The best Irish international you've seen play

**bellavistaman** · 02/08/2007, 10:28 AM

the fact they've Mick not Roy says it all for me. Wouldnt disagree to both on it, but Mick and roy sums up that ****in "organisation"

**Billsthoughts** · 02/08/2007, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

True to an extent, especially when Given wasn't even our number one at the start of that campaign, but all of Keane's good work would have counted for nowt if it wasn't for Given against Iran.

If we didn't have Given I've no doubt Kiely would have been one of our best keepers ever, but he was unlucky. As you say "at the time" there was little between them but Given just keeps improving in my opinion. We missed him badly in the matches subsequent to the German game and he kept us in it with really good saves against both wales & Slovakia.

agree that given has kept improving...but sure hes had lots of practice at newcastle...think people forget how good kiely was tho..really only missed out at the time cause either given was in possesion or was born in ireland.

has o dea played for ireland?

oh and Pat Jennings, Norman Whiteside and George Best were pretty good Irish Internationals.........(that was a freebie Ealing Green!

**Stuttgart88** · 02/08/2007, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

has o dea played for ireland?

Not at senior level. Stan wanted him for the US trip but Strachan wanted him to warm the bench (not sure if he even made it) for the SFA Cup Final.

By all accounts he's a very mature & level headed lad though.

**tetsujin1979** · 02/08/2007, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Not at senior level. Stan wanted him for the US trip but Strachan wanted him to warm the bench (not sure if he even made it) for the SFA Cup Final.

By all accounts he's a very mature & level headed lad though.

nope, he didn't make the bench
He picked up a hamstring strain towards the end of the season and was told to rest it over the summer, but he didn't and now isn't expected to play until the end of August.

**Bluebeard** · 02/08/2007, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Ogba

Or Phil Babb for that matter....made McGrath look great in '94...

Just spluttered my drink all over the room when I read that.

**OwlsFan** · 02/08/2007, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Houghton and Townsend rarely had poor games and usually had a major influence and presence throughout the match.

The nature of their game demanded that they Imposed themselves, they were full of intelligent running and never hid or slept through games. I remember during breaks in the play, they'd often encourage or cajole their Irish team mates for more effort.

I always thought that crop of players had a maturity and sense of responsibility during their mid to late twenties that later teams didn't have - with the exception of Roy Keane.

Perhaps part of the reason for this is that the likes of Houghton and Townsend started at small clubs and gradually established themselves at the likes of Oxford (Houghton) and Southampton, Norwich (Townsend). In summary - no egocentricity.

Good post about Houghton and Andy T. Razor was as influencial in the Charlton teams at his prime as Roy Keane was in the McCarthy teams (when he played or wasn't suspended).

As for Robbie Keane, BillsThoughts, tell me a more skilful striker who has played for Ireland. I know he has a lot of critics because of his hand waving etc, but he is our record scorer and a very talented footballer. Frank Stapleton was the best other centre forward I have seen for us.

**Billsthoughts** · 02/08/2007, 12:45 PM

Thread was called best Irish internationals....Robbie Keane is nowhere near that category. Id say even of the current crop Doyle is a better striker and given the same amount of games as Keane would probably have a better return.

**citizenerased** · 02/08/2007, 12:48 PM

Roy Keane, Paul McGrath, Shay Given, Denis Irwin..

**Paddy Garcia** · 02/08/2007, 7:21 PM

1. McGrath
2. Keane 2. Houghton

4. Brady

Highway was one of the best, as was Lawrenson.

**OwlsFan** · 02/08/2007, 7:52 PM

Originally Posted by Paddy Garcia

1. McGrath
2. Keane 2. Houghton

4. Brady

Highway was one of the best, as was Lawrenson.

Paddy, Heighway was a great player but not for us. I saw him play many times in a green jersey and he wasn't the same player who used to terrorise full backs for Liverpool in Division One (as it was called then).

**Paddy Garcia** · 02/08/2007, 8:33 PM

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

Paddy, Heighway was a great player but not for us. I saw him play many times in a green jersey and he wasn't the same player who used to terrorise full backs for Liverpool in Division One (as it was called then).

Well he played great against England @ Wembley. He terrorised their defence that night.

**bennocelt** · 04/08/2007, 7:03 PM

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I also think soccer is going a bit like rugby union in that the physical & athletic qualities of today's teams are a step above those of the last generation.

At no point was Andy Townsend ever physically dominated, nor was Keane. Kevin Kilbane is one of our few outfield players with the physique required in a modern footballer, but he lacks the talent.

.

rubbish
football was harder in the olden days, much harder..........sure maybe the football players are more athletic and fit nowadays, but they are not stronger on the field mostly cause the modern game has nearly outlawed physical contact

have you ever seen Leeds Utd of the 70's.............jeez they were hard
what about paul mcgrath...........hard as nails

then you talk about Kilbane. bizarre

**dr_peepee** · 05/08/2007, 12:22 PM

Don't think that's what he meant..... I think the focus was more on 'Athletic' rather than 'Physical'...

The game has evovled. A large percentage players from the 70's, 80's and even early 90's plucked from then and placed into a game today may well win a few bone crunchers early on but would cough up their dinner after 60 minutes and would easily be muscled out of it for large portions of the game.

**osarusan** · 05/08/2007, 3:24 PM

Originally Posted by dr_peepee

Don't think that's what he meant..... I think the focus was more on 'Athletic' rather than 'Physical'...

The game has evolved. A large percentage players from the 70's, 80's and even early 90's plucked from then and placed into a game today may well win a few bone crunchers early on but would cough up their dinner after 60 minutes and would easily be muscled out of it for large portions of the game.

Agreed.

Although, never mind 60 minutes, they'd be sent off after 5 minutes for having the audacity to make a strong challenge.

**Stuttgart88** · 05/08/2007, 8:08 PM

Originally Posted by bennocelt

rubbish
football was harder in the olden days, much harder..........sure maybe the football players are more athletic and fit nowadays, but they are not stronger on the field mostly cause the modern game has nearly outlawed physical contact

have you ever seen Leeds Utd of the 70's.............jeez they were hard
what about paul mcgrath...........hard as nails

then you talk about Kilbane. bizarre

Just look at the height of the Germans, the Czechs, the Slovaks and the Cypriots versus the height of our players. Also look at the sheer size of the Croat team, the Aussies, the Italians and any of the African sides in the last world cup and compare it to the size of our current team, maybe Kilbane, Dunne & O'Shea excepted.

Then tell me if you still think I'm talking rubbish

Watching from the East Stand against the Czechs I thought that the Czech team would give Munster a run for their money in the line out!

I know football was tougher then but I was just saying that Townsend & co. were always a physical match for any opponent. Now hardly any of our players are a physical match for their opponents. Why? Because the modern successful footballer is taller & more athletic and we haven't caught up in this regard, but we have in Rugby Union.

**bennocelt** · 06/08/2007, 5:50 AM

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Just look at the height of the Germans, the Czechs, the Slovaks and the Cypriots versus the height of our players. Also look at the sheer size of the Croat team, the Aussies, the Italians and any of the African sides in the last world cup and compare it to the size of our current team, maybe Kilbane, Dunne & O'Shea excepted.

Then tell me if you still think I'm talking rubbish

Watching from the East Stand against the Czechs I thought that the Czech team would give Munster a run for their money in the line out!

I know football was tougher then but I was just saying that Townsend & co. were always a physical match for any opponent. Now hardly any of our players are a physical match for their opponents. Why? Because the modern successful footballer is taller & more athletic and we haven't caught up in this regard, but we have in Rugby Union.

yeah i understand what you are saying, you mean modern players are fit and good at running all day

I think football was much better in the olden days, and would like to think that paul mcgrath and franco baresi would have any of todays footballers in their pocket, cause they had tha bit extra, which you might call skill, and could read the game perfectly even if they werent ultra fit and athletic footballers
maradona was a fat basstard, and im sure he wouldnt have any problems today either

but then the czechs in my opinion are over rated, were quite weak in the world cup

**Stuttgart88** · 06/08/2007, 7:39 AM

Originally Posted by bennocelt

yeah i understand what you are saying, you mean modern players are fit and good at running all day

No, I actually meant that they're much bigger. Leaner but definitely bigger and the good teams' players are technically good on top of this. We're a team of shortarses by and large and anyone we have who isn't doesn't have a huge amount of skill.

Duff & Keane, for example, can hold their own against anyone due to their ability, but if you have players of their height throughout the team you'll struggle. We do and we do.

**shakermaker1982** · 06/08/2007, 12:59 PM

Stuttgart makes a good point about the size of our team.

Can anyone explain why we have a bunch of short arses in this current team? Are all the big strong lads at school getting sent to the gaelic/rugby teams leaving the likes of S Ireland to try his hand at football? Do we need a few more lads from the Country who should be inhaling all that clean air?!

We have always been a nation known for our size and strength yet we only have a handful of players over 6 ft. 6ft isn't even tall by modern standards for a 21st Century athlete.

**geysir** · 06/08/2007, 2:34 PM

Giles was midget sized (still is), he had to do it all, the best bone cruncher tackler of man and ball, playmaker, enforcer.
He had to look after himself in the game and make the play with sublime passes at the same time. As well as enforcing retribution against defenders hacking the legs off the likes of Heighway.

Colin Healy showed some flashes, once upon a time, of a type of a Giles tackle.

**stojkovic** · 06/08/2007, 3:16 PM

Given
Irwin-Lawrenson-McGrath-Whelan
Houghton-Giles-Keane-Brady
Keane-Stapleton

Subs- O'Leary, Staunton,Duff, Aldridge.

I know Ronnie's not a full back but he has to be included and played brilliantly there v Scotland away and Bulgaria at home in 87 (with McGrath at right full incidently).

With the exception of Giles the above players very nearly lined out together, only 10 years separating Lawrenson and Robbie Keane.

In 2001 Roy Keane received only two votes from international managers for World Player of the Year - you guessed it - the Dutch and Portuguese managers.