Ireland better than the brits?

Chong

I believe that Ireland are now the best team in the british isles, we would easy better England. After seeing what England have to offer tonight, Ireland have got to be better.

thejollyrodger

I wouldnt start jumping to conclusions over meaningless friendlies. They are top of their group, were joint top. They are 7th were 14th. I'd say we could beat them in a one off but they can sting a few victories together in a major tournament. I dont know if we can.

bizmark

There better than us man for man but they dont seem to proform as well as they should

also british isles ? even sky news doesnt use that term anymore in releation to ireland

por

Willem D wrote:

I believe that Ireland are now the best team in the british isles, we would easy better England. After seeing what England have to offer tonight, Ireland have got to be better.

Until they paly each other in a competitive fixture there is no way of saying.

mike65

Thats a bit like saying that Sweden must be better than the Czech republic cos they scored 4 goals tonight rather than 2, well they might be but they might not be. The only way to make a comparison is over time not one friendly (England are always crap at friendlies). Ireland might beat England or they might not. When was the last time ROI qualified for a major championship?

Mike.

Johnny_the_fox

I think its the manager to blame for the poor performance by the english.

Ireland has and will always have a better togetherness... which the english lack.

Chong

Unlikely see them play after what happened landsdowne. We do perform alot better as team unlike England. We have a great keeper , an alright defense and great players in midfield & upfront, we'd easily beat them.

Harry2001

I can count on one finger the times England have preformed under Eriksson in a friendly, we have just got used to these poor and boring internationals with him in charge.

I’ve said if before that England and Ireland games would be very close and probably not that great to watch but no one can say which team is better. Eriksson does get England to perform when it matters though which is all that counts really.

WhiteWashMan

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

Ireland has and will always have a better togetherness... ck.

really?
all the way back to the late 1800's?

where was that togetherness when roy keane left the team on the way to japan? sorry, but i think that is just rubbish

Willem D wrote:

we'd easily beat them.

!!!!!!

where did you pull that one from? england has an excellent keeper, an excellent defence, and excellent midfield, and some of the most gifted forwards about today. i dont see how any team can easily beat them!

and gives a crap about friendlies anyway?

i think england have been further in more tournaments in the last 20 years than ireland have, including a the last 3 or 4 tournaments. i do believe ireland werent even invited to the last one.

until ireland and england play a series of matches in a competative tournament, i dont see how there can be any way to judge which team is better, other than to go by ranking.
i do believe ireland lose that one too...

pickarooney

You must have missed the rule changes where the results are decided in the letters pages of Football365 now. Much fairer system.

_blank_

WhiteWashMan wrote:

and gives a crap about friendlies anyway?

Won't last long here with that attitude!

There is no way to know how Ireland would perform against England, but I would say man for man, they are a better side.

Lets do a quick analysis, on a 4-4-2 of a team that I think would be Ireland's strongest versus England's strongest, feel free to make any changes.

Keeper : Given -v- Robinson - Given comes out on top here.
RB : Carr/Finnan -v- G Neville - Draw with Carr, Neville wins with Finnan
CB : Cunningham -v- Campbell - Have to say Campbell
CB : O'Brien -v- Ferdinand - Ferdinand
LB : JOS? -v- Ashley Cole - Ashley Cole(not that it matters, we have no one better than Cole in this position)
RM : Finnan/Whoever else -v-Beckham - Beckham
CM : Roy Keane -v- Gerrard - Roy Keane
CM : Kilbane -v- Lampard - Lampard
LM : Duffer -v- Bridge - Duffer
ST : Keane -v- Owen - Owen
ST : Morisson / Elliot -v- Rooney - Rooney

England come out on top in a man-for-man judgement of both teams.

Jivin Turkey

WhiteWashMan wrote:

really?
where was that togetherness when roy keane left the team on the way to japan? sorry, but i think that is just rubbish

I think if you think back you will realise it was there taking a team minus one of its only 2 world class players within a whisker of the quarter finals of a world cup on a foreign continent. Who can tell how much further they could have gone if the penos had gone their way?

