Swiss -v- Ireland

eirebhoy

Dewey wrote:

Eireboy, why do you think we will lose against France next month?

Cos we just plain and simply don't perform in away competitives. I am quietly confident but I don't want to predict a draw as whenever I get my hopes up they're usually put straight back down with a bang.

The good news is the FAI have raised their allocation in the Stade de France from 8,000 to 17,000 and are trying to get it to 20,000. Thousands would have already booked through travel agents or are making their own way there. Our away fans will no doubt be louder than the French so I hope the players treat it as a home game.

knobbles

eirebhoy wrote:

The good news is the FAI have raised their allocation in the Stade de France from 8,000 to 17,000 and are trying to get it to 20,000.

i'd like to get my hands on one now but would rather avoid tour operators.
any idea if all 17,000 have already been booked by fans/agencys or will it still be possible to get a ticket-only through the FAI with the extra 9,000 issued?
i know a few who have got their tickets through the FFF

says Pre-registrations for this fixture are now closed here: FAI tickets

should be a great atmospehere generated by the irish fans there

thejollyrodger

_______________Played_____Target________Actual_____________Diff

Israel___________2___________3_____________4_______________+1

Ireland__________2___________4_____________4________________0

France__________2___________6_____________4_______________-2

Switzerland______2___________6_____________4_______________-2

Cyprus__________2___________2_____________0_______________-2

Faroe Islands_____2___________4_____________0_______________-4

* BASED on each team winning at home and drawing away with the following expectations. Each team is expected to take three points away to Faroe Islands but gain none on their visit to France.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=94&si=1248404&issue_id=11406

The above clearly shows that the republic got off to a good start. The only country that done better than the were supposed to was Israel, we will need to do the business out there.

redspider

Thats a good table Jollyrodger and paints a better perspective. A group qualifcation like this is always made up of head to heads and there are home and away expectations/targets. Its never the current table that counts as it depends on which teams you have played, etc.

But the table can therefore be made even more accurate by using head to head targets.

Lets say the "Uefa" expectations for this group are:

FR, CH/IE, IL, CY, FA (faroe islands)

For example, FR and IE - in this pairing France are expected to be in no.1 position in the group and lets say Ireland are expected to finish in third spot. The expectation then would be FR v IE (home win), IE v FR (draw).

Similarly, we could look at the IE and CH matches. The expectation is that both of these teams would share the spoils over the two games, so either 2 pts each or 3 pts each. IE have already got an away draw, so we can come out on top of that battle with a home win. So the results so far for Ireland are fine and on target. Matches against CH are 6 pointers!

In terms of the comments someone made about McCarthy suffering from post world cup euphoria etc, a few things need to be rememberd. First, the players were sufferring from the euphoria and went on to under-perform on the pitch. McCarthy was perhaps rewarding loyalty too much and not letting younger players out. But also consider that the Russians scored peaches of goals, ie: goals that were more or less unstoppable (not the last one though which was scored in the last minute). A 3-2 away defeat against Russia considering the way they scored their goals was not too bad a that point and it was just bad luck that Given's save rebounded off Babb(!).

Ireland didnt qualify for euro2004 not due to those 2 games though, players nearly always suffer at the start after a succesful WC, but the key match was the drawn game at Landsdowne against Russia. For that we can lay the blame at Kerr who had Duff up front and the likes of Stephen Reid (not Andy!) who had a nightmare. ie: McCarthy is not solely to blame!

Those 2 pts dropped would have been the difference between going and staying as it would have given us advantage in the last match against the Swiss and taken off a lot of pressure, which ultiamtely cost us that day.

There's a long way to go in this group. I think our target against France should be 2 pts. An away draw would therefore be nice. If we lose there, then we will need a home win against FR.

Its all to play for .... heads up lads.

Pigman II

Ireland didnt qualify for euro2004 not due to those 2 games though

Sorry but your're absolutely wrong there. Ireland were undeniably sunk by those results in particular by the Swiss loss.

