Darron Gibson

[Paulie]

I've just read the last couple of pages of this thread and I can't believe that someone would set down a reminder for a date, which is a year away, on the basis that at that point they may be able to prove to some random punter that they've been debating with on a football forum, that they were wrong (a year ago). I mean, how badly do you need to be proved right? It's not that it's hassle to set the reminder, it's just so petty. The merits of the argument are irrelevant. I just don't get the mentality of someone who thinks "just wait, in 1 year, I'll show him". Jaysus.

As a matter of interest, if Gibson had become a regular in the Man Utd first team and was generally regarded as having made significant progress over the past year, would you have come on to acknowledge that you were wrong? Me thinks not.

[gustavo]

I didn't remember it - my computer did. But you're right, I am some crack [sic]

That's not what sic means btw

[ifk101]

GR has already addressed this post comprehensively, so I will only take issue with one point [bold]

Namely, Gibson was always "our" player in the sense that he is unquestionably eligible for us - after all, he was born in NI, received his first coaching in NI and first played for an NI side (Institute FC). Therefore, the only question was whether he was also (potentially) "your" player as well.

Of course, being dual qualified, he ultimately decided he didn't want to play for us, but I don't see how that makes him different from eg Roy Carroll, Stephen Ireland or Paul Scholes. Or would you contend that they were never (respectively)" NI's", "ROI's" or "England's"?

In any case, Darron Gibson was indisputably "ours" when he was playing representative football for NI's under-age teams i.e. before he "remembered" what Nationality he really was...

All players born on the island of Ireland are "our" players. This is the stance taken by the FAI and subsequently supported by FIFA's eligibility rules - as you well know. With a strict interpretation of the eligibility rules, I believe the FAI should have first preference in the capping of players born in NI. Perhaps a gentleman's agreement of some sort is in order? But then again what could we possibly gain from entering such an agreement?

BTW interesting last comment but for the record Gibson's nationality is Irish and he has ultimately chosen to represent his nation.

[EalingGreen]

meeeooooow!!!

Tad obsessive that you'd even record Brendan's general comment about Gibson?

Not really. At the time Brendan82 and I were having our discussion, it only took a moment to make a quick note in my E-Diary (along with Birthdays, events etc), then forget about it. Then when I opened my computer the other day, I got a reminder. I thought it would be interesting to revisit Brendan's prediction, hence my post.
It is curious that every respondent has sought to question my "memory", rather than Brendan's initial claim. I guess that that confirms that the claim has proven to be way off the mark. Anyhow, it's no big deal, although I suspect if the roles were reversed, posters would have been taking me up on my false confidence far more than Brendan's "obsessiveness".

He's still at Man Utd and must have something about him or else Fergie would have chucked him years ago.

No doubt he has "something about him", but I can't help wondering whether he might have left OT before now were Ferguson not so obviously restricted for transfer funds by the Glazers and/or Owen Hargreaves had been fit and available? Hard to tell, since MU can still afford to maintain a large number of fringe players on (I assume) relatively modest wages, like Gibson.

Fingers crossed Fergie's faith in him pays off and Gibson's career goes the same way as Fletcher.

I'm not sure just how much "faith" in DG Fergie really has. For when it comes to the big, "must-win" games, he clearly doesn't yet trust Gibson to be up to it. As I indicated above, it may suit Ferguson to keep him in the squad, since to sign another player to replace him would likely cost more (transfer fee and wages), with no guarantee that the new guy would fit in at OT, as DG so clearly does.
As for Fletcher, I suspect he is "the exception who proves the rule". That is, I can remember any number of young players who initially looked to be "the real deal" but subsequently failed to measure up. Yet Fletcher is just about the only player I can recall who looked a "journeyman" for so long, before turning out to be an absolutely top class player. Gibson might be another, but he is statistically at least as likely to be another eg Paul McShane imo.
More likely than either, however, is that he may become another John O'Shea or Wes Brown i.e. more than a journeyman, but less than a star.