WhiteWashMan wrote:

where did you pull that one from? england has an excellent keeper, an excellent defence, and excellent midfield, and some of the most gifted forwards about today. i dont see how any team can easily beat them!

Because football matches arent won by drawing up lists of opposing players and seeing who is better man for man. Tonight is a perfect example of how you can have amazing players across the park and still look ordinary as a team. The result doesnt matter because it was only a friendly, but the fact that England were played off the park without the Spaniards even breaking sweat tells a lot. As many people have pointed out, England have a great collection of players but at times thats all they look like, a nice collection.

Having said that I dont think Ireland would "beat them easily" in a competitive game. Id back draws home and away. However its not hard to imagine Ireland turning them over. And things like togetherness and motivation to put one over on them would be huge factors.

eirebhoy

England would come out on top man for man against any team in the world bar 2 or 3. They just don't, and haven't in the last decade, play well as a team. I wouldn't be able to choose between Ireland and England but England do win some games because the opposition give them too much respect and go out with "anything is a bonus" attitude. The only team they actually deserved to beat at Euro 2004 was Croatia. They played badly against France, Switzerland and Portugal.

The majority of the blame has to go to Sven though as any decent manager would have them playing properly. They have 4 of the best defenders in the world yet they're conceding left right and centre. Ireland has a 33 year old in Cunningham, Andy O'Brien and John O'Shea and we have kept 8 clean sheets in 11 games. Kerr would sort them out.

astrofool

eriksson always messes with the england team for friendlies, and they always lose, and the english tabloids always call for his head, until he wins the next qualifying match. They lost to Australia fs !

eirebhoy

astrofool wrote:

eriksson always messes with the england team for friendlies, and they always lose, and the english tabloids always call for his head, until he wins the next qualifying match. They lost to Australia fs !

But its not as if they have the hardest of qualifiers. Turkey was the only top 20 team they've played in a qualifier since Germany 2001. They were terrible at Euro 2004. Sven should have been gone long ago.

therecklessone

seansouth wrote:

Won't last long here with that attitude!

WhiteWashMan
Join Date: Feb 1998
Posts: 9,567

Methinks he's lasted long enough already, don't you?

jesus_thats_gre

haha this is such a bull**** thread..

Villain

When did they last beat us?? Actually if anyone has some stats maybe put up the last 10 results between the two teams.

WhiteWashMan

and what will that prove?

that one team was better in the past?

like i said, the only way you will ever know is to have a continous series of matches betweenthe two. like the 6 nations in rugby. i think we can all safely say that england have dominated that for the last few years. one bad season doesnt mean they arent still the best.
and a couple of bad friendlies for the soccer team dont mean much either.

Won't last long here with that attitude!

hA!
newbie!

por

Willem D wrote:

Unlikely see them play after what happened landsdowne. We do perform alot better as team unlike England. We have a great keeper , an alright defense and great players in midfield & upfront, we'd easily beat them.

They could be drawn against each other in the next EC or WC qualifiers. After those 2 games we could have a better idea.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is a nonsense to say that the ROI are better than England and it is also nonsense to say that England have a world class team.

Anyway, who really cares?... the media in England will always think they have a world class team when it comes to tournaments.

Villain

I think IMO the Rep of Ireland could beat any team in their worldn't on any given day, I would argue that we are better on paper than the English but I certainly would argue that we could beat them.

Edited because once again I rushed the post and left out the "n't" :rolleyes:

WhiteWashMan

irish1 wrote:

I think IMO the Rep of Ireland could beat any team in their world on any given day, I would argue that we are better on paper than the English but I certainly would argue that we could beat them.

i saw them play brilliantly against france and didnt win
i saw them play brilliantly against the faroes, and only score 2 goals.

england have a clearly better choice of players on paper. seriously, clinton morrison?

as for any given day, well thats what football is all about isnt it.
the magic of the cup. its about smaller teams beating larger teams.
any team can beat any other team on any given day.

i just dont think ireland could do it consistantly. i still remember the embarassment that was 0-0 with lichtenstein. any of you remember that one?
going out to turkey in a the play offs?
going out to belgium in the play offs?

hardly world class teams, and teams that we should beat on paper, wouldnt you think?