I'll let the Moscow loss go because its undeniable that we weren't at the races that day anyway but ,lets say, we had got 1-1 against Swiss at Lansdowne (an entirely possible outcome) and all other results had been as they were then this would have been the table by the time Russia came to Dublin in Sep'03.

Ireland p=6 pts=11
Swiss p=6 pts=10
Russia p=5 pts=7

In this scenarion all Ireland would have to do was draw v Russia (H) and Swiss (A) and we would have guarenteed the play-off spot and whilst Ireland aren't great at winning key games lets not forget that they are probably world champions when it comes to drawing them!

Of course we never had this option because the Swiss loss in '02 meant we were chasing the group before it had even got started and then subsequently (the press in particular) even nonchalantly expecting to win in Basle. So to say the start wasn't entirely to blame for our exist is way off.

You also talk about us beating Russia in Dublin as the key failure but where really is the evidence that (back then - or even today) we could achieve it anyway?

In terms of the comments someone made about McCarthy suffering from post world cup euphoria etc

It's nothing to do with 'Euphoria'. It's to do with tactics. McCarthy successfully used this 'throw everything at em' approach twice in the late stages of games the world cup and finals therefore felt he could do it again v Swiss. Problem is if you keep throwing those dice long enough you're gonna end up with snake eyes. He said himself that he felt we needed to but it turned out we didn't so in hindsight the guy made the wrong choice and it ended up costing him his job.

Kerr proved (to me at least) just two days ago that if he'd been managing back then that he would have definetly settled for the draw and that sometimes is the difference between qualification and a summer sat watching the TV.

Don't get me wrong I liked McCarthy as a manager and IMHO we played nice football under him, but sometimes he just made the wrong choices in games and unfortunately for him they were usually the crunch ones (Croatia (a) '99, Macedonia (a) '99 and Swiss (h) '02).

//

WRT to that Irish Indo 'expectation' table is utter nonsense. Until at least four or five games have been played ball all concerned then it's impossible to tell if the 'form' teams really are just that.

If for example we beat France next month and their campaign completely collapses then what value was Israels 0-0 REALLY worth? Likewise If the Swiss win their next 6 games (including France in Basle) then what might our 1-1 REALLY end up being worth?

Why are France considered as the only team no one expects to get anything from at home? Our own competitive home form (3 losses in 38) over the past 18 years is probably BETTER than Frances so why should anyone of the others be reasonably expecting to come away from Dublin with anything other than defeat? Why in all honesty should Cyprus have expected draws in Dublin/TelAviv? The list of reasons that that table isn't worth the 3 seconds it took to compile (or read) just goes on and on.

thejollyrodger

I think this is getting way out of control. In the begining everyone said, get four points. 6 would be great but 4 is enough. We got that and its time to move on.

We have got france away next, we need a draw there and a win at home against the faros island. France are all over the place at the moment, I expect them to qualify but they will be weak next month. A win may even be possible.
Ireland need to bang in the goals against the faros islands to make up for any goal difference.

It's pretty impossible to say what this group will look like at the end but its one step at a time. The swiss should have won that game at home, they have messed up already, so have the french, were looking the best team in the group results wise

eirebhoy

thejollyrodger wrote:

Ireland need to bang in the goals against the faros islands to make up for any goal difference.

I was thinking today, aren't most groups these days seperated by head to heads rather than goal difference?

StickyMcGinty

yea, but there is a BIG chance that ireland v france v swiss will have the same head to heads, so its not too bad to have a handy goal difference!

smemon

thejollyrodger wrote:

I think this is getting way out of control. In the begining everyone said, get four points. 6 would be great but 4 is enough. We got that and its time to move on.

exactly, typical irish. always saying they want to settle for less and when they get less, they want more.

anyone who says we can get 6 points is laughed and kicked at until they shutup because its 'better to go in as the underdog', thats the attitude most people have, despite knowing dam well we're capable of beating anyone, and should be beating everyone.

im sick of the fake pessimistic view of some irish fans, you'll NEVER get anywhere or win anything with the attitude we have at the minute and continue to have despite being constantly ranked in the top 15/20 in the world.

knobbles

Pigman II wrote:

...lets say, we had got 1-1 against Swiss at Lansdowne (an entirely possible outcome) and all other results had been as they were then this would have been the table by the time Russia came to Dublin in Sep'03.

Ireland p=6 pts=11
Swiss p=6 pts=10
Russia p=5 pts=7

In this scenario...

...we'd entire threads devoted to such topics a year ago and it's very tiring to see it brought up again. First off, you cannot foresee what the results in the groups will be at such an early stage and decide "if we draw at home to the swiss here it'll be ok cause russia are gonna loose to georgia and albania and the swiss will drop 7 points against russia and georgia!"
it's idle talk.

facts are we lost our opening game against main rival russia and at the time a win was essential at home to the swiss in our 2nd game, even more so cause if we didn't beat them they'd be sure to be within touching distance of us going into our last game against them in their territory!
You simply cant sit back and settle for a draw against lower seeded teams.
Ireland(under Mick) had to go for the win,
those tactics of taking left back off for attacking player had to be employed(fuk it, they earned us rewards against germany and spain months earlier),
it back-fired. We still had a chance to save it at home to russia but jsut weren't good enough. Forget tactics, the team wasn't up to it under Mick or Kerr.

On that point, I like Kerr but Ireland have yet to perform well against decent opposition in a competitive game. Georgia and Cyprus at home have been the only convincing performances in 8 outings!
I still live in hope it'll come together and this French game will make my mind up.

knobbles

VinnyL wrote:

yea, but there is a BIG chance that ireland v france v swiss will have the same head to heads, so its not too bad to have a handy goal difference!

...that's a very unlikely scenario, i.e three teams level on points AND head-to-head results...as far as i know it's never happened since the rule was taken on by uefa a few years ago. But ye it could easily happen to two teams, e.g. we draw 1-1 at home to the swiss in 12 months, and finish level on pints, then it's down to goal difference(if france aren't also on same points!).
Not worth calculating but basically not losing away to swiss and french weighs more than hammering the faroes and cyprus!
So far so good.

Pigman II

1) Believe me I don't want to have another thread on 'what might have been' tangents either and yes that it a fair point that subsequent results MIGHT have changed (not to any diff outcome tho IMHO) but at the same time I will not accept the opinion of anyone that says that loss at home v Switzerland didn't completely kill our campaign.

2) Out of curiosity (whatever way results went) why were the Swiss 'sure' to be there-and-there-abouts by the final qualifying game? They had shown no form for the previous 8 or so years and even only won 2 of 6 games that weren't against us in the 2004 group? That's not the form of a team that is 'sure' of anything. In fact if they REALLY were that good then they'd probably have done Russia over as well as ourselves and WE'D have gotten the play-off spot as a result.

3) Fact is we gifted them a soft victory in game 2 and LET them into a group they had no right to be contesting. Fair play to them for doing so but if their 2 in 6 in qualifying didn't show what they were really made of then their appearances in Portugal probably did.

4) Also Ireland don't 'save' groups ... they grind them out. That's the way it's always been and (probably) always will be for any panel we can assemble. Were never gonna go (for example) to Germany and beat them 5-1 so this idea that we 'HAVE to beat Russia' (or whoever) on the 2nd last day never sits well with us and shouldn't really be brought up as an issue for our failure. 3 unsuccessful play-offs should be testiment to our inability to actually win on the big day.

5) Finally, just to point out, even if Russia HAD beaten Georgia/Albania away and we had got 1-1 in game2 it still wouldn't have changed the fact that we'd have got the play-off spot under the scenario I was proposing. Likewise if the Swiss had done the business v Russia/Georgia then we still would have got 2nd.

thejollyrodger

Believe me I don't want to have another thread on 'what might have been' tangents either

Me neither, After the World Cup in Japan, the team were bollocksed. Mick was pressurised, the team was divided, knackered, the media were all over them, Dunphy was doing his show on Today FM which seemed dedicated to the irish football team and was ripping everyone apart. I couldnt see any way of us qualifying for Euro 2004. We needed a new start.

On that point, I like Kerr but Ireland have yet to perform well against decent opposition in a competitive game. Georgia and Cyprus at home have been the only convincing performances in 8 outings!
I still live in hope it'll come together and this French game will make my mind up.

I like Kerr too. I think he is bringing things on a lot. My reaction last wednesday though in Switzerland wasnt good. I was a bit disapointed with the draw and was questioning whether Kerr was a good manager.

I now think thats total rubbish, Kerr is a very good manager if not a great manager. We have never ever thrashed (decent enough) teams away from home and suddendly I was expecting a 3-0 win. We always take the foot off the gas, 3-0 Cyprus an example, 3-0 Saudi Arabia is another example, where the likes of germany would keep going to 7 or 8 nill. We could have easily beaten those 2 teams 5 or 6 nill.

They were well up for us last wednesday, hell bent on a win. A lot of our players looked nervous, even kerr looked very shaken on the telly, I thought the RTE fella was down his neck with a lot of negative questions. Talk about a charged atmosphere.

I think the Ireland side is playing completly different football than were used to. Its all kept on the ground, passing, individual player stuff. At the back it was always kicked long, now the back four are passing it around. Most of our players are quite small and not as physical as before and I cant see them pressurising, tackling teams like we used to. The play is a great deal more open than before, and A LOT of our players are now attacking minded.

The match against France will be a good test but realistically I cant see this team coming together for another while. Its still in flux/transition. There is still the likes of Miller, probably Mc Geady, maybe Elliot ? to come in. I dont know how long Cunnigham has left either, so its not even the final 11.

knobbles

Pigman II wrote:

2) Out of curiosity (whatever way results went) why were the Swiss 'sure' to be there-and-there-abouts by the final qualifying game? They had shown no form for the previous 8 or so years and even only won 2 of 6 games that weren't against us in the 2004 group? That's not the form of a team that is 'sure' of anything. In fact if they REALLY were that good then they'd probably have done Russia over as well as ourselves and WE'D have gotten the play-off spot as a result.

...yeap a mediocre side they had been in recent years, all the more reason not to settle for a draw at home don't ya think?

Pigman II wrote:

1) that it a fair point that subsequent results MIGHT have changed (not to any diff outcome tho IMHO) ....
.... Out of curiosity (whatever way results went) why were the Swiss 'sure' to be there-and-there-abouts by the final qualifying game?

well for one, if we were to take your opinion that results wouldn't have changed in the course of the group they would have been 2 points behind us come d-day in basle and like you presume got their deserved victory...still leaving us in 3rd place.

If you're arguing we should have taken the draw and also believe later results would have been the same than the final group positions would be no different

Pigman II

...yeap a mediocre side they had been in recent years, all the more reason not to settle for a draw at home don't ya think?

No I don't.

Yes, We should have expected to win BEFORE kick off. But as the match developed and with the score fortuitously (for us) tied at 1-1 in the 80th minute we should have settled for the draw.

well for one, if we were to take your opinion that results wouldn't have changed in the course of the group they would have been 2 points behind us come d-day in basle and like you presume got their deserved victory...still leaving us in 3rd place.

We lost that game in Basle in the large part because we were trying for a win and as such letting them play more than we usually would. In my scenario (as you point out) we would have been comfortably ahead of the Swiss on pts and would have had the option to kill the game in order to get that single point we'd have required.