(No offence to McShane, btw, who whatever else, is a whole-hearted player with an apparently excellent attitude)

[EalingGreen]

I've just read the last couple of pages of this thread and I can't believe that someone would set down a reminder for a date, which is a year away, on the basis that at that point they may be able to prove to some random punter that they've been debating with on a football forum, that they were wrong (a year ago). I mean, how badly do you need to be proved right? It's not that it's hassle to set the reminder, it's just so petty. The merits of the argument are irrelevant. I just don't get the mentality of someone who thinks "just wait, in 1 year, I'll show him". Jaysus.

I can't believe that you would take the trouble to read a couple of pages of someone else's discussion on an internet football forum, then take the trouble to compose a post such as the above, which has no reference to the original topic (i.e. Darron Gibson).
Indeed, I was tempted to post a "Jaysus" myself, until I remembered that that is the nature of internet discussion forums...

As a matter of interest, if Gibson had become a regular in the Man Utd first team and was generally regarded as having made significant progress over the past year, would you have come on to acknowledge that you were wrong?

Well, of course not!
I find it hard to believe that after 850 posts, you still seem unable to comprehend how these Discussion boards work...

[Deckydee]

EDIT: Actually on second thoughts.............Im not getting involved

[EalingGreen]

That's not what sic means btw

"Sic" means "Thus". Therefore I was using it entirely correctly when drawing attention to the proper spelling of "crack", which derives originally from Scotland and the North of England, rather than in Ireland. Whilst I am happy to leave it to "Oirish Theme Pub" owners etc to spell it "craic" if they like (it serves as a useful warning, I find), I prefer not to do so myself.

[Gather round]

Three deadbeats?

Read the league tables. Maybe none of them quite as deadbeat as our boys in 2004, so there's a challenge for them to improve.

All three are more than capable of beating NI

Profound but largely irrelevant- most teams in Europe are capable of beating most others as a one off. Remember in Euro 2008 qualifying Liechtenstein beat Iceland who beat Northern Ireland who beat Spain. All three winners scored three goals. But ultimately the league table doesn't lie- Spain are champions of Europe and Liechtenstein a hugely overachieving village team. On qualifying evidence the three lowest-placed teams in your group are clearly weaker than NI.

Indeed the weakest seeded team, Montenegro, have a far better pick of players than NI

Do they indeed? As a very small countrywithout a strong domestic league and a modest international record, I'll take your word for it only with a large pinch.

As for Slovakia, they did the simple things well and doing so counts for a lot in international football. We got the simple things right in our qualification and this lead to us being comfortable second place finishers behind the reigning WC holders and within a handball of actual qualification. Anyways I'm confident we'll finish ahead of Slovakia in our forthcoming qualification group

Fine. Obviously international qualifiers with only 10 games over two seasons are likely to be volatile, more so than club football. But Slovakia are better than you are NOW. That might have changed by September. If you're suggesting that Trap and the lads eased off when a home win against Montenegro wasn't necessary, you can't really then grumble about future seedings. Two or four more points against them could have been quite significant. You don't get any more points for having to play Italy than we did for beating Spain in Euro 2008.

Within a handball? So the French would just have given up had it been disallowed then? Get over it man.

so if you consider McGeady a journeyman, can we draw the same conclusions about Davis, a failure at EPL level?

Aye, like I said. Davis and McGeady would probably both be journeymen in EPL, rather than stars in Scotland if they moved tomorrow. I was merely defending Davis by asking you to judge him against the same standard as players from Stoke, Hull and makeweight teams in Glasgow. Sorry if I missed their exact positions on field.

These players are not top internatonal players by any means

They're the best you've got and they got you to the play-offs. Concentrate on the positive?

but better than the options available to Worthlesston

Fine, as I said above you were the better team this time. Last time, when you weren't, either the previous players were less good or the same ones played less well. I support international football, their results are what count- Plymouth, Coventry, Stoke or Fulham's are incidental. BTW What's with the 'Worthlesston'? Did he **** on your ryvita or something?