Villain

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i saw them play brilliantly against france and didnt win
i saw them play brilliantly against the faroes, and only score 2 goals.

england have a clearly better choice of players on paper. seriously, clinton morrison?

as for any given day, well thats what football is all about isnt it.
the magic of the cup. its about smaller teams beating larger teams.
any team can beat any other team on any given day.

i just dont think ireland could do it consistantly. i still remember the embarassment that was 0-0 with lichtenstein. any of you remember that one?
going out to turkey in a the play offs?
going out to belgium in the play offs?

hardly world class teams, and teams that we should beat on paper, wouldnt you think?

We didn't play that well against France we should have scored, we also drew will Brazil. Ireland raise there game when they play rivals and big games, we all know of the big losses we had, but every team has those, including England did you see them last night!

It's impossible to say which team would won for sure, but I certainly know WWM that I'd rather have 11 Clinton Morrisons playing who wanted to play and gave 110% than have 11 Superstars who can't play together and only give 50% effort.

thejollyrodger

Ireland can of course raise its game. The problem is that we dont really finish other teams off. We're very good. Probably one of the better Irish teams (in terms of footballing ability) in a while but that still doesnt translate to results. We end up with a savage amount of draws.

i just dont think ireland could do it consistantly. i still remember the embarassment that was 0-0 with lichtenstein. any of you remember that one?
going out to turkey in a the play offs?
going out to belgium in the play offs?

I wouldnt pay too much attention to that, back then there was no such thing as proper planning. I wouldnt be surprised if they were out drinking the night before and soccer was still not very well developed.

I'd say by this time next year a better comparision of how England and Ireland could be made. We will have played all our competitve matches and thats the ones that count. Not meaningless friendlies.

Personally I think anything less than topping the group would be a diaster. France are on the ropes and were the 2nd best team in the group. You cant ask for any more gifted chances than that.

**about the british isles. That term was coined in the turn of the 20th century FFS. Things have moved on if your havent noticed and I dont like being lumped in with the U.K. Its the British and Irish Isles

RuggieBear

bizmark wrote:

also british isles ? even sky news doesnt use that term anymore in releation to ireland

Tis a geographical term....we are part of the British Isles....much like the IRISH Sea is a geographical term.....:)

Moving swiftly on....

England have much better players than us yet they never seem to have the heart or make as much of their talents as the Irish. Not since Euro 96 has an england team had real passion....not really sure why. Perhaps beause the English players are already playing for big clubs an on big contracts...while a lot of the irish players are in lower divisions and possibly view international football as a window of opportunity, to highlight their talents to a wider audience and maybe get picked up by a bigger club with better finacial rewards...i dunno, maybe i'm talking crap!

eirebhoy

WhiteWashMan wrote:

ii just dont think ireland could do it consistantly. i still remember the embarassment that was 0-0 with lichtenstein.

I think we (under Kerr) would actually be a lot more consistent than England (under Sven). Leictenstein was a long time ago.

BTW, does anyone not think that Enlgands poor record in friendlies could be down to stronger opposition? They were completely outclassed by Japan just before Euro 2004 and believe me, they put in as much as they could. English players can't afford to slack in friendlies as there's always someone just as good waiting to come in.

cournioni

England are the only top seed in their group, which is why they have an easier group to get out of than Ireland. France are tough opponents and Switzerland really shouldn't be 3rd seeds.

I personally think that Ireland would beat England 2 times out of 3. There is something about England that is really lacking.

You're right eirebhoy Ireland have been more consistant since Kerr was appointed.

Jivin Turkey

PORNAPSTER wrote:

England are the only top seed in their group, which is why they have an easier group to get out of than Ireland. France are tough opponents and Switzerland really shouldn't be 3rd seeds.

This debate has gone on many times before.

Do you not think there is a reason that England are top seeds? And that Ireland are second seeds? And that Switzerland are third seeds?

cournioni

No. I believe the whole seeding thing is a joke. As is the world rankings.

por

PORNAPSTER wrote:

England are the only top seed in their group, which is why they have an easier group to get out of than Ireland.

Ireland were top seeds in their group in the Euro 2004 qualification and look at the balls we made of that

cournioni

por wrote:

Ireland were top seeds in their group in the Euro 2004 qualification and look at the balls we made of that

True. But we are talking about the present. I think Ireland are more consistant than England are now, in all fairness. On paper, England probably shade it but the two teams are fairly evenly matched. With all the media coverage in England, they make the English players out to be better than they are anyway.

Jivin Turkey

PORNAPSTER wrote:

True. But we are talking about the present. I think Ireland are more consistant than England are now, in all fairness. On paper, England probably shade it but the two teams are fairly evenly matched. With all the media coverage in England, they make the English players out to be better than they are anyway.

Ireland are more consistent? Based on the fact they have qualified for 1 major tournament in the last 10 years and are by no means certain to qualify this time around? As opposed to England who have qualified for all 4 and are in a far better position to qualify for the WC than us despite their "inconsistencies"?

BaZmO*

Just on the subject of England playing sh1te the other night. Did any of the players really have to prove anything to the manager to get their game in the next competitive match??

Robinson, Neville, Ferdinand, Cole, Beckham, Lampard, Rooney, Owen and maybe Bridge are all guaranteed their starting place if fit. And with regards to Terry and Butt, Campbell is ahead of Terry in the pecking order and Gerrard is ahead of Butt. So I feel that the whole squad was just going through the motions.

Also, I reckon the main reason why Rooney ended up going a bit postal on the pitch was due to the fact that he just wasn’t getting the service due to the rest of the team under performing, so he ended up getting frustrated. Not really a good enough reason to throw your toys out of your pram but if the rest of the squad played with half the passion he showed they’d be a better team imo.

I said it loads of times before but Sven needs to go, he just can’t get it together with the English squad.
Am I right assuming though, that the reason why the FA won’t get rid of him is due to the amount of compensation they’d have to pay him???


B.

Harry2001

PORNAPSTER wrote:

True. But we are talking about the present. I think Ireland are more consistant than England are now, in all fairness. On paper, England probably shade it but the two teams are fairly evenly matched. With all the media coverage in England, they make the English players out to be better than they are anyway.

England are more consistant in competitive games over the last few years, the rankings although a load of pish show that, 2 defeats in 27 competitive internationals is a very good record for any team.

It pisses me off that Eriksson does not care about friendlies and would probably not play them at all but for the cash they bring into the FA's coffers, hopefully the next boss will use them to the teams advantage, it's a familar pattern lately crap in friendlies but they do the business in most competitive games.

The Rooster

We usually raise our game when playing England, more than they do, as it means more to us.

Plus if, like on Wednesday, England were without Gerrard, and Rooney forgot to bring his brain, and we were at full strength, then we'd definitely beat them.

England and Ireland are the best two teams on the two islands by a mile. The Scots are the worst. Norn Iron are pushing Wales very close for third.

Pigman II

Who cares? I honestly get the impression that if there was a poll held here entitled 'which would prefer' with the options 'Ireland winning the World Cup' or 'beating England in a friendly' the latter option would probably just about sneak it. :rolleyes:

If you want to stick your heads in the clouds for a while then why not hope to emulate the achievements of Brazil or Germany or France or Holland ... or even Denmark or Greece!

Don't let is be said that the be all and end all of our ambition is to match a so-called world-power whose net achiemvent in international football over the last 54 years (outside of their own backyard) has been one semi-final appearance 14 years ago.

A Dub in Glasgo

Pigman II wrote:

Who cares? I honestly get the impression that if there was a poll held here entitled 'which would prefer' with the options 'Ireland winning the World Cup' or 'beating England in a friendly' the latter option would probably just about sneak it. :rolleyes:

.

Got to agree with your first question although I very much doubt a poll would go that way. I see England football team as an irrelevance when discussing the Ireland football team or in general football matters.

eirebhoy

Willem D's sig wrote:

I'll rep u if u rep me! Good karma that is.

Getting desperate are we? You do know that when someone has an overall red rep the rep they give doesn't count?