If you're arguing we should have taken the draw and also believe later results would have been the same than the final group positions would be no different

No it wouldn't. 3 wins and 4 draws (Swiss x2 + Russia + Albania) and 1 loss (to Russia in game1) in the way I previously described would have gotten us the play-off spot.

knobbles

Pigman II wrote:

No it wouldn't. 3 wins and 4 draws (Swiss x2 + Russia + Albania) and 1 loss (to Russia in game1) in the way I previously described would have gotten us the play-off spot.

...ah here, so all results in your honest opinion wouldn't have changed except the last game in basle where we would have played different and got the draw...sure we were trailing after 5 minutes. I give up

Pigman II

knobbles wrote:

...ah here, so all results in your honest opinion wouldn't have changed except the last game in basle where we would have played different and got the draw...sure we were trailing after 5 minutes. I give up

Please do.

1) I was using the premise that all other (by other I mean the other 4 teams in our group, not games against us) results would stay the same in order to demonstrate how vital is was not to lose to the Swiss in game2. But, I also demonstrated pretty much whatever way subsequent results went we would still have had our destiny in our own hands if we had drawn v Swiss so that knock-on effect to 'subsequent results' issue is of little relevance IMHO.

2) I've stated from the begining that if we had gone to Basle in Oct '03 with a record of P=7 W=3 D=3 L=1 (and perhaps a 2pt lead over Swiss) that we could have gone for (and probably would have achieved) the neccessary draw. Just because we were a goal down in 5 minutes doesn't automatically prove we would have lost the game no matter which way we had approached it. IMHO it actually highlights that we approached the game in an unrealistic manner.

redspider

The fact of the matter folks is that the games happen in a certain sequence, and you adjust your targets as the groups progresses and depending on how all the other teams do. Its the old cliche, we play each game as it comes. You ant look back on a set of group games with hindsight and say, it was ok to draw such a match because we should have won another match, etc.

I think most of us would agree that if Ireland considered themselves the 2nd place team in this group, above CH, before it started, and were aiming for 2nd place, then the targets would have been something like:

away v RU (target: loss or draw) we got a loss, so 0 or -1 pt
home v CH (win) we lost, so -3 pts
home v RU (win) we drew so -2pts

To me, its touch and go whether the first game against RU could be considered as points dropped, especially in the manner the way the goals were scored - ie: unstoppable.

I agree that the game against CH at home was 3 points dropped. So, 3 pts dropped by McCarthy.

Then, the home game against Russia. Given that we lost in RU, there was only one target - a win. He didnt getthat, we drew. So 2 pts dropped. Even Brian Kerr said it himself as he was dissapointed after the game and remarked that it was 2 pts dropped. He wasn't cursing the points dropped against CH. They had occurred but we still had the position to qualify due to other errors made by the others teams in the group. So, it was 100% in Kerr's hands to qualify and had NOTHING to do with the first two games.

Looking at it from Kerr's point of view, yes he could rue the fact that the team droped 3 pts at home against CH, but equally he would recognise that his team dropped 2 pts against RU.

So, whats the logic of:

McCarthy, dropped 3 pts => sack him
Kerr, dropped 2 pts => hero

Its a fine line.

I agree its an old discussion, and I thought it was discussed to death on this forum. There are different views as to why Ireland didnt qualify for euro2004 but many of those views do not blame it on Mick McCarthy - solely!

Pigman II

redspider wrote:

So, it was 100% in Kerr's hands to qualify and had NOTHING to do with the first two games.

That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it.

That's like saying a league team isn't out of the title race after losing their first 10 games in a row because they can still recover by winning their next 28! Mathematically possible sure but in reality it's never going to happen ... especially if the team in question was never likely to win all those games anyway.

Such a scenario is made even more unrecoverable if there are fewer games, teams involved and points lost to main rivals yet this effectively what Ireland were asked to when Kerr took over!

thejollyrodger

4 points is a good return, but it’s the performance, mentality, players and manager that is the main concern.

