It's all to play for...

[cavan_fan]

We did go downhill after 82. Jimmy Magee remarked in 1985 that ireland would never qualify for a major tournament in his lifetime. Frankly I'd have felt the same then.

Belgium were semi finalists in the previous (86) world cup. Scotland and Bulgaria both qualified for that tournament. Jack got lucky with the Gary Mackay goal but we lsot in Bulgaria to a penalty awarded for a foul outside the box. We also had a goal disallowed at 1-1 that should have stood.

Jack did not play attractive football but it is a myth to say we played defensive football. We were actually very positive away from home albeit with long ball tactics.

I think we were lucky in that the 3 teams were in transition, the Scots and Belgium on the way down and Bulgaria had not really hit the heights they would hit.

My point about negativity wasnt about Jack, he understood what was needed to qualify in those days. The problem is that we have the same strategy now and it doesnt work. Bigger groups mean you need more wins to qualify. McCarthy, Kerr and possibly Stan didnt get that which is why we have qualified for 1 tournament out of 5 since he left (and 1 from 6 is looking like a possibility...which was originally the point of this thread)

[elroy]

Just a couple of points, I'm usually quite optimist but I feel this time around if we finish third and improve our seeding it will have been a satisfactory campaign:

1 There has not been one performance in this campaign which has inspired confidence, yes there was times in the German, Czech and Slovak games where we played well but overall we have stuttered through most games.

2 The Cyprus game will come back to haunt us. The Czechs, (maybe the Slovaks) are our only concern now, play Cyprus away in the final game. Cyprus with little to play for will not be much opposition for the Czechs.

3 If we can pick up four points from the two away games in Sept, we will have done well. Ideally a win against the Czechs, however a 2-2 draw would almost be as good as a win (as we would finish above them if on same points).

4 I cant see us taking three points against the Germans at home. We rarely troubled them in Stuttgart and cant see us doing a whole lot more in Croker. It reminds me of the French game way too much, arguably the Germans dont have anyone like Henry whos gonna come up with a goal like that but just cant see us beating them, best case scenario : a draw and they beat the Czechs.

5 Remember we will be missing Duffer, arguably our best player in the March games.

6 There is cause for optimism with a number of decent players coming though and the Czechs are stuttering at the moment so we have a chance but I feel this campaign may be just a little too early for this side.

Most optimistic outlook for us, (not impossible but difficult):

Us:

v Slovaks (a) Win
v Czechs (a) Draw
v Germany (h) Draw
v Cyprus (h) Win
v Wales (a) Win

Points= 24

Czechs:
v S&M (a) Win
v Us (h) Draw
v Germany (a) Lose
v Slovaks (h) Draw
v Cyprus (a) Win

Points: 22

[jbyrne]

Jack was especially lucky in 88 with the qualification group. You'd have thought that to be one of the 7 qualifiers you'd have had to get past tougher opponenents than Bulgaria, Scotland and Belgium (I presume Belgium were top seeds). Also, we only won half of our matches and I cant help feeling we still in our bones think this is how you qualify, lots of draws esp away from home.

that was a tough group. all three of those teams were in the '86 wc when only 24 teams qualified. belgium got to the semis too. would be hard pressed to find a much more difficult group from that campaign

[gspain]

I think we were lucky in that the 3 teams were in transition, the Scots and Belgium on the way down and Bulgaria had not really hit the heights they would hit.

My point about negativity wasnt about Jack, he understood what was needed to qualify in those days. The problem is that we have the same strategy now and it doesnt work. Bigger groups mean you need more wins to qualify. McCarthy, Kerr and possibly Stan didnt get that which is why we have qualified for 1 tournament out of 5 since he left (and 1 from 6 is looking like a possibility...which was originally the point of this thread)

Belgium subsequently won a group containing Czechoslovakia, Portugal and Switzerland to quakify for Italia 90. They outplayed England in Bologna only to lose to a last minute goal in ET. Scotland put out France and also qualified for Italia 90.

Euro88 was an 8 team tournament. We had to win a very tough group to qualify.

