The Irish Team's approach to football (read the OP!!)

gosplan

Right, the constant arguing about whether Trappatoni's approach is correct or not inspired me to create this poll.

I would rather this thread went in the direction of a comparison between the pool of Irish-eligible players and those of our many European counterparts.

I say Irish-eligible players because I don't want another 'if only Trapp picked A.Reid' thread. That's been done and done again. So please, this is about the ability of Irish footballers as a group, not selection matters.

My own feeling is that we don't have the midfield or technically gifted players we did in say 2002, when we could really play football and that pragmatism is the best choice for now.

Xavi6

gosplan wrote: »

My own feeling is that we don't have the midfield or technically gifted players we did in say 2002, when we could really play football and that pragmatism is the best choice for now.

What technically gifted players did we have in 2002 that we don't have now?

If anything we have more now with McGeady in the squad.

Peyton Manning

Xavi6 wrote: »

What technically gifted players did we have in 2002 that we don't have now?

Gary Doherty

dreamers75

2002 we had a manager who coached the team to play football. Best irish team ever.


Now we dont have that kind of coach doesnt mean we cant play football he just chooses not too.

MementoMori

Overall I'm fearful that Trapattoni's system will be exposed in the play-off, where the ultra-defensive style and lack of creativity are going to hamper us in actually winning a game as opposed to not losing.

Even if we do manage to eek out a win and qualify I would be fearful that at the World Cup we would ultimately be exposed and perhaps even humiliated.
The difference between qualifying and tournament play is that in a tournament you have to actually win games which I think long-term will be hampered by Trapattoni's approach. At least if we were approaching the games in a somewhat positive manner we would have some excuse if we got hockeyed 3-0 (a la the Austrailian friendly). Is there anyone who would expect the current side to progress out of the group stages at the World Cup playing the current system? While there might only be a small chance of us progressing if we adopt a more positive approach I think it would improve out chances significantly.

I know that Greece are the exception with their Euro 2004 win but the chances of an ultra-defensive team repeating such a victory are pretty remote especially when you consider that we have a glaring lack of depth in the squad in terms of our defensive players. One would shudder to think what the back four would look like if both John O'Shea and Dunne picked up an injury at the same time.

While we're never going to be playing Barcelona/Durch total style football, I think we are ultimately hampering ourselves with out current approach.

gosplan

Xavi6 wrote: »

What technically gifted players did we have in 2002 that we don't have now?

If anything we have more now with McGeady in the squad.

Nope.

Matt Holland was going through the best form of his life with Charlton in the premiership.

Duff as good as he ever was - today's version doesn't compare.

Finnan & Roy Keane in PFA team of the year for 2002. Carr in the 2001 team.

We were worse in central defence, no doubt but McGeady replacing Kilbane on the wing is the only offensive change you'd make.


Anyway, this is all a bit off topic. I made the rookie boards mistake of putting something that could be debated in my OP but I'd rather you answered the poll question.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I would agree.However I don't think the squad was great last time. Roy Keane was the big difference.

Xavi6

gosplan wrote: »

I made the rookie boards mistake of putting something that could be debated in my OP but I'd rather you answered the poll question.

Well your title does say to read the OP

I agree 100% with MomentoMori. The Greeks were a once off. If we actually have to go out and win a game like the playoffs the current system doesn't really allow for that.

We have 5 draws in the group. The says to me that while we won't concede many, we also lack the ability to go that extra mile and turn one point into three. This could be our undoing in the playoffs.

noodler

Xavi6 wrote: »

Well your title does say to read the OP

I agree 100% with MomentoMori. The Greeks were a once off. If we actually have to go out and win a game like the playoffs the current system doesn't really allow for that.

We have 5 draws in the group. The says to me that while we won't concede many, we also lack the ability to go that extra mile and turn one point into three. This could be our undoing in the playoffs.

Could not agree more with MM and Xavi. Trap`s unbalanced system (and a huge slice of luck) may have gotten us there but there is zero confidence in actually beating a team there over two legs.

Ceding possession to Cyprus and Bulgaria for 80 minutes is one thing but our play-off opponents will wear us down very quickly.

kryogen

dreamers75 wrote: »

2002 we had a manager who coached the team to play football. Best irish team ever.


Now we dont have that kind of coach doesnt mean we cant play football he just chooses not too.

the 2002 irish team really was not the best irish team ever in farness, maybe your memory is too short i guess

Trap is not going to change his style and while its getting him results he cant really be taken apart for it. im not a fan of the system, im really not a fan of Keith Andrews, i actually dont know what he does on the pitch, but i dont think there is a whole lot of technical talent in the irish squad at the moment and i would be of the opinion that if we were to try a total football approach we would be embarassed on a regular basis

our inability to impose ourselves on a game will more then likely be our undoing in the playoffs

Diggy78

Xavi6 wrote: »

Well your title does say to read the OP

I agree 100% with MomentoMori. The Greeks were a once off. If we actually have to go out and win a game like the playoffs the current system doesn't really allow for that.

We have 5 draws in the group. The says to me that while we won't concede many, we also lack the ability to go that extra mile and turn one point into three. This could be our undoing in the playoffs.

I for one hope we actually do start playing a little more like the Greeks. I recall them playing similar football to us last night but they kept clean sheets. I agree that the Greeks were a one off but if we try to open up too much we'll be absolutely slaughtered. I mean, we were caught on the counter attack when a goal up with minutes to go (how does that happen btw), what would it be like if we didn't play the 2 holding midfielders.
Greece got a lot of their success from set pieces iirc, would this not suit us best? Both goal's last night, Dunne's goals against Bulgaria, Keane's goals against Georgia, Doyle's in Cyprus (think it came from a free). Possibly more than that but can't quite recall.
I see our main problem as not being able to hold opposition out rather than struggling to score. We've scored in almost every game bar the away match with Montenegro, and have conceded in all bar 2, which is the problem really??

orourkeda

Xavi6 wrote: »

What technically gifted players did we have in 2002 that we don't have now?

If anything we have more now with McGeady in the squad.

Gary Breen

orourkeda

noodler wrote: »

Could not agree more with MM and Xavi. Trap`s unbalanced system (and a huge slice of luck) may have gotten us there but there is zero confidence in actually beating a team there over two legs.

Ceding possession to Cyprus and Bulgaria for 80 minutes is one thing but our play-off opponents will wear us down very quickly.

No they wont wear us down very quickly.

Italy didnt grind us down very quickly. (World Champion)

chopperbyrne

Greece 2004 style for me.

I'll happily watch an Irish team get one goal and frustrate the opposition by being very organised and keeping possession for the vast majority of the match.

Our players should be well capable of doing this and then having quick counter attacks when the other team inevitably makes a mistake.

Mikeyt086

I would rather be Stoke than West Brom.

Ugly success over Pretty failure everyday.

Jam-Fly

Out of interest, does anyone think Trap has a long term plan? Like, I'm not sure what to call it, but the thought hit me last night. Basically, for months and months and months of not picking players like Andy Reid, Trap then picked Liam Lawrence. Then, first chance for Lawrence to do what he was brought in to do (the free kick), and we completely fool Italy and Glen Whelan scores. Like, to be fair, we actually have achieved the results we needed without the likes of Andy Reid starting. Does anyone else think Trap hasn't played Reid because we haven't needed him yet, but if the time calls, and we need to score/win against a strong team, Trap is ready and prepared to call upon the services of other players and go out and play to win the match by out-scoring the team?

Chucky the tree

Xavi6 wrote: »

What technically gifted players did we have in 2002 that we don't have now?

If anything we have more now with McGeady in the squad.

Seriously?

Here's the 11 players that played against Holland in 2001. Based on the teams they played for finishing positions in the 200-2001 premiership season.

1. Shay given - 11th Premier league
2. Gary Kelly - 4th premiership
3. Ian Harte - 4th premiership
4. Richard Dunne - Relegated championship
5. Stephen Staunton - 8th premiership
6. Roy Keane - 1st premiership
7. Matt holland - 5 premiership
8. Jason Macateer - 7th premiership
9. Robbie Keane - 4th premiership
10 Damien Duff - 2nd in the championship
11. Kevin Kilbane - 7th premiership team


Now lets look at last night team. Based on 2008-2009

1. Shay given - 10th Premiership
2. John O'shea - 1st premiership
3. kevin Kilbane - 11th premiership
4. Sean St. Ledger - Playoffs championship
5. richard dunne - 10th premiership
6. glenn whelan - 12th premiership
7. Liam Lawerence - 12th premiership
8. Keith Andrews - 15th premiership
9. Robbie Keane - 8th premiership
10. Kevin Doyle - Play-offs championship
11. Aidan Mcgeady - 2nd SPL


7 players in teams that finished in the top half of the premier league compared to 2 and half(Aidan Mcgeady) is a huge difference.

stovelid

It should be obvious that you opt for the game most suited to your technical resources.

Also think that Greece 2004 was a once-off. I think that a limited, country grinding their way to an international trophy will not happen again in many lifetimes.

And even it was a semi-possibility, the format would probably be re-jigged to mitigate it.

dsmythy

So is the plan for the playoffs to get two draws and see what happens?

Pro. F

Great choice of example teams for the pole and i agree with you about avoiding the player selection arguments.

First of all, i think any concern about entertainment value should be forgotten about here. The Irish national team has obviously always had a very limited resource of players to call upon, with the exception of a very few golden generations. And we don't have a tradition of playing any one particular style of football. Probably the only tradition we have is of good honest hard work and bravery from our players and that benefits any football style. So assuming we want to win the World Cup, whether we are entertaining or not becomes irrelevant imho. We should chose whichever style best suits our players.