I think there are lots of questions to be asked about this Irish side, the Kerr regime and Roy Keane. It still seems like a hang over from the Japanese world cup. I don’t know why RMK wants to play so badly for Ireland, is it because he just wants to be able to show his face in Ireland again? Well I wasn’t impressed with his “leadership” in Basel but he looked good against Bolton. Maybe it’s just that he needs more football. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wants to be the next Ireland manager.

Carr definitely needs to sort himself out. He looks like he was thrown out of Spurs for a similar bad attitude. I wouldn’t start him again in Paris, Finnan should be used at right back, and he is good going forward as well.

Another problem at the back is Cunningham. As someone said he is good at positioning himself but is terrible dealing with the final third in the pitch. We really need to look for a younger defender. Maybe that’s why everyone was so cautious at the back; they were concerned about the lack of pace in the centre of defence.

O Shea looks better this season and has a good attitude; he seems best of the bunch and should start at left back.

Duff did very well on the left side of midfield but obviously he isn’t rated at Chelsea. He should think about moving clubs where he can get regular first team football.

Kilbane should be dropped immediately, for obvious reasons. He doesnt cut it at this level in the center of the park.

Kavanagh or Holland to start. Roy Keane to start alongside him but isn’t a player like he used to be.

Out on the right is a problem, maybe Miller should play there or Finnan and get another right back. Reid is gifted but was way of the tempo of the game in Basel. He is definitely over weight and whether he breaks into the preimership remains to be seen.

Up front Robbie Keane is a good player but a bit of a disappointment. He is loosing out games wise for spurs and would do better if he was playing for another club where he can get regular first team football. He is a couple of paces of the game and his mentality is highly questionable. Wastes a lot of chances and lacks a lot of imagination. He also lacks any communication with midfield. None of the friendlies have done anything to address this.

Clinton did quite well for the two games but he performance against the Swiss shows that he doesn’t have the pace or ability really at this level. I wouldn’t start him unless we were really stuck in Paris. Maybe its time to think about some of the U-21’s. Would Mc Geady or Elliot be up to the task ?

Tactically the Irish team were all over the place. There isn’t much confidence about and didn’t pass the ball around much, neither did they complete a lot of their passes. They have the ability at least to do that so there must be something up. All those friendlies looked like a waste of time because they cant defend properly or go forward as a team.

I can see Kerr getting the boot if ireland doesnt qualify for this World Cup in Germany. Thats pretty hard on him when you consider that this team is still a mess. E.g RMK, Carr doing their own thing. players not up to the standard etc.

It looks to me as though Ireland have lost a lot of their drive and ambition. Most of the players are the average of averages and the drive was what helped us win in the past.

One point is that maybe ireland doesnt have what it takes to qualify each World cup and European championships, we just dont have the players, organization, or money behind us. Like we can only put a good team together every 7 or 8 years. Im not too sure about this but time will obviously tell if they have what it takes to qualify. The swiss are an average team with a few good players but ripped us apart for most of the game. i.e they have a well thought out plan and are tatically very sound.

It maybe just the fact that our whole way of playing football has changed and its a matter of taking time to adjust.

eirebhoy

Me thinks you're going a bit OTT. One bad performance doesn't mean we're in a terrible state.

Also, you have to remember Keane plays a different role for Ireland as he does for United. With Utd he's always partnered with a holding midfielder so isn't restricted to staying back for 90 minutes.

Carr was not shipped off at Spurs, he wanted to leave. At his best he's just as good a defender as Finnan and is certainly better at getting forward. He has 3 assists since Kerr took over which proves just that. He got booked early on against Switzerland because of a sloppy Keane pass so his main priority was staying on the pitch.

Cunningham is, as you say, not the fastest but is still first choice for his organisation and leadership alone. I can't imagine someone like O'Brien leading the line. Also, that was the first goal the Cunningham-O'Brien partnership has conceded in 5 matches.

I don't think Reid had a bad game on Wedensday, he just didn't see much of the ball. Whether he's overweight or not (personally I don't think he is), does it really matter? If he is it doesn't seem to be bothering him as he's super fast and fit. Also, every pundit seems to bring this up so I think Joe would get it sorted if he was overweight.

Keane is one of the few players Santini singles out in almost every interview where players are brought up. He is certainly first choice at Spurs and shouldn't be looking for a move. He started Spurs last match before the internationals and got MOM so he would have been dropped today because of tiredness after starting 2 matches in 4 days after coming back from injury.

Mourinho said today that Duff will start against PSG on Tuesday and was rested yesterday because he was tired. He also said he would be able to fit Duff and Robben in the same team so he does rate Duff.

Morrison has scored 2 goals in 2 matches and doesn't deserve to be dropped until he goes stale again. If we were to play McGeady and Keane up front Duff would be left waiting for people to get into the box before he crosses as none of them are out and out strikers (McGeady isn't even a striker anyway). Elliott can't be risked against France when he has never played with Keane before. I doubt we'll see any debutants in a competitive match under Kerr, he'll bring them into friendlies.

I'm just guessing here but I think you've read too much into that Dion Fanning article as you've completely changed your tune.

thejollyrodger

a few good points there Eireboy. I have been reading a right few papers and my opinion is mixed tbh. Im not too concerned about the points, i think its bang on target nothiing more nothing less. The team though doesnt exactly inspire confidence.

I still think Carr has got some issues, like a attitude problem. He was defintely a better defender than he is now and our options up the right against the swiss were zero. Its hard to pin down him or Reid for the blame but it was very poor.

Robbie was on the bench today so I wondered about Santini and his options.

If chelsea start playing duff well thats a different story but they havent so far !

Clinton did very well and I think he does have potential but he will be lucky to get a free transfer to Division 1, and there is little point in playing someone who isnt fit against the french.

The Muppet

eirebhoy wrote:

He got booked early on against Switzerland because of a sloppy Keane pass so his main priority was staying on the pitch.

Since when is it a bookable offence to recieve a bad pass ?

eirebhoy

The Muppet wrote:

Since when is it a bookable offence to recieve a bad pass ?

I have a sneaky feeling that if I replaced Keane's name with Kilbane you wouldn't have posted that post. You know I am as pro-Keane as you can get but sometimes you have to admit when they have bad games or make mistakes. If you saw the match you'll know there was no need for that question.

The Muppet

eirebhoy wrote:

I have a sneaky feeling that if I replaced Keane's name with Kilbane you wouldn't have posted that post. .

There would be no point as Its only an offence if roy makes the bad pass.

eirebhoy wrote:

You know I am as pro-Keane as you can get but sometimes you have to admit when they have bad games or make mistakes. If you saw the match you'll know there was no need for that question.

I do and i did see the match and agree that because of Keanes bad pass Carr was forced to make a bad tackle. i just couldn,t resist the temtation to make the post. Consider it a temporary lapse in my rehabilitation.

Talking about rehabilitation I believe in the weeks ahead we may have more of the rehabilitated rejoin us.

Bateman

One thing I have to say is that this is no time to be talking about bringing youngsters like McGeady into the full team, especially not France away.

Apart, jollyroger, you are mulling over the relative merits of Carr and Finnan, and then considering "getting another full back". It's all a little arse-about-face, not least because I really think that we are stuck with this bunch of players for this campaign, and they have a better morale than most people looking in from the outside actually think. The players don't go on the lash as much as they used to, and the whole setup is much more professional, and because of this, a little more of a closed-shop, and sometimes this can get to the hacks, who literally just stir **** in response. I personally think Dion Fanning is a complete arse, but that's just my opinion. Most of what he writes is long on interpretation and moodswing and short on fact and rationale.

thejollyrodger

true, there is only a few weeks until france so its a non starter but i was on about next year.

I heard before that the irish set up was all fine and dandy and it wasnt. Things are a bit better but the FAI doesnt grow up that quickly.

I dont know Dion Fanning but some of his articles are stiring the pot. There is going to be some craic on the 10th of october !