[bennocelt]

Against Spain in WC 2002, as Camacho said, we had a flower growing up our arse in that game, as in we got all the decisions. Every razor thin offside decision, 2 fekin penalties. Frisk did all within his legal powers to keep us in that game.

if you were at the actual game and viewed the whole pitch (not what TV were showing you) you might have seen Frsik constantly telling the spanish players to cut out their play acting and heavy duty arm wrestling style of defending, particuarly on Niall Quinn
just before that peno Frisk warned the spanish defenders about jumping on Quinns back

its always different when you can see the whole game pitchside (somehting andy gray wouldnt know about on Sky Tv)

[cavan_fan]

if you were at the actual game and viewed the whole pitch (not what TV were showing you) you might have seen Frsik constantly telling the spanish players to cut out their play acting and heavy duty arm wrestling style of defending, particuarly on Niall Quinn
just before that peno Frisk warned the spanish defenders about jumping on Quinns back

its always different when you can see the whole game pitchside (somehting andy gray wouldnt know about on Sky Tv)

This is my new favourite smug self satisfied post, I love the fact he got a dig in at Andy Gray out of nowhere, sheer class.

[Paddy Garcia]

The side we have now is just as good as anything we had in 90/91 IMO. Get the rose tinted glasses off and look at some of the players that played regularly in the qualifiers that time round. John Byrne, Cascerino, Morris, McCarthy - four donkeys IMO though McCarthy at the time could do a decent job as attackers got no protection from the referee.

Given, Finnan, Duff, Robbie Keane and Doyle are better than the players in their corresponding positions in that team. Was McCarthy any better than Dunne? Probably not. Admittedly both Moran and O'Leary are better than any central defenders we have now and Keane, Townsend and McGrath are better than all our midfielders (though Keane wasn't as good back then as he was in later years). However we had a very limited supply of decent strikers (only Quinn was any good at International level though Aldridge got better in time) and we suffered from a severe lack of any pace (particularly in wide areas). Our full strength team now is not the problem. Injuries in certain positions and the ineptitude of Stan are.

The side we have now is not as good as anything we had in 90/91. The 90/91 side is not twice but 10 times better. So many were competing for the championship (or top division) in England, barely any today. A team of winners.

The main reason is the midfield - games are won & lost in the midfield - you win nothing with great strikers alone. Ask Rush, Giggs, Hughes and Saunders about their world cup experiences. And frankly, though you denigrate Cascarino, I am far from convinced that he could not have offered up more than we have delivered in the last 12 months.

Houghton, McGrath, Townsend, Whelan, Sheedy, a world class midfield. Even Staunton could do a very reasonable job (except in the heat). By comparison our current midfield is an illusion - the most important part of the team (bar the goalie). Illusions of mediocrity, I must have been watching different players. You it is wearing the rosy glasses if you think the current lot are as good.

As for the defence I don't think the likes of O'Leary, Moran, McCarthy and Hughton would have let in 5 goals against Cyprus - even if asked to turn out last year. I bet that team would beat San Marino by more than 2-1 today, nearly 20 years after their prime.

[eirebhoy]

We definitely don't have as good a team as Charlton's but I think we've the best team since then, player by player.

[youngirish]

The side we have now is not as good as anything we had in 90/91. The 90/91 side is not twice but 10 times better. So many were competing for the championship (or top division) in England, barely any today. A team of winners.

The main reason is the midfield - games are won & lost in the midfield - you win nothing with great strikers alone. Ask Rush, Giggs, Hughes and Saunders about their world cup experiences. And frankly, though you denigrate Cascarino, I am far from convinced that he could not have offered up more than we have delivered in the last 12 months.

Houghton, McGrath, Townsend, Whelan, Sheedy, a world class midfield. Even Staunton could do a very reasonable job (except in the heat). By comparison our current midfield is an illusion - the most important part of the team (bar the goalie). Illusions of mediocrity, I must have been watching different players. You it is wearing the rosy glasses if you think the current lot are as good.

As for the defence I don't think the likes of O'Leary, Moran, McCarthy and Hughton would have let in 5 goals against Cyprus - even if asked to turn out last year. I bet that team would beat San Marino by more than 2-1 today, nearly 20 years after their prime.

