only allocated 4,500 tickets inside 59,000-seat stadium in Lyon
- Striker Shane Long and assistant manager Roy Keane criticised split
- There is rising concern that touts will charge more than £1,000 for tickets
Just over 13-1, that really is not fair. 3-1 would be bad enough.
Daryl Horgan is. Miele hasn't pushed on quite as much as I'd have expected him to - he's massively talented but he has too many anonymous games. He's still young enough to turn it around and make it though.
Terribly disappointed with the result given the dream first-half, but so very, very proud of the players. Every last one of them can go home with their heads held high. They've re-captured the hearts of the nation and the buzz truly is back. They gave their all and they were absolutely drained by the end of it. France had a week of rest; we had three days. It showed. Unfortunately, we unravelled when France began exerting more pressure in the second.
Heh, no outrage from me. I see you're point. Naturally, I feel a greater affinity with players like Coleman, McClean and Duffy as I'm from the north-west myself. That's kind of instinctive, I guess; identifying with players closer to home or whatever. However, our 1990 and 1994 teams were made up mostly of players born outside of Ireland, yet they were exceptionally popular. Also, Walters is a very popular player currently yet is Merseyside-born. If players show passion, heart, effort and endeavour and/or get results, that's what really connects with fans, I would say. The 2012 performances were just anaemic and uninspiring, in total contrast to this time round.
Overall I think it's obvious we're a level below the top notch teams but can compete well with most others. We do have technical shortcomings and ball retention is a problem, especially when good quality opposition presses us. In among that though, we do have some good technical players and of all the non-elite nations I think few have a player anything like Robbie Brady, for example. As usual, I think Ireland were a curate's egg, good in parts. I think the reaction to yer man's tweets was a bit OTT but not recognising the emotional impact of the team and performances would be churlish in the extreme.
I think that's pretty much spot-on.
Not to mention the contrast with the last tournament.
Ian Herbert of the Independent wrote this:
The prospect of a miracle was quite beautiful for the hour it lasted because it was built on creativity, intelligence and technical excellence, not just workmanlike determination from the Republic of Ireland.
One last point on Duffy. It was a clear balls up between the two CBs for the Giroud knock-down and I'd say Duffy was almost wholly culpable. I'm not going all Paul, but I did say that the only change I would make would be to restore O'Shea. This was because I felt his experience would be invaluable against seasoned French forwards. However, I have to say that Duffy saved a certain goal in the first half with his glancing header away from Giroud, following a sumptuous cross. I'm not sure our other CBs could have got that touch.
I also think it's obvious that Whelan's presence would have avoided each goal
Okay. I just can't let this slide for three posts in a row. Indeed, when it's happening three posts in a row I'm being neither pedantic nor OT. Wouldn't HAVE. Not of. HAVE.
As for your substantives -you're on glue.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
No joke but it might well have been a good idea to replace McCarthy with Whelan a few minutes after the restart as he was the first to show the signs of total exhaustion.One last point on Duffy. It was a clear balls up between the two CBs for the Giroud knock-down and I'd say Duffy was almost wholly culpable. I'm not going all Paul, but I did say that the only change I would make would be to restore O'Shea. This was because I felt his experience would be invaluable against seasoned French forwards. However, I have to say that Duffy saved a certain goal in the first half with his glancing header away from Giroud, following a sumptuous cross. I'm not sure our other CBs could have got that touch.
I also think it's obvious that Whelan's presence would have avoided each goal
The first goal was also french brilliance who all of a sudden upped the tempo against a team that had been under the cosh and visibly flagging 10 minutes.
Murphy missed another header, Duffy and Coleman both bundled off the ball, a McCarthy lunge, an acre of free space on the right for the cross
CHs frozen on the spot. When every player along the route for that first French goal made an error i think we can safely say the team (and not any one individual) did not defend.
Looking at the teams that made (are likely to make the last 8) I don't think Ireland have much of a claim to be among them. So, that ranks us outside the top 8.
Of the teams knocked out in our round I think that N. Ireland, Croatia and Italy will have made a bigger impact at the tournament than us. So that pushes us outside the top 11 performances.
But Hungary (beaten 4-0 by Belgium soured my opinion after a good showing in group), Switzerland, Slovakia and Iceland/England (if they go out) probably were on a par or just below our level over all.
So I give us a quick ranking of about joint 12th, which I don't think is "poor" in the context of a 24 team tournament. It's at least average
Our best games were Sweden and France. I agree that you can discount the Italy game a little based on the "half-arsed" nature of the Italians - but those other two performances mentioned are worthy of something. And the 3-0 drubbing by Belgium doesn't even seem that bad any more after seeing them inflict worse on Hungary.
I think that it is also fair to revise up our qualifying performances. We got some amazing results (both games vs Germany) and some which we thought weren't the best (vs Poland) in that group. Now consider that all 3 qualifying teams from that group made the last 16 and 2 are still alive in the last 8. It puts it in context the quality there was in the group over all.
Taking it ALL into account. The toughest qualifying group (3 teams made last 16, Scotland one of the highest ranked teams not to make tournament, after Netherlands, Bosnia, Denmark and Greece), the hardest play-off opponents (Dzeko's Bosnia - if I remember at the time that is the team we most wanted to avoid), the toughest Round 1 Group (to get Italy as 2nd seeds!), the toughest Round 2 draw (The favourites and hosts) ... We did pretty well over all. The lads can be proud. But we need to breathe some new life into the team to kick on.
Sorry, but "of" versus "have" IS substantive
And continuing the pedantry, median surely?So I give us a quick ranking of about joint 12th, which I don't think is "poor" in the context of a 24 team tournament. It's at least average
As far as the group stages go - we were ranked 14th out of 24 - that seems about right. No way id rank us behind NIR - I wouldn't necessarily discount the Italian performance either. Italy had nothing to play for in the last game of qualifying v Norway and Norway were not good enough to take advantage - would NIR, UKR, TUR, ALB, even SWE etc been good enough to beat their 2nd string - I'm not sure - it was a game we had to go out and win and we did. We deserve a lot of credit.Looking at the teams that made (are likely to make the last 8) I don't think Ireland have much of a claim to be among them. So, that ranks us outside the top 8.
Of the teams knocked out in our round I think that N. Ireland, Croatia and Italy will have made a bigger impact at the tournament than us. So that pushes us outside the top 11 performances.
But Hungary (beaten 4-0 by Belgium soured my opinion after a good showing in group), Switzerland, Slovakia and Iceland/England (if they go out) probably were on a par or just below our level over all.
So I give us a quick ranking of about joint 12th, which I don't think is "poor" in the context of a 24 team tournament. It's at least average
Our best games were Sweden and France. I agree that you can discount the Italy game a little based on the "half-arsed" nature of the Italians - but those other two performances mentioned are worthy of something. And the 3-0 drubbing by Belgium doesn't even seem that bad any more after seeing them inflict worse on Hungary.
.
What was most pleasing apart from our ranking was the way we went about our business in the tournament - we played some lovely stuff against Sweden, Italy and France and we continually improved as the whole competition went on. Something really tangible to build on.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks