Four Nations Tournament

**kingdomkerry** · 11/04/2008, 9:50 PM

How do we know if we'll like it if we don't try it!!

**Qwerty** · 11/04/2008, 10:03 PM

This is a bad idea. It's is meaningless as a competition.

Yes the Norn Iron game will be about bragging rights but without the chance to humble Ingurland it is pretty much a yawn.

I'm sure Scotland and Wales fans would relish playing Ireland as little as we relish playing them.

**Norn Iron** · 11/04/2008, 11:13 PM

I personally find it very hard to get excited about this. For varying reasons I have little interest in playing the 3 teams (and England if they became interested).

Wales- we may get a repeat of the 2 high scoring 2006 WCQ's but more likely a repeat of the drab 0-0 friendly last february when nobody could be arsed.

Scotland- Playing them in August anyway, a win their and I wouldnt want to play them again for a long time.

Republic- Like Qwerty said a chance for bragging rights but also a much bigger chance of the knuckle draggers rearing their ugly heads.

England- 1-0 Healy or another 0-4 at Wembley. Its a tough one!

**HolylandsMan** · 12/04/2008, 1:06 AM

If some sort of meaning gets attached to the games then they have to be more useful than the sham that passes for friendlies.

From a fans point of view, the qualifying groups take care of the long haul trips and this competition gives us the cheap flights to glasgow or cardiff for a weekend on the tear. I fail to see the disadvantage!

**carloz** · 12/04/2008, 8:53 AM

I fail to see the positives of this to be honest. We know everything about Scotland, Wales and the Norths games. We know what they can offer, we know they style they play etc. Our problem in recent campaigns has been away games in Eastern Europe in places such as Macedonia, Albania, Croatia etc. Playing in this 4 Nations tournament will not help this whatsoever and instead we will be playing in our own little bubble

**carloz** · 12/04/2008, 8:55 AM

It seems kind of degrading for our lads to have to play 3 woeful sides like this

In fairness thats a pretty ignorant point. At the moment we are battling it out with Wales to see who is the worst of the 4 teams. Scotland and N. Ireland are deservadly better than us at the moment

**as_i_say** · 15/04/2008, 12:03 PM

Did the FA in England make any comment on this at all? Too good for the rest of us are they

**Hibernian** · 15/04/2008, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Cymro

Ciaran, honestly, you are literally worth less than the piece of mud I wiped on my 'Welcome' mat as I came in through my front door about an hour ago.

Not only have you managed to insult Scotland, NI and our good selves with that post: but I doubt half the Irish members here would be too pleased either, since you've managed to stick in a nice little dig about the Eircom league too.

I'm neither for nor against this idea at the moment, I don't think it will be a roaring success without England (which pains me to say) but I think it's worth a try, just for one year at least.

Agree with you on those comments in every way

**Cymro** · 16/04/2008, 4:28 PM

I actually thought someone was going to give me grief over those comments because I was very tired and irritated when I posted them and had probably overstepped the mark a bit.

**Supreme feet** · 16/04/2008, 7:45 PM

I've agreed with the idea since it was mentioned. Under Kerr, we won our friendlies against Norway, Australia, Czech Rep, Croatia, Holland and Portugal. We drew with Brazil. Oh, and we beat China and Canada too. What did we learn, and how much did we benefit from these results in the long-term?

International friendlies are mostly a waste of time, but they have to be done for the sake of getting the squad together. I remember under Charlton, we beat Brazil, Holland and Germany in friendlies, but failed to beat Egypt, Norway and Liechtenstein when it mattered. The main aim of friendlies is to get the squad together, work on tactics and set-pieces in training, with the actual match as an afterthought. We might unearth the odd decent player in the process. Maybe.

To those who think we would be better served playing a friendly in Eastern Europe - do you think Georgia are any more clued in about how to approach our match in September after playing Northern Ireland? The opposition hardly ever matters in friendlies. It's like taking a penalty in training and then taking one under pressure in a competitive match - very different psychologically. The same midfield duo - Kilbane and Kavanagh - dominated against Brazil but almost got ripped apart against Cyprus in the following qualifiers. Remember, we beat Russia 2-0 in Lansdowne in 2002, six months before getting hammered 4-2 in Moscow.

At least with the 4-nations concept, it would give some interest, pride and - at the very least - entertainment to the matches - there's nothing like local rivalry in sport.

**stiofain** · 16/04/2008, 8:27 PM

Originally Posted by Supreme feet

I've agreed with the idea since it was mentioned. Under Kerr, we won our friendlies against Norway, Australia, Czech Rep, Croatia, Holland and Portugal. We drew with Brazil. Oh, and we beat China and Canada too. What did we learn, and how much did we benefit from these results in the long-term?

International friendlies are mostly a waste of time, but they have to be done for the sake of getting the squad together. I remember under Charlton, we beat Brazil, Holland and Germany in friendlies, but failed to beat Egypt, Norway and Liechtenstein when it mattered. The main aim of friendlies is to get the squad together, work on tactics and set-pieces in training, with the actual match as an afterthought. We might unearth the odd decent player in the process. Maybe.

To those who think we would be better served playing a friendly in Eastern Europe - do you think Georgia are any more clued in about how to approach our match in September after playing Northern Ireland? The opposition hardly ever matters in friendlies. It's like taking a penalty in training and then taking one under pressure in a competitive match - very different psychologically. The same midfield duo - Kilbane and Kavanagh - dominated against Brazil but almost got ripped apart against Cyprus in the following qualifiers. Remember, we beat Russia 2-0 in Lansdowne in 2002, six months before getting hammered 4-2 in Moscow.

At least with the 4-nations concept, it would give some interest, pride and - at the very least - entertainment to the matches - there's nothing like local rivalry in sport.

Good post

**eirebhoy** · 17/04/2008, 9:43 AM

Originally Posted by Supreme feet

I've agreed with the idea since it was mentioned. Under Kerr, we won our friendlies against Norway, Australia, Czech Rep, Croatia, Holland and Portugal. We drew with Brazil. Oh, and we beat China and Canada too. What did we learn, and how much did we benefit from these results in the long-term?

We had a good system for the most part, just lacked the creativity/players. Would our defence have been so good without having played together so much in friendlies? Doubt it. Anyway, that's more in to do with the importance of friendlies rather than your overall point.

**youngirish** · 17/04/2008, 9:49 AM

Originally Posted by Cymro

I actually thought someone was going to give me grief over those comments because I was very tired and irritated when I posted them and had probably overstepped the mark a bit.

They might have if it had been directed against anyone else other than Ciaran.

**carloz** · 17/04/2008, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Supreme feet

I've agreed with the idea since it was mentioned. Under Kerr, we won our friendlies against Norway, Australia, Czech Rep, Croatia, Holland and Portugal. We drew with Brazil. Oh, and we beat China and Canada too. What did we learn, and how much did we benefit from these results in the long-term?

International friendlies are mostly a waste of time, but they have to be done for the sake of getting the squad together. I remember under Charlton, we beat Brazil, Holland and Germany in friendlies, but failed to beat Egypt, Norway and Liechtenstein when it mattered. The main aim of friendlies is to get the squad together, work on tactics and set-pieces in training, with the actual match as an afterthought. We might unearth the odd decent player in the process. Maybe.

To those who think we would be better served playing a friendly in Eastern Europe - do you think Georgia are any more clued in about how to approach our match in September after playing Northern Ireland? The opposition hardly ever matters in friendlies. It's like taking a penalty in training and then taking one under pressure in a competitive match - very different psychologically. The same midfield duo - Kilbane and Kavanagh - dominated against Brazil but almost got ripped apart against Cyprus in the following qualifiers. Remember, we beat Russia 2-0 in Lansdowne in 2002, six months before getting hammered 4-2 in Moscow.

At least with the 4-nations concept, it would give some interest, pride and - at the very least - entertainment to the matches - there's nothing like local rivalry in sport.

Excellent post. Just one point though, did we not draw with Russia 1-1 six months after the 4-2 defeat in Moscow??

**shaneker** · 17/04/2008, 8:52 PM

Originally Posted by Supreme feet

I've agreed with the idea since it was mentioned. Under Kerr, we won our friendlies against Norway, Australia, Czech Rep, Croatia, Holland and Portugal. We drew with Brazil. Oh, and we beat China and Canada too. What did we learn, and how much did we benefit from these results in the long-term?

International friendlies are mostly a waste of time, but they have to be done for the sake of getting the squad together. I remember under Charlton, we beat Brazil, Holland and Germany in friendlies, but failed to beat Egypt, Norway and Liechtenstein when it mattered. The main aim of friendlies is to get the squad together, work on tactics and set-pieces in training, with the actual match as an afterthought. We might unearth the odd decent player in the process. Maybe.

To those who think we would be better served playing a friendly in Eastern Europe - do you think Georgia are any more clued in about how to approach our match in September after playing Northern Ireland? The opposition hardly ever matters in friendlies. It's like taking a penalty in training and then taking one under pressure in a competitive match - very different psychologically. The same midfield duo - Kilbane and Kavanagh - dominated against Brazil but almost got ripped apart against Cyprus in the following qualifiers. Remember, we beat Russia 2-0 in Lansdowne in 2002, six months before getting hammered 4-2 in Moscow.

At least with the 4-nations concept, it would give some interest, pride and - at the very least - entertainment to the matches - there's nothing like local rivalry in sport.

Agree 100%. Excellent.

**Lionel Ritchie** · 19/04/2008, 10:13 AM

I also think Supreme Feet makes some excellent points ...and I say that as someone who has questioned the merit of this tournament.

One picky thing -yes we "failed to beat Norway when it mattered" but that Norway team streaked through their qualifying group defeating everone in their group and taking four points from both Holland and England. They'll have been every bit as disappointed they couldn't beat an Irish side that had no prolific striker and was dying on it's feet ...more so as a draw was enough for us ultimately.