As I said initially our problems are mainly with the coach and injuries. That's why we lost against Cyprus. Read the post. Are you disagreeing with me that Finnan, Given, Doyle, Keane and Duff wouldn't get into that team? Duff is a better player than Sheedy. He offers something that's generally quite important for a wide player. A bit of pace. Dunne is as good as an ageing McCarthy who was never any great shakes anyway. The same Kevin Moran was 34 in 1991 and playing for Blackburn in the old Division 2. Typical selective post you are trying to make out all our players were in their prime in 90/91 when most (Hughton, McCarthy, Moran, Whelan, Aldridge, Sheedy, O'Leary) were coming to the end of their careers (Whelan through injuries more so than age).

Would we have to wheel John Byrne on now for a goal (an English Division 2 player at the time from my recollections) or have Chris Morris playing as a full back (even our third choice Stephen Kelly is better than him). A manager of the same ability as Charlton (decent at the top level but never exceptional) would have had no problem guiding the current set of players to the Euros.

Also it's nonsense to compare the Premiership now with the old Division 1. With the massive influx of foriegn players it's much harder for Irish (and English) players to play for the top clubs.

All the doom and gloom rubbish on here is generally from people with no clue about football. Of course we are going to struggle with an inexperienced buffoon like Staunton learning his trade at our International team's expense. I suppose with Staunton in charge we'd have won the Euros with the team back in 91? We have some excellent established players and some very promising young players which IMO is a better mix than some admittedly top players, some aging players passed their best and some no hopers that were never good enough (Cascerino, John Byrne, Chris Morris). Our best team we've ever had was in the early to mid eighties. By 91 most of our best players were either too old as mentioned above or had already retired (Lawrenson, Brady, Stapleton, Heighway).

[bennocelt]

This is my new favourite smug self satisfied post, I love the fact he got a dig in at Andy Gray out of nowhere, sheer class.

no not nowhere, gray is always moaning about refs

[bennocelt]

Would we have to wheel John Byrne on now for a goal (an English Division 2 player at the time from my recollections) or have Chris Morris playing as a full back (even our third choice Stephen Kelly is better than him). A manager of the same ability as Charlton (decent at the top level but never exceptional) would have had no problem guiding the current set of players to the Euros.

some aging players passed their best and some no hopers that were never good enough (Cascerino, John Byrne, Chris Morris). ).

ah come on, Morris wasnt that bad, he had a good game against England, as far as i can remember (or am i worng!)
Stephen Kelly wouldnt have had a look in under Charlton, total light weight

Byrne always popped up for a few goals, which is more than we can say about Kilbane or any other mids on the present team

And Cassa, always got us a a few important goals....re England and that famous one aganist Albania

so i wouldnt be into totally revising or rewriting the charlton years, we had decent enough players all things considering

[Paddy Garcia]

As I said initially our problems are mainly with the coach and injuries.

I know you did but you are still not correct. I do agree that a poor coach and on-going injuries have contributed, in particular the role played by Stan. Nonetheless we have a very very poor midfield, an absence of leaders and less talent than the old team you are talking about.

[QUOTE=youngirish;702029]Duff is a better player than Sheedy. He offers something that's generally quite important for a winger. A bit of pace. [QUOTE]

I really like Duff, but he has not been consistent for us. Duff has more talent than Sheedy, but over the career of both you cannot say Duff has been better for Ireland. Sheedy scored 9 in 45, Duff is what 7 in 66. Sheedy was instrumental in achieving qualification & performed well against top class opposition - consistently. That's the outcome. I don't think you know quite how good Sheedy was.

Would we have to wheel John Byrne on now for a goal (an English Division 2 player at the time from my recollections) or have Chris Morris playing as a full back (even our third choice Stephen Kelly is better than him). A manager of the same ability as Charlton (decent at the top level but never exceptional) would have had no problem guiding the current set of players to the Euros.

John Byrne was not even in the mix, get real! Kelly has yet to prove anything. Morris may not have been the most talented, but I recall a much vaunted Gazza could not get the better of him in Italy - one of the stars of the tournament.

Also it's nonsense to compare the Premiership now with the old Division 1. With the massive influx of foriegn players it's much harder for Irish (and English) players to play for the top clubs. Believe what you will but you're wrong.