Personally, I believe that the most effective style of football is possession football. This doesn't mean recklessly attacking football, just trying to hold onto possession when you have it. It doesn't compromise the defence, in fact it improves defence since the opposition has to win the ball first before they can try to attack, and it gives the best platform for creating chances.

However i do think that if you have extremely limited players that defensive football (ie where you don't try to hold onto the ball and only attack on the counter and are more reliant on set pieces) may be the only option. Greece have shown what it can achieve if the luck goes your way. But that's it, defensive football is massively reliant on luck.

So, are the players available to us so bad that we need to turn to defensive football and then largely rely on luck to win games?

In every positon except centre mid i believe we have good enough players to play possession football.


Central midfield is the problem. Andrews, Whealan, Gibson - are all extremely limited players and will never be able to hold onto possession no matter what the style of football the team tries to play (people who use the first Italy game to argue against this are using an example that is, imo, obviously invalid).

Carsley is the same although maybe a little better defensively.

McCann and Fahey are harder to judge as i've seen less of them. Both seem useful but i'd be doubtful that their ability and experience would be good enough to improve upon what we already have by much. The likes of Rowlands and McCarthy i've seen even less of so i don't honestly know for sure but on balance i think they're not likely to help that much.


A. Reid playing wide wouldn't help us hold onto the ball any better when we're under pressure. Is he fit enough and defensively sound enough to play in the centre? I don't know, he should have been given a chance to show if he is or not in a friendly imo. I'll say for the sake of argument that he isn't.

S. Reid is good enough on the ball to help us play possession football imo. So that's one, frequently injured, central midfielder who has the technical ability to play possession football. To me it looks like we don't have an option while S Reid is injured. If/when he's back playing then i would want us to be holding onto the ball more. Until then i'm happy enough that we aim to do our own version of what Greece did in the EC.

noodler

Pro. F wrote: »

Great choice of example teams for the pole and i agree with you about avoiding the player selection arguments.

First of all, i think any concern about entertainment value should be forgotten about here. The Irish national team has obviously always had a very limited resource of players to call upon, with the exception of a very few golden generations. And we don't have a tradition of playing any one particular style of football. Probably the only tradition we have is of good honest hard work and bravery from our players and that benefits any football style. So assuming we want to win the World Cup, whether we are entertaining or not becomes irrelevant imho. We should chose whichever style best suits our players.


Personally, I believe that the most effective style of football is possession football. This doesn't mean recklessly attacking football, just trying to hold onto possession when you have it. It doesn't compromise the defence, in fact it improves defence since the opposition has to win the ball first before they can try to attack, and it gives the best platform for creating chances.

However i do think that if you have extremely limited players that defensive football (ie where you don't try to hold onto the ball and only attack on the counter and are more reliant on set pieces) may be the only option. Greece have shown what it can achieve if the luck goes your way. But that's it, defensive football is massively reliant on luck.

So, are the players available to us so bad that we need to turn to defensive football and then largely rely on luck to win games?

In every positon except centre mid i believe we have good enough players to play possession football.

...more to come copy and pasting on my phone...

Even without Ireland and Reid theres still more progressive steps Trap could take.

leninbenjamin

Xavi6 wrote: »

We have 5 draws in the group. The says to me that while we won't concede many, we also lack the ability to go that extra mile and turn one point into three. This could be our undoing in the playoffs.

you've got it arseways. Our problem hasn't been scoring goals, we've been exceptionally good from set pieces in this regard. Our problem has been players falling asleep and not adhering to Trapp's strict defensive lines.

Think about it, we'd be 4 points up if Kilbane hadn't fallen asleep and got pulled out position to let his man in behind him.

We'd be another 2 points up if someone marked Cameronesi last night, or if Ledger and Dunne hadn't fallen asleep to let Gilardinho through.

It's sloppy defending that's cost us 3 wins. Those 3 wins would have us 1st place going into the final game, and possibly even automatic qualification secured.

When you think about, last night, not only did Ireland make Italy look vulnerable from set pieces, we also made them look very vulnerable on the wings for periods. Even though this Italy team aren't great, that still doesn't happen often.

By the way lads, Greece's winning system was a 5-4-1. They relied more on having a free man in defence, than Trapps strict defensive lines. Even though they are both defensive, they are quite different systems and we have a much more established line of attack through our wingers than the Greek's ever had. The only real similarity between Greece and ourselves on the pitch is an over reliance on set pieces.

But sure it's good to have a whinge and ignore the facts!

Pro. F

noodler wrote: »

Even without Ireland and Reid theres still more progressive steps Trap could take.

I didn't mention s ireland for obvious reasons.

Anyway what are the steps that Trap could take?

Pro. F

leninbenjamin wrote: »

By the way lads, Greece's winning system was a 5-4-1. They relied more on having a free man in defence, than Trapps strict defensive lines. Even though they are both defensive, they are quite different systems and we have a much more established line of attack through our wingers than the Greek's ever had. The only real similarity between Greece and ourselves on the pitch is an over reliance on set pieces.