I'm sure you'll manage a win along the way but if NI are knocked in to a very short price against the Faroes, I'd have no hesitation or regret (if NI do manage to get the win) in backing the Faroes to get something out of the games

They won't be at as short odds as we were against San Marino. If you want decent odds, Faroes to hold or beat Serbia would be better.

That's the difference between the two sides. We aim for qualification and are disappointed if we don't achieve that goal

I'd put it a bit differently. You've qualified for one of the last eight tournaments, you were a mile (10 points) behind last time, you're still objectively ranked as third rate. Evidence suggests your aim is unrealistic.

Whereas we have failed- unlike similar sized teams like Slovenia, Latvia, Bosnia, Wales to manage the occasional top two place at least.

NI fans are happy if they take a scalp along the way

Well, obviously we'd rather beat England, Spain, Sweden and Poland rather than not, but almost all of our fans I know accept that we have underachieved embarrassingly over the last 10, 20 or 25 years.

but ultimately they do not have the quality in their ranks to consistently get the results needed for qualification

As above, we realistically hope for enough quality to be consistent enough for 8-10 games to stay ahead of Estonia, Slovenia etc. and just maybe to shockl Serbia. Obviously wins against the top dogs help to that end, but we must improve.

The FIFA rankings might say we are of a similar quality/ standard but an unbiased evaluation of the players available to both sides says something else

If you're content for the rankings to base largely on two sets of qualifying (at least for those who tend not to qualify), since WC 2006 we've both managed a respectable 35 points from 22 games. An unbiased evaluation of the two teams says they're pretty similar over that period. Regardless of whether Liam Lawrence is playing in a higher league than Damien Johnson or whatever.

With a strict interpretation of the eligibility rules, I believe the FAI should have first preference in the capping of players born in NI?

Look, I realise this is just your usual witless wind-up but can you explain it anyway? Ta.

[Crosby87]

Damn there should be some limits on total words someone can post in one sitting. If I want to read War and Peace Ill go to the library.

[EalingGreen]

All players born on the island of Ireland are "our" players. This is the stance taken by the FAI and subsequently supported by FIFA's eligibility rules - as you well know. With a strict interpretation of the eligibility rules, I believe the FAI should have first preference in the capping of players born in NI. Perhaps a gentleman's agreement of some sort is in order? But then again what could we possibly gain from entering such an agreement?

BTW interesting last comment but for the record Gibson's nationality is Irish and he has ultimately chosen to represent his nation.

Blah, blah, blah.

I repeat, you claimed that DG was never "our" (i.e. NI's) player. I merely reminded you that he most certainly was when he was playing for Northern Ireland.

The fact that he has dual nationality and subsequently chose to assert his other nationality does not overturn your original false claim; rather, it once again demonstrates your habit of hiding behind "straw men" in an effort to avoid admitting when when you get things wrong.

[Razors left peg]

Damn there should be some limits on total words someone can post in one sitting. If I want to read War and Peace Ill go to the library.

my thoughts exactly

[shakermaker1982]

I'm not sure just how much "faith" in DG Fergie really has. For when it comes to the big, "must-win" games, he clearly doesn't yet trust Gibson to be up to it. As I indicated above, it may suit Ferguson to keep him in the squad, since to sign another player to replace him would likely cost more (transfer fee and wages), with no guarantee that the new guy would fit in at OT, as DG so clearly does.
As for Fletcher, I suspect he is "the exception who proves the rule". That is, I can remember any number of young players who initially looked to be "the real deal" but subsequently failed to measure up. Yet Fletcher is just about the only player I can recall who looked a "journeyman" for so long, before turning out to be an absolutely top class player. Gibson might be another, but he is statistically at least as likely to be another eg Paul McShane imo.
More likely than either, however, is that he may become another John O'Shea or Wes Brown i.e. more than a journeyman, but less than a star.