Here is the real rub. I have noticed the influx. It impacts on average players not the best. The likes of McGrath, Houghton, Whelan and so forth would still have been in great demand by the top clubs. In fact they would have really thrived in this envronment & guess what Ireland would have been even better for it. Do you think for a moment the likes of Roy Keane would blame the influx of foreign players for not getting a place at a top club - or do you think he would look at himself? Blaming "foreign" players is a losers mentality.

All the doom and gloom rubbish on here is generally from people with no clue about football. Of course we are going to struggle with an inepxerienced buffoon like Staunton learning his trade at our International team's expense. I suppose with Staunton in charge we'd have won the Euros with the team back in 91? We have some excellent established players and some very promising young players which IMO is a better mix than some admittedly top players, some aging players passed their best and some no hopers that were never good enough (Cascerino, John Byrne, Chris Morris). Our best team weve ever had was in the early to mid eighties. By 91 most of our best players were either too old as mentioned above or had already retired (Lawrenson, Brady, Stapleton, Heighway).

I don't think you should so readily dismiss those who do not agree with you as knowing nothing about football. I have not written you off, I agree with you about Stan. Equally if Jack had believed enough in that team we could have beaten Italy, rather than celebrating the achievement. And then what .....

And I'm certainly not defending Stans incompetence. I think you need to be realistic about the capability of the current team, potential needs to be realised.

BTW Morris was not our best full back in 90, Irwin was. It is just that Fergie had yet to bring him to Jack's attention, by buying him.

[eirebhoy]

I know you did but you are still not correct. I do agree that a poor coach and on-going injuries have contributed, in particular the role played by Stan. Nonetheless we have a very very poor midfield

We've little strength in depth but the midfield is strong with everyone fit imo.

--------Doyle-------
Duff-----------Keane
-----Reid---Reid-----
-------Carsley-------

I'd love to see those players link up.

[geysir]

I think our midfield is all right now. Eirebhoy is right in that we should /could be doing better or have good solid potential to take on teams and qualify for tournaments.
One of the important differences between now and then as Paddy G already pointed out is leadership quality (Carsley excepted). Our teams in the Charlton era were littered with club captains and captain quality.
Even in Eoin Hands time, a midfield with Daly, Grealish, Brady and Heighway, we'd do all right with that lot now.

[youngirish]

We've little strength in depth but the midfield is strong with everyone fit imo.

--------Doyle-------
Duff-----------Keane
-----Reid---Reid-----
-------Carsley-------

I'd love to see those players link up.

I think a midfield of the two Reids, Carsley and Duff is fairly decent but not great. We are one good defensive midfielder short of having a very good midfield as I don't rate Carsley but understand he's the best option at present. I'm hoping Joey O'Brien recovers from injury and establishes himself back in the Bolton team next season preferrably in his natural position, otherwise we are going to suffer in that position for the foreseeable future (Garvan is another option but he really needs a tough tackling midfielder in there with him).

[eirebhoy]

tbh Carsley is as good as most off the ball. I'm not a fan of the Lennon/Makelele/Carsley type holding midfielder. I prefer the more technically gifted players but with those players around him in the team it shouldn't be a problem. He's no worse than the players Barcelona usually play in the holding role.

[RogerMilla]

lads i cannot see where all this clamour for andy reid is coming from , Ireland is the man in possesion and should be playing instead of reid

[Wolfie]

lads i cannot see where all this clamour for andy reid is coming from , Ireland is the man in possesion and should be playing instead of reid

With Duff injured - play Andy Reid wide on the left. Some decent ball diagonally from the left might be useful for Doyle to get on the end of.

[eirebhoy]

lads i cannot see where all this clamour for andy reid is coming from , Ireland is the man in possesion and should be playing instead of reid

S.Ireland is definitely not at Reid's standard yet. imo Reid has the best football brain and arguably the best passer of all our players. Why is Ireland the man in possession? Reid usually plays well for us and controlled the last game he played against San Marino. That's the thing with him. Played centrally, even with Duff, Keane, etc. in the team Reid will usually be the main man. I'd say we'd have had a much easier time over in San Marino if Reid played.

[tetsujin1979]

With Duff injured - play Andy Reid wide on the left. Some decent ball diagonally from the left might be useful for Doyle to get on the end of.

It'll more than likely be Hunt, to me Reid always looked uncomfortable on the wing, and came more into the came when coming through the centre.