But sure it's good to have a whinge and ignore the facts!

The tactics are different but the strategy is the same.

leninbenjamin

Pro. F wrote: »

The tactics are different but the strategy is the same.

if that's the case you can also say the strategy of an attacking team and a defensive team are the same i.e. win games.

the greeks pressed off the ball and relied on numbers to dispel attacks. We sit back and rely on strict defensive lines to ensure we're not caught out. Both can be thought of containment to a degree, but they are still very different ways of playing football...

edit: secondly, we're actually a much more attacking side than the Greeks. We typically line out with 4 attacking players, 2 out and out wingers and 2 forwards. The Greeks never had more than one tbh.

PCPhoto

dsmythy wrote: »

So is the plan for the playoffs to get two draws and see what happens?

ssshhhhh .... our opponents might be reading this thread :P

seriously though..... wasnt that the plan for all our playoff games in the past ...defend, try not to concede , hopefully get a goal....or see how we get on with penalties

orourkeda

Mikeyt086 wrote: »

I would rather be Stoke than West Brom.

Ugly success over Pretty failure everyday.

Indeed. Its pragmatism all the way for me.

Pro. F

leninbenjamin wrote: »

if that's the case you can also say the strategy of an attacking team and a defensive team are the same i.e. win games.

Trying to win games is not a strategy. Trying to win games (or get the result you need) is the fundamental aim of football. You don't have a choice about that, you have to aim to do that.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

the greeks pressed off the ball and relied on numbers to dispel attacks. We sit back and rely on strict defensive lines to ensure we're not caught out. Both can be thought of containment to a degree, but they are still very different ways of playing football...

The way you do things - how you defend, which players attack, etc. - are tactics. The why you do things - prioritiese creating lots of goal scoring opportunities, prioritiese preventing the opposition from creating chances - is the strategy.

The Greeks played very differently from this irish team in terms of on the pitch tactics but in terms of their overall defensive strategy the two teams are very similar.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

edit: secondly, we're actually a much more attacking side than the Greeks. We typically line out with 4 attacking players, 2 out and out wingers and 2 forwards. The Greeks never had more than one tbh.

You say that this irish team is more attacking than the Greeks but that is misleading. To say that this irish team is anything other than purely defensive is untrue. The fact that we have 4 supposedly attacking players on the pitch does not define how we play. The fact that we fall back deep and do not try and create more chances once we've scored is more indicative of how defensive the team actually is.

PHB

Does nobody remember Staunton?

Last night was the best I've seen Ireland play in about 2 years, it was an italian style, but I wouldn't necessarily call it defensive. We played well as a team, and we put them under pressure. We came within 2 minutes of beating the world champions, and deservedly beating them. We also drew with them in Italy.

In the last qualification campaign, we lost to Cyprus.

We have come a massive way. It's been a very dull campaign, but Trap's been building a team up, and now it seems like it's coming together.

If Ireland played the way they did for the next 2 years as they did last night, I'd be incredibly happy to watch them and support Trap's decisions.

leninbenjamin

Pro. F wrote: »

You say that this irish team is more attacking than the Greeks but that is misleading. To say that this irish team is anything other than purely defensive is untrue.

But it is true. Look at the first 10 minutes of last night's match. It was a perfect balance between attack and defence, exactly how Trapp's system should be played. Our two defensive midfielders shielded the defence and made life difficult for Pirlo, then they distributed the ball well to Lawrence and McGeady who focused on getting in behind the Italian full backs, and Keane and Doyle played off the shoulder to try and get on the end of a cross.

What makes us look more defensive than we are is the likes of Andrews and Whelan misplacing a pass and all of sudden we're on the backfoot again. Or Given, Dunne and Ledger hoofing the ball long up to the forwards. These are failures of individuals and not Trappa's system. You can be sure he doesn't want to see us pissing the ball away like that. Everytime it happens he goes nuts on the sidelines btw.

Pro. F wrote: »

The fact that we have 4 supposedly attacking players on the pitch does not define how we play. The fact that we fall back deep and do not try and create more chances once we've scored is more indicative of how defensive the team actually is.

I'd argue us falling back has nothing to do with Trapps system. This has been a problem with the Irish mentality of the past 15 years or so. Under Kerr, Staunton, McCarthy it was always the same, no matter how the system was laid out, once we got a lead we got jittery and lost our composure.

Watch the first 10 minutes again. It was about nice neat short passes, and playing the ball wide to spread the opposition defence. That's how Trapp set us out to play. It's all about balance between defence and attack.

noodler

Sorry to see Stan's era has lowered the bar for so many.

The Irish team doesn't have to give the ball way for most of a game.

Look at "lowly" Cyprus.

thebaz

I for one would be happy and proud for Ireland to attempt to play football (West Brom ) , rather than the rubbish on offer under Trap (Stoke) ... even if we qualify for the finals our midfield or lack of, will be totally exposed , especially in the heat

Pro. F

leninbenjamin wrote: »

But it is true. Look at the first 10 minutes of last night's match. It was a perfect balance between attack and defence, exactly how Trapp's system should be played. Our two defensive midfielders shielded the defence and made life difficult for Pirlo, then they distributed the ball well to Lawrence and McGeady who focused on getting in behind the Italian full backs, and Keane and Doyle played off the shoulder to try and get on the end of a cross.

What makes us look more defensive than we are is the likes of Andrews and Whelan misplacing a pass and all of sudden we're on the backfoot again. Or Given, Dunne and Ledger hoofing the ball long up to the forwards. These are failures of individuals and not Trappa's system. You can be sure he doesn't want to see us pissing the ball away like that. Everytime it happens he goes nuts on the sidelines btw.

I'd argue us falling back has nothing to do with Trapps system. This has been a problem with the Irish mentality of the past 15 years or so. Under Kerr, Staunton, McCarthy it was always the same, no matter how the system was laid out, once we got a lead we got jittery and lost our composure.

Watch the first 10 minutes again. It was about nice neat short passes, and playing the ball wide to spread the opposition defence. That's how Trapp set us out to play. It's all about balance between defence and attack.

aw fùck this is tedious. I can't believe that i've got into an argument with somebody who is actually trying to say Trap isn't a defensive manager and that Ireland aren't playing defensive football these days. This is ridiculous.

So ireland played more attacking for the first ten minutes last night? Yes that is true, they did. It was still attacking with limited numbers, nothing special when you consider that the Italians had such a slow start. The lads tried to take advantage of the Italian's sluggishness and get at them. They succeeded and scored a goal and then started to fall back and give the ball away easily. As the game wore on they did this more and more. That sounds like a defensive team to me. And that's just looking at one game since Trap has taken over. Go and look at the entire campaign, to say that we haven't been playing with a resolutely defensive metality is ridiculous.

You could argue that it's all the players fault and that Trap actually wants them to play like they did in the first ten minutes last night all the time. But that would be to forget that Trap is one of the most defensive managers in the modern era. Possibly up there as one of the most famously defensive managers of all time. This is the manager who's mantra is that performances are not important only results are important. This is the manager who has constantly said throughout this campaign said that it is good to win but the most important thing and the first thing we should concern ourselves with is not to lose. The fact that his team does not hold onto the ball well and tends to sit on a lead is hardly a coincidence.

I'm not saying that Trap wants the team to give the ball away. But holding onto possession is not his primary concern. His primary concern is defending what we have.

leninbenjamin

Pro. F wrote: »

aw fùck this is tedious. I can't believe that i've got into an argument with somebody who is actually trying to say Trap isn't a defensive manager and that Ireland aren't playing defensive football these days. This is ridiculous.

tbh, i could get into and argument with you and debate every single point, but clearly we're not going to agree on anything. I'll just close with the following:

All i'm saying really, is that Trappa's system is based on sound footballing principles. It works stunningly well when our team doesn't fall back on old habits. Yes, he's prioritises defence, but that's not to say he's a fully defensive coach. He works a lot harder on defining clear attacking options than the likes of Allardyce or Otto Rheagal(sp?). For example: Trappa has placed a lot emphasis on our wingers despite the fact they are so lightweight. Yet people seem to think the football was worse than McCarthy who played Kilbane on the wing instead of Duff?!? Also, one of the articles in the Times today mention how much license he gives Keane and how Keane plays off the shoulder a lot more than under Redknapp. I guess you could use that overused word 'misunderstood' about Trappa, he's been the victim of his own hype throughout the years.

And btw you're right possesion is not his primary concern. He recognises our players are sh*t at maintaining possession, that's why he sticks to the 2 defensive midfielders so strictly despite the lack of personnel. But on those rare occasions we do maintain possession, his system works surprisingly well at carving out openings against much sterner opposition. That's hardly a coincidence.

KerranJast

dreamers75 wrote: »

2002 we had a manager who coached the team to play football. Best irish team ever.

Haha. What? You must be 14 or 15. The 1990 squad was the best we ever had. Loaded with top class First Division players. Unfortunately our management didn't utilise their talents fully but that's an old argument.

thebaz wrote: »

I for one would be happy and proud for Ireland to attempt to play football (West Brom ) , rather than the rubbish on offer under Trap (Stoke) ... even if we qualify for the finals our midfield or lack of, will be totally exposed , especially in the heat

It will be wintertime in South Africa for the WC next year. Weather will be like our Summers i.e. max mid 20s. Some of the Spanish & Brazilians wore gloves and long sleeves during the Confederations Cup.

The climate in SA is going to be perfect for ourselves (fingers and toes crossed) and England because we're more used to a high tempo pressing game which heat screws up big time.

Xavi6

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Seriously?

Here's the 11 players that played against Holland in 2001. Based on the teams they played for finishing positions in the 200-2001 premiership season.

I never said the players weren't better, they were, as evidenced by our decent World Cup performance. I don't however think that group was necessarily more technically gifted than the current one, which was the point in the OP.

Chucky the tree

Xavi6 wrote: »

I never said the players weren't better, they were, as evidenced by our decent World Cup performance. I don't however think that group was necessarily more technically gifted than the current one, which was the point in the OP.

I still think it was far superior. Kelly and Harte were both very solid with the ball at their feet and good pass and cross comfortable. JOS while an excellent defender isn't in the same league attack wise, he'll never beat a defender and whip in a great cross and Kilbane is pretty basic as well. Toe it and ahead and hope he can run faster then the other guy. Even Staunton at centre back would of be able to pick out a pass far better then Dunne or St/ Ledger. Midfield back then was light years ahead of the two lemons we have now. Keane is the same and Duff isn't the player he was back then. doyle and Mcgeady are improvements but we'd be better off with a Niall Quinn type player in the team.

Pro. F

leninbenjamin wrote: »

All i'm saying really, is that Trappa's system is based on sound footballing principles. It works stunningly well when our team doesn't fall back on old habits.

I honestly can't remember any time when you could say we have played stunningly well under Trap. To say that the team sitting on leads (and even favorable drawn score lines), surrendering possession and inviting the opposition on is caused by the players' falling back on old habits is illogical. Trap has been in charge for an entire qualification campaign now. If he hasn't ironed out the players' old habits and stopped them taking over in every game we play at this stage then he must be some awfully soft, ineffective manager. Whealan and Andrews (the players who are at the heart of the matter) have come into the national team under Trap so they have no old habits to fall back on anyway. And Trap is a famously defensive Italian manager who says before Ireland games that winning would be good but the most important thing is that we don't lose.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Yes, he's prioritises defence, but that's not to say he's a fully defensive coach. He works a lot harder on defining clear attacking options than the likes of Allardyce or Otto Rheagal(sp?). For example: Trappa has placed a lot emphasis on our wingers despite the fact they are so lightweight.

So how does he place emphasis on our wingers? Does he support them with over-lapping fullbacks? Very rarely, unless we're a goal down. Does he pick central midfielders that can hold onto possession and give the wingers a reasonable platform on which to attack? No (as i said earlier, that might not be possible given our options). Does he encourage the team to attack in numbers therefor supporting the wingers? Not unless we're a goal down. In fact the only emphasise he gives them is in his press conferences when he tries to say that we are an attacking team. You claim that our wingers are lightweight, that is misleading. Duff, McGeady, Hunt and Lawrence are all small but they are also all hard working and defensively sound. Our wingers are in no way a weak link in our defensive chain.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Yet people seem to think the football was worse than McCarthy who played Kilbane on the wing instead of Duff?!?

I don't think i've actually mentioned McCarthy. Maybe i did. I think his teams made a much more consistant effort to keep a hold of possession but, to be fair, we had much better players in that team. It is true that his team had a bit of a bad habit of bottling it when we were in the lead in some important games but i don't see the relevance when we're arguing about whether Trap's tactics are defensive or not.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Also, one of the articles in the Times today mention how much license he gives Keane and how Keane plays off the shoulder a lot more than under Redknapp.

A striker playing off the shoulder doesn't define whether a team is defensive or not.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

And btw you're right possesion is not his primary concern. He recognises our players are sh*t at maintaining possession, that's why he sticks to the 2 defensive midfielders so strictly despite the lack of personnel. But on those rare occasions we do maintain possession, his system works surprisingly well at carving out openings against much sterner opposition. That's hardly a coincidence.

Even Trap's famously defensive Juventus and Italian teams strung a few passes together on occasion and ripped apart the opposition. Does that mean they weren't defensive teams?
It's not the worst system in the world. I said earlier that i think it might be our best option considering the quality of players we have available. But cutting open the opposition on occasion does not mean a team plays balanced possession football. We are a defensive team. You can say it's all down to the players ignoring what Trap wants them to do and falling back on old habits - that is so unlikely as to not be worth considering imo. Or you can say it's because they don't have the skill to hold onto the ball - It's true that Whealan and Andrews are very limited technically. It's probably true that we don't have any technically half decent central midfielders available for selection (if you agree that A. Reid can't play cm). But to say that Trap has all of a sudden changed from being the world famous defensive manager to someone who promotes possession football and a positive attacking attitude flies in the face of reason and has no supporting evidence.

The_B_Man

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I still think it was far superior. Kelly and Harte were both very solid with the ball at their feet and good pass and cross comfortable. JOS while an excellent defender isn't in the same league attack wise, he'll never beat a defender and whip in a great cross and Kilbane is pretty basic as well. Toe it and ahead and hope he can run faster then the other guy. Even Staunton at centre back would of be able to pick out a pass far better then Dunne or St/ Ledger. Midfield back then was light years ahead of the two lemons we have now. Keane is the same and Duff isn't the player he was back then. doyle and Mcgeady are improvements but we'd be better off with a Niall Quinn type player in the team.

Please god no! The stress involved when Supersub Gary Doherty got subbed on "to win the game" was unbearable!
Can Folan not do that job anyway? He was good in Bari at holding up the ball and the defenders. Not sure how tall he is though, in case we need a "90th min vs Germany" knock on, but I suppose hes all we have that comes close to Quinners role. Hes much better than what I saw of Leon Best the other night anyway!

flahavaj

dreamers75 wrote: »

2002 we had a manager who coached the team to play football. Best irish team ever.

The squads at Euro 88, and the World Cups in 1990 and 1994 were far better on paper than that squad.

Now if you're saying the 2002 team played more attractive football then yes, you're correct. Otherwise you're WAY off, the three squads I mentioned had a far greater depth of top quality footballers.

everdead.ie

If the Irish teams in the late 80's/90's weren't alcoholics ........ Greece all the way gotta play to your strengths We're good at set pieces

GavRedKing

I hope that whoever we get in the playoff's that we can give a good account of ourselves. Given the way we have played in some games, there is a lot of teams with more potent attack then Italy that could beat us.

I voted for the Greece 04 method, if we can keep more clean sheets and nick the odd goal from set plays or any other means then we can make it at least to the world cup and that is the main objective, it all depends on the rankings on Friday and the draw Monday week.

BaZmO*

noodler wrote: »

Sorry to see Stan's era has lowered the bar for so many.

The Irish team doesn't have to give the ball way for most of a game.

Look at "lowly" Cyprus.

Yeah look at them. When was the last time they qualified for anything.

Typical Irish, never bleeding happy.

The amount of times people on here used Greece as an example of a way to get results and now that we got a result it's

all about the sexy football. :rolleyes:


edit:- I'd just also like to add that there have only been 6 teams (which includes Ireland) that have remained unbeaten out of the 53 teams in the European Groups.

LuckyLloyd

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Seriously?

Here's the 11 players that played against Holland in 2001. Based on the teams they played for finishing positions in the 200-2001 premiership season.

1. Shay given - 11th Premier league
2. Gary Kelly - 4th premiership
3. Ian Harte - 4th premiership
4. Richard Dunne - Relegated championship
5. Stephen Staunton - 8th premiership
6. Roy Keane - 1st premiership
7. Matt holland - 5 premiership
8. Jason Macateer - 7th premiership
9. Robbie Keane - 4th premiership
10 Damien Duff - 2nd in the championship
11. Kevin Kilbane - 7th premiership team


Now lets look at last night team. Based on 2008-2009

1. Shay given - 10th Premiership
2. John O'shea - 1st premiership
3. kevin Kilbane - 11th premiership
4. Sean St. Ledger - Playoffs championship
5. richard dunne - 10th premiership
6. glenn whelan - 12th premiership
7. Liam Lawerence - 12th premiership
8. Keith Andrews - 15th premiership
9. Robbie Keane - 8th premiership
10. Kevin Doyle - Play-offs championship
11. Aidan Mcgeady - 2nd SPL


7 players in teams that finished in the top half of the premier league compared to 2 and half(Aidan Mcgeady) is a huge difference.

Xavi6 wrote: »

I never said the players weren't better, they were, as evidenced by our decent World Cup performance. I don't however think that group was necessarily more technically gifted than the current one, which was the point in the OP.

Chucky is bang on the money here. As much as you would not like to credit it Xavi, Roy Keane's incredible individual contribution alone made the team that qualified for the 2002WC 2x+ the current squad. And even when you took him out of the equation for the final stages of that tournament, the remainder was more experienced and talented 1 - 11 than the current crop.

The overall result is that the Irish squad attempting to get to Korea had a far superior expectation. The current team is legitimately the worst Irish squad collected since the early part of Eoin Hand's period as manager.

McCarthy had us playing better football, but it is kind of easy to play better football when Keane goes out and destroys the middle of the park every game. And against Cameroon, Germany and Spain Holland and Kinsella produced the best form of their careers (and either of them were far superior all round players than Andy Reid is today).

TheDoc

Its very much a case of we dont like what we are seeing, because our expectations are too high.

We have a team with a horribly inept midfield, who are only donkeys working a load, with absolutely no technical abiltiy, what so ever. And I for one do not beleive andy Reid would solve that, a player who blwos extremely hot, once in a while, but usually blows ice cold, unless the spot light is on him.

If I walked into the irish squad tomorrow, I'd see what the strengths are straight away.

We have a competant ( not great, but competant) defensive line with decent enough players in Dunne, O shea and Givin.

Up front we have a clinical finisher, who I'd need to hound to stay up front and stop coming deep moaning, and I have a work horse in Doyle.

Between those lines, there is nothing to write home about. I dont rate McGeady at all, and I've never see him play a game that I would call good. The centre midfield are ball bashers, they have no technical ability, no spacial awareness or awareness of player movement.

Playing the ball through this midfield is just not an option.

It is no suprise for me that we play a heavily defensive style of football, with focus on set plays and a real " nick one if we can" mentality.

I'd have no confidence with our team going out and dominating a team, it just wont happen.

If we go to the world cup we will be humiliated and torn asunder. If Italy had a competant strike force they would have ruined us big style the other night.

I'm now used to realising my national team has about as much spark as a sponge slapping off flint.

You only have to look at the youth developing and coming through to realise there isnt much great hope either.... I think we are currently where we belong.

We are a small country with a small population, where the vast of our crop are taking by England, with the majority thrown out, and confidence shattered.

We are enver going to reach great success. I think the fact that drawing against Italy, being labelled " a fantastic result" says it all. Teams like that we are expected to lose.

Neil3030

I'm not quite following the argument presented by a few posters here that our form in the group stages and reliance on "not losing" won't stand to us in a playoff or tournament.

Italy - 2-2H 1-1 A - 3-3 on aggregate
Cyprus - 2-1A 1-0H - 3-1 on aggregate
Georgia - 2-1A 2-1H - 4-2 on aggregate
Bulgaria - 1-1H 1-1A - 2-2 on aggregate
Montenegro - 0-0A

So depending on how things go on Wednesday, we'd have only lost to Italy on goal difference, gone into ET against Bulgaria and beaten the rest.

Surely anyone can see that "not losing" is probably the single most important objective of a knock-out fixture or a tournament? You lose - you're gone. You draw, you have a chance. We got to the Quarter Finals in Italia 90 without winning a single game in 90 minutes.

I also think it's extremely cynical, pedantic and crotchety to begrudge our team using a defensive style. For an island of 3.5 - 4 million people, you simply cannot expect our population to consistently produce the strong squads that we've had in the past, and I find it refreshing that we now go into games expecting some manner of result.

We have the same population as the City of Birmingham ffs - could a Brum 11 get to within an ass' roar of the World Cup?

Also, after seeing the home and away leg against Italy, would the likes of Germany and France be delighted if they drew us? We have banana skin written all over us for these guys, if you ask me.

Come on the Green Bananas!!

flahavaj

Neil3030 wrote: »

I'm not quite following the argument presented by a few posters here that our form in the group stages and reliance on "not losing" won't stand to us in a playoff or tournament.

Italy - 2-2H 1-1 A - 3-3 on aggregate
Cyprus - 2-1A 1-0H - 3-1 on aggregate
Georgia - 2-1A 2-1H - 4-2 on aggregate
Bulgaria - 1-1H 1-1A - 2-2 on aggregate
Montenegro - 0-0A

So depending on how things go on Wednesday, we'd have only lost to Italy on goal difference, gone into ET against Bulgaria and beaten the rest.

Totally irrelevant, in all fairness. They weren't two legged match ups during the group stages: each fixture was for a certain number of points. They way we approached or peformed in the secong "leg" of our matches was not influenced an ANY way by what had happened in the first one. If we had drawn 1-1 in Italy, then the Italians would have come to Dublin with a far different mentality than they actually did, needing to score at least once, and thats just choosing one example.

In essence your just taking random results and adding them up to suit your argument and its totally pointless.

Neil3030

flahavaj wrote: »

Totally irrelevant, in all fairness. They weren't two legged match ups during the group stages: each fixture was for a certain number of points. They way we approached or peformed in the secong "leg" of our matches was not influenced an ANY way by what had happened in the first one. If we had drawn 1-1 in Italy, then the Italians would have come to Dublin with a far different mentality than they actually did, needing to score at least once, and thats just choosing one example.

In essence your just taking random results and adding them up to suit your argument and its totally pointless.

That's nonsense, there was nothing random whatsoever about the fixutres I took - they were the entire sample of games that constituted our qualifying campaign.

I appreciate the context of a knock-out game may be different for a points based fixture, but since you ignored my main point I'll raise it again - how is the strategy of "not losing" detrimental in knock-out or tournament games?

flahavaj

Neil3030 wrote: »

That's nonsense, there was nothing random whatsoever about the fixutres I took - they were the entire sample of games that constituted our qualifying campaign.

They may as well have been random though as the home and away matches in the group had absolutely NOTHING to do with each other. Its an exercise in futility.

Neil3030 wrote: »

I appreciate the context of a knock-out game may be different for a points based fixture, but since you ignored my main point I'll raise it again - how is the strategy of "not losing" detrimental in knock-out or tournament games?

This is fair enough. Look at Man United in Europe, since they started playing 5 in midfield and much more cautiously their form in Europe has improved immeasureably.

gosplan

Neil3030 wrote: »

That's nonsense, there was nothing random whatsoever about the fixutres I took - they were the entire sample of games that constituted our qualifying campaign.

I appreciate the context of a knock-out game may be different for a points based fixture, but since you ignored my main point I'll raise it again - how is the strategy of "not losing" detrimental in knock-out or tournament games?

I've always thought this tbh.

Simply 'not losing' isn't good enough for a league but it is for a knock out competition.