Carvalhal explains rationale behind McGeady decision.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/footb...game-1-7887961
Don't buy it for a second. He's managing McGeady's fitness.
The thing is though on here, you guys have said that Mcgeady has really worked on his defensive game and he is very good at tracking back.
THe italian buck doesnt think so.
I'm a bloke,I'm an ocker
And I really love your knockers,I'm a labourer by day,
I **** up all me pay,Watching footy on TV,
Just feed me more VB,Just pour my beer,And get my smokes, And go away
He's still not a full back though is he?
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
Released by Wednesday for the international so not in the squad for the play off game on Saturday. Don't see a future of him in the Premiership. Back to Scotland?
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
As much as Aiden 'aided' our chances of getting to France, I wouldn't bring him. I'd be a 'no end product' fan of his so take mine with a pinch of salt, but I can't remember any other players getting as much leeway as he does.
He gets leeway because he's a genius and can do what no other player in Ireland can do. Problem is he does it so rarely.
I don't think McGeady is getting that much leeway (and there're no guarantees he's made the squad yet anyway). He contributed heavily in the early part of the campaign. He's a vastly experienced player at this stage (but not past it like Given) and he can create something out of nothing. He's a unique option for us, not sure that can be said about anybody else outside of Shane Long.
Yes, he frustrates because it's clear he's capable of more than he produces, but he has still produced plenty over the years. His club situation has been disastrous the past season but at least he showed the desire to get himself a loan move (unlike Gibson), and got a decent amount of minutes under his belt even if, ultimately, it did end in fairly embarrassing fashion. I don't think he's depriving us of a better option if he makes the squad, and that's the most important thing.
Surely if Doyle makes it, for example, he'll have been given far more leeway than McGeady? He's done so little in the past half decade it's untrue, and doesn't even give us a different option to what we already have in the squad. We have another three strikers who are hard workers, decent in the air and, unlike Doyle, they've all been playing regular international football and a higher level of club football in recent times. I still think he has more quality than Murphy though having said that. Now there's a guy who has been given extreme measures of leeway.
Last edited by DeLorean; 27/05/2016 at 8:54 AM.
I think Doyle should be there because he is one of our top 4 strikers. I think he does give a decent option even if it's of the same kind that Long and Walters bring.
Left side of midfield options (of sorts) are Brady, McLean, Murphy and Wes. Of those I'd rate McGeady better than only Murphy.
In fairness to McGeady he nearly saved the game for us - and secured automatic qualification - in Warsaw with a sumptuous late cross that should have led to a goal. His next cross went straight out of play. I thinks it's the low-probability-piece-of-brilliance that he's there for, and I suppose that's fair call. He can also play both sides and through the middle a bit.
In reality though, Murphy and Hoolahan aren't really left of midfield options, even of sorts. If they are it's even more reason to bring McGeady as he's obviously a better player in that position than those two. I agree on Doyle generally but would consider Murphy to be the stumbling block there. I certainly wouldn't sacrifice McGeady to allow us to bring three fairly similar strikers, along with Keane and Long.
Bookmarks