(No offence to McShane, btw, who whatever else, is a whole-hearted player with an apparently excellent attitude)

Fergie doesn't pick Berbatov, Owen, Valencia, Neville and Wes Brown for the big games but that doesn't mean he doesn't trust or rate them. Competition for places at United is strong and it's no shame to be losing out to Scholes at this stage of Gibson's career. If Vidic was fit then Evan's misses out. If O'Shea was fit then Raphael would be omitted. Carrick misses the game at OT and that will give us some idea as to whether Gibson is trusted or not in the big games.

If Gibson goes on to reach O'Shea and Brown's level then I'll be delighted. A strong premiership quality operator is not to be sniffed at.

[ifk101]

Blah, blah, blah.

I repeat, you claimed that DG was never "our" (i.e. NI's) player. I merely reminded you that he most certainly was when he was playing for Northern Ireland.

He was never tied to NI, therefore, never "your" player. He chose to accept the invite given to him to play schoolboy for NI. But he never gave any indication that he would chose to represent NI indefinitely - and as such he was never "your" player. However by choosing to represent our team at senior level he has tied himself to us and therefore is "our" player.

The fact that he has dual nationality and subsequently chose to assert his other nationality does not overturn your original false claim; rather, it once again demonstrates your habit of hiding behind "straw men" in an effort to avoid admitting when when you get things wrong.

Gibson can only play international football for us - he is "our" player. Despite representing NI at schoolboy level he was never tied to NI and therefore never "your" player. For example, I wouldn't consider James McCarthy to be "our" player as he has yet to formally tie himself to us despite representing Ireland at underage level.

Anyways you shouldn't jump to conclusions so easily and misinterpret what I'm saying.

[Paulie]

I can't believe that you would take the trouble to read a couple of pages of someone else's discussion on an internet football forum, then take the trouble to compose a post such as the above, which has no reference to the original topic (i.e. Darron Gibson).
Indeed, I was tempted to post a "Jaysus" myself, until I remembered that that is the nature of internet discussion forums...

Well, of course not!
I find it hard to believe that after 850 posts, you still seem unable to comprehend how these Discussion boards work...

I thought the nature of a forum was to read and sometimes contribute to other people's discussions. You know as well as I do that sometimes these discussions digress from the original topic. I wasn't attempting to start a new dicussion, I was merely commenting on how petty I thought your obvious need to be right was. Anyway, you can write whatever you want on it now, I'm not going to respond as I really can't be bothered getting into it any further with you. As Tony Cascarino said, "If you were an ice cream, you'd probably lick yourself".

[EalingGreen]

He was never tied to NI, therefore, never "your" player. He chose to accept the invite given to him to play schoolboy for NI. But he never gave any indication that he would chose to represent NI indefinitely - and as such he was never "your" player. However by choosing to represent our team at senior level he has tied himself to us and therefore is "our" player.



Gibson can only play international football for us - he is "our" player. Despite representing NI at schoolboy level he was never tied to NI and therefore never "your" player. For example, I wouldn't consider James McCarthy to be "our" player as he has yet to formally tie himself to us despite representing Ireland at underage level.

Anyways you shouldn't jump to conclusions so easily and misinterpret what I'm saying.

Semantics and evasion.

You claimed that DG was "never NI's player", I pointed out that even if he isn't now, nor won't be in future, he most certainly was when he represented Northern Ireland - the land of his birth. That much is incontrovertible.

You're like eg a Man City fan claiming that Carlos ("Welcome to Manchester") Tevez was never Manchester United's player...

[co. down green]

At the time Brendan82 and I were having our discussion, it only took a moment to make a quick note in my E-Diary (along with Birthdays, events etc), then forget about it. Then when I opened my computer the other day, I got a reminder. I thought it would be interesting

lol, get a life eg.

[ifk101]

Semantics and evasion.

You claimed that DG was "never NI's player", I pointed out that even if he isn't now, nor won't be in future, he most certainly was when he represented Northern Ireland - the land of his birth.

It's quite simple - he was never tied to NI and therefore never was "your" player.

You're like eg a Man City fan claiming that Carlos ("Welcome to Manchester") Tevez was never Manchester United's player...

Without knowing the ins and outs of said player's contract, I'm sure whatever contract existed tied him to United for the time period specified by that contract. Tevez was restricted in what club teams he could represent; he couldn't line out for United one week, Spurs the next, Chelsea the following week etc etc. In other words we can conclude he was a Manchester United player. Gibson never had a contract, obligation or anything else that tied him to NI. Therefore he never was a NI player. However now that he has played senior football for us, he is tied to us and cannot represent any other international team. Therefore he is "our" player.

[EalingGreen]

Fergie doesn't pick Berbatov, Owen, Valencia, Neville and Wes Brown for the big games but that doesn't mean he doesn't trust or rate them. Competition for places at United is strong and it's no shame to be losing out to Scholes at this stage of Gibson's career. If Vidic was fit then Evan's misses out. If O'Shea was fit then Raphael would be omitted.

As a journalist pointed out around the time of the Carling Cup Final vs Spurs (iirc), Ferguson effectively operates three teams within his squad.

These are his First XI, made up of players who will always start in the big, "must-win" games when available (eg Rooney, VDS, Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra etc)

Then there is his Second XI, made up of players to whom he is happy enough to turn to replace any First XI players who are unavailable for the big, "must-win" games (eg Neville, O'Shea, Brown, Evans etc)

Finally, there is his Third XI, made up of players who play in the less important games, usually to allow First XI players to rest, and when Second XI players are unavailable (fitness, injury, suspension etc). Ferguson only picks this category of player for the big games when it is absolutely unavoidable.

Whilst the status of some players is debateable (eg Berbatov hovers between 1st XI and 2nd XI, Owen between 2nd XI and 3rd XI), it seems clear to me that DG is in the Third XI - after all, he hasn't started a dozen EPL games in the three years since he first appeared in the senior team.

Now let me say that there is no shame in his current status whatever - not least when many such players could get a regular start in several other EPL teams. Moreover, he is still young enough to make the step-up to Second XI status, especially given Ferguson's current lack of funds to buy in new players.

I'd say the longer he's at OT, the better his chances of making the next step; that said, I really do not see him going all the way to the First XI, in the way that Fletcher has, and eg Da Silva, Nani, and Evans may do. Similarly, for the ROI, the longer he remains at OT, the better must be his chances of establishing himself as one of Trapattoni's starting XI; that said, with international teams only playing 4 or 5 competitive games each season, the opportunities to prove himself to the manager at that level are correspondingly fewer.

Carrick misses the game at OT and that will give us some idea as to whether Gibson is trusted or not in the big games.

Some idea, certainly, though to me it says more about how short Ferguson's squad is of really top class replacements. Imo, assuming MU progress to the next round and Carrick is available, if Ferguson should pick Carrick (a "Second XI" player, imo) in preference to Gibson, that will give more of an idea as to where Gibson stands in the pecking order at OT.

If Gibson goes on to reach O'Shea and Brown's level then I'll be delighted.

Naturally.

A strong premiership quality operator is not to be sniffed at.

Absolutely.

[EalingGreen]

It's quite simple - he was never tied to NI and therefore never was "your" player.



Without knowing the ins and outs of said player's contract, I'm sure whatever contract existed tied him to United for the time period specified by that contract. Tevez was restricted in what club teams he could represent; he couldn't line out for United one week, Spurs the next, Chelsea the following week etc etc. In other words we can conclude he was a Manchester United player. Gibson never had a contract, obligation or anything else that tied him to NI. Therefore he never was a NI player. However now that he has played senior football for us, he is tied to us and cannot represent any other international team. Therefore he is "our" player.

He's not "tied" to ROI, either - see Stephen Ireland or Dean Kiely!

Gibson was Dual Qualified. When he played for NI, he was "ours". Since he switched to ROI he has been "yours". He may not reverse his switch.

Any other interpretation is, quite simply, bonkers - no matter how you try to dress it up.

[kingdomkerry]

Will EG and co just get over it. Gibson is an Ireland player the same as anyone born on the island is (if they want to be). With all the sour grapes still going on about gibson I wonder what its going to be like now that Shane Duffy has declared for Ireland and told the pub team as much.