Although I agree there should be no favouritism, Harte did plenty to earn his selection, both for us and at club level with an excellent Leeds side. He had a poor World Cup alright, these things happen, but I don't think O'Shea had done nearly enough to dislodge him at that point in time, as promising as he looked.Originally Posted by brine3
Is the correct answer. The stats are there. Harte was considerably more likely to be involved in getting a goal than the concession of one.
" 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?"
Yes lets try playing against one of the top ranked teams in Europe with 1 recognised centre mid
Havin a weekend away is quite frankly,lettin ur team mates down!
And an over-stimulated goalkeeper.
harte also reportedly had a foot injury that required a pain killing injection before each match. who was to know that when the squad was announced?
-- Mr Darren Edward Andrew Randolph --
Coleman ----- Duffy --- Keogh ----- Stevens
--------------------------- Arter ---------------------------
O'Dowda Hendrick Hourihane Robinson
---------------------- McGoldrick ----------------------
We played with two "recognized" centre mids yesterday how did that float your boat!
Do you not think McCarthy and Robinson with McGoldrick dropping in would work
Hourihane pinged about half a dozen diagonal passes across the field and right on the money - he was the only player on the pitch who showed he was capable of passing the ball.
I remember him coming off the bench for man utd and the whole pub (when I was in England) shaking their heads in a collective groan, he was always a bit of a comedy player. Please.
hundreds of man u appearances, 5 epls, a champions lge and 118 irish caps..... comedy player alright
Oh, Harte definitely deserved to go to the world cup, and as a starter too.
But McCarthy did make a tactical oversight by failing to bring a proper backup LB. It's a 23 man squad and ideally you want to have every position covered twice, plus a third goalkeeper. Harte had a foot problem as it transpired, and wasn't playing great. Having O'Shea ready to fill in when needed would have been very handy.
He had Finnan and Kelly in the squad, both had played at left full. Leaving out O'Shea was hardly a crime.
Josh got a run out of sorts in a friendly in the run up to the 2002 WC (against Croatia?) as a late sub, we were one up at the death. When we were defending a corner, he leaped up with an outstretched hand and conceded a penalty which was converted. Friendly or not, it was an act of criminal naivety on the international stage which cost us a victory. It was an image which endured and my first thought was no way do we need a very talented but rookie defender who can make a gaff like that after 5 minutes.
Whatever gripes one can have about Mick, the argument against the decision to leave Josh at home doesn't hold water. Crap games against the minnow aside, Mick has done well in the 2 other games.
For a team like ours with no lethal options available, a game like Gibraltar is always going to be a no-win situation for a manager. We have people here ripping Mick for not playing Doherty out wide again, despite what we saw in the previous Gibraltar fixture.
In my own non forum conversations I have suggested we should have had a guy like McGeady involved — if only for the purpose of unlocking a packed defence.
But there is a value to playing the same team against Gibraltar as will play against the Swiss. Perhaps the score won’t be as impressive vs Gibraltar but things will be more cohesive in September.
McGeady offers more against a weak team like Gibraltar, no doubt. But against a better side in Switzerland, perhaps Mick feels McClean will offer a more total contribution.
I don’t think McClean has the guile to ever look good against Gibraltar or in any game where we’re favourite. But against the Swiss I believe he will add value. He will unsettle them, and despite his raw approach to the game, he has the capability to score or create chances for others.
A bit of a rant but I am happy with Mick’s work so far. If he feels Doherty needs to be left out for balance’s sake, I back that. I will admit that I’d like to see Crowley involved but maybe the time for that is the October friendly vs Bulgaria. To be fair to Mick his immediate leap into competitive games has given him very little room for experimentation.
They played like rubbish with Doherty against Gibraltar and even worse without Doherty against Gibraltar. Doherty can't be blamed for the overall crápness of the Ireland team.
the home performance against gibraltar was miles better than the away. we created many more chances monday and dominated possession. randolph had a couple of saves to make over there but cant remember his involvement monday being much more than taking kick outs
Depends on your view of it.
But don't see why Doherty gets so much stick. Playing in an airport parking lot also played a role.
We have hardly any top players. It just so happens that our two best players play in similar positions. We have to make things work so that they can both play. Anything else is a failure to capitalise on resources.
Mick seems to think it is 2001 and that we have top players in nearly every position on the pitch. Somebody send him the memo.
This is a bit of a comedy post. Come on Benno.
I'm not sure what Doherty would have done differently in the game. He's not known for dribbling, so it's not like he was gong to get past the same two banks of defence that the players that were on the pitch struggled to get through. Don't get me wrong, I'd have liked to see him play, but I don't buy into the "we'd have won by more with Doherty" argument.
The one player I am really disappointed that didn't get on is Cullen.
If there is some issue with Doherty fitting into Mick's system, this game would have been a risk-free way to try and iron some of those issues out.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks