Pundits on RTE

Catenaccio!

What is it with the punditry this time round? I presume these guys are getting a tidy little sum to research a few things but all they seem to do is rehash the same old stuff they've been talking about for the last 5 years. Now I know that I shouldn't be expecting amazing analysis or anything like that, but it'd be sort of nice to know that they've done a little bit more than your average person. Take last night's game for example - The guys on RTE came out with the usual clichés "Italy are an aging team", "Italy are a very defensive side", "The Italian game is...", and so on. For what it's worth, the average age of the Italian side is 28.2 years while it's 28.4 for the English team - yet that doesn't get mentioned at all. It was surprising that even Brady couldn't provide much of an insight into the game last night considering he was on the Irish setup for the WC campaign.

It seems to me that they haven't done any bit of research for this tournament (see John Giles' comment about Cameroon for example), yet again.

Jax Teller

Dont like them but you have to tune in to see what they're going to say , I like souness though .
Constantly criticizing players get on my nerves though eg C.RONALDO .

celticbest

I can't watch RTE anymore, I gave it a try again at the start of the World Cup but it's like ground-hog day, they just repeat the same things day in and day out.

Also why are RTE the only broadcaster that does not have it's studio in S. Africa?? The studio there in is very tacky, they could at least have a big screen behind them looking into the stadium. Like they would do on ESPN or Sky Sports.

I'm watching UTV & BBC HD for all the Matches.

noodler

Why don't they have a researcher or two? I swear, nearly anyone on this forum could give them a little bit more info to use.

Yellowledbetter

Had to laugh at Giles the other day talking about Japan,"Well Bill,I dont know anything about the team but I can confirm they will play with 11 players"... or better again "Id say Honda will motor around the field today".

Like seriously lads,do your research.

FearDark

RTE puntrity is more comedy than facts, and I prefer it that way, give me the lads over SKY's Jamie Redknapp or Andy Gray or ITV's clowns anyday. You don't need punditry really.

kippy

Well, I doubt RTE wanted to spend the megabucks to ship the entire crew to SA and rent a studio as well, especially since we were'nt in it.
The general standard of punditry/analysis across all coverage is pretty poor but theres nothing new there.
Football is a pretty basic game-we shouldnt overanalyse it.

The main reason I am not watching RTE however is because BBC/ITV both have HD offerings, not really about the analysis as I tent not to watch that on any channel anymore.

The only reason RTE analysis may "beat" other analysis is because it is more entertaining, not because it is accurate.

Catenaccio!

FearDark wrote: »

RTE puntrity is more comedy than facts, and I prefer it that way, give me the lads over SKY's Jamie Redknