The Damage that Stan us doing to us

[Billsthoughts]

To go to the home of the 3rd best team in the world and to lose to a flukey OG and to make them fight all the way was a decent performance.

they are no more the 3rd best team in the world than they were the second best team in the world after the 2002 WC. or Turkey or South Korea were the top four in the world after same WC. can we stop pedalling this myth as some sort of justification for being happy with being beaten without threatening the opposition goal

I don't know what you expect from a team made up of some pretty average players - take the game to Germany, cut them apart, play nice one touch football and dominate them ? If so, you're not a good judge of football or footballers' abilities. We competed well. The players gave 100% and if Dunne had got that header on goal in the last few seconds we would be celebrating a 1-1 draw.

If ifs and buts were pots and pans youd be a kitchen....
We took the game to them in the first 20 minutes. thats what we should be expecting and thats what most ireland fans do expect. there is no shame in losing a game whilst trying to win it. there is in losing a game were damage limitation seems to be the aim. one nil or ten nil if the result is never in doubt after 20 mins then I would class it as a poor performance regardless of score.

The Germans created more chances than us but I'd expect that but it was a vast improvement from the Dutch game. When you think our central midfield consisted of Kilbane and O'Shea, I think we did well.

If they had created one chance in the game it would have been one more than us. As far as I know we are not obliged to play two extremely bad midfielders. how long has the manager to prepare for this yet he plays the same midfield pairing as his predeccesor in his last game? And using one crap performance ie the Holland game to justify another slightly less poor performance is ridiculous. BOTH games were unacceptably poor. the fact that most of the players were delighted losing one nil and seemed to think they had proved everyone wrong after the holland game is depressing and a true pointer of what standards this group of players sets itself. we may as well be andorra if not gettin hammered by bigger teams seems to be our main aim.

[Emmet]

The team were very low on confidence going into the Germany game after what happened against Holland ... expecting attacking flair from a group of players that are at best mediocre is fairly unrealistic. As their confidence returns the performances will get better.

[Billsthoughts]

you say "what happened agaisnt holland" like it was something outside the players and the managers control....

[geysir]

There's only one criteria that matters, a manager and team should be judged on results and performances in competitive games only.
When reviewing a record of any past manager it beats me why friendlies are sometimes included.

[NeilMcD]

Totally agree geysir, all manager should be judged on competitive results only. Where did they finish in the table is the only fair way of judging the manager as it is as objective as you can get.

[DeNiro]

[QUOTE=OwlsFan;533668]What are you saying ? A manager can't sub one of his players, who had been inffective throughout the game and who had shipped a knock (which I saw) without losing the dressing room ?

You to have the dressing room in the first place in order to lose it. In such a fickle footballing world, where loyalty doesn't exist, it is possible that Newcastle Utd might say why are we bothering to send him if he's not going to be used. If he was injured fair enough but why did he sit away from the rest and not get treatment then?

[Emmet]

you say "what happened agaisnt holland" like it was something outside the players and the managers control....

They were up against vastly superior players ... how was that under their control? The Dutch came to Dublin under immense pressure themselves because of what their public perceived as being a poor world cup - that had nothing to do with any of the Irish camp either. As well as that, we had numerous injuries. Does the manager control which players are injured? I don't think so.

My point is that the squad went into the German game extremely low on confidence. You cannot coach confidence into players; players who are low on confidence become more cautious and take fewer risks.

[Billsthoughts]

didnt we manage to beat them before one nil away from home the last time when we were missing a lot of first team players and they had all them vastly superior players?the attitude was the differance with both games.

[Emmet]

that's a fairly obscure reference tbh - how many players started both matches? I think only three. The game was a friendly - that is the main similarity ... however the Dutch didn't come into that game with a point to prove to their public and to their media. They did last month.

I'm not altogether sure what you are suggesting we do anyway? Sack the manager? After one competitive match? We could borrow the idea used on the TV show Have I Got News For You - instead of having a guest presenter, we could have a guest manager. Someone different after every defeat!

[Billsthoughts]

em one of the points i am making is that you are using one really bad performance to justify a slightly less crappy performance. which is moronic. all the fundamentals that were there in the holland game were there in the german game. no creativity and no gameplan. another point is that the manager is inexperienced and doesnt seem to know what he is doing. something that a lot of people foresaw when he was appointed. which begs the question why did he get the job? I am just pointing out facts. You are just pointing out excuses.

[Emmet]

em one of the points i am making is that you are using one really bad performance to justify a slightly less crappy performance. which is moronic. all the fundamentals that were there in the holland game were there in the german game. no creativity and no gameplan. another point is that the manager is inexperienced and doesnt seem to know what he is doing. something that a lot of people foresaw when he was appointed. which begs the question why did he get the job? I am just pointing out facts. You are just pointing out excuses.

I'm looking at the circumstances going into the Germany game to try and explain why the team played the way they did ... not excuses, just reasons why certain things happened the way they did. It worries me when people believe that we should sack the manager after only one competitive match - and not even any old match ... it was away to Germany!! And so what if people knew he was inexperienced when he was appointed? He is the manager now and we've got to accept that. He won't get the sack this early. What sort of fall-out would there would be if he was sacked? What would the effects be on the players especially the younger, less experienced, ones? They're short on confidence as it is! Changing managers now would improve that, would it? What would the effects be for any would-be replacement manager? If Staunton was the best we could get last time round, who is going to put their name forward for a position where the previous manager was given only one competitive fixture before being sacked? No half-decent manager would risk their reputation with us if that happened. I pointed this out on a different thread but I'll say it here again - it is proven statistically that teams who chop and change managers frequently are never successful. Never. Teams who do the opposite always enjoy relatively more success. I'm not trying to make excuses to justify crap performances - I'm certainly not happy about the way the team played against Germany and against Holland. We were poor in both games. I just think that changing the manager now would only make things a lot lot worse!!

[bennocelt]

I thought it was a decent performance and I believe I am a good judge of football and that was the feeling of all my friends who were at the game with me. To go to the home of the 3rd best team in the world and to lose to a flukey OG and to make them fight all the way was a decent performance. I don't know what you expect from a team made up of some pretty average players - take the game to Germany, cut them apart, play nice one touch football and dominate them ? If so, you're not a good judge of football or footballers' abilities. We competed well. The players gave 100% and if Dunne had got that header on goal in the last few seconds we would be celebrating a 1-1 draw. The Germans created more chances than us but I'd expect that but it was a vast improvement from the Dutch game. When you think our central midfield consisted of Kilbane and O'Shea, I think we did well.

yeah i agree, i thought the boys did their best, and the germans looked good, esp frings controlling everything from the middle
but dont you think the tactics were a little silly..............4-5-1 would have been better suited, what did our strikers do in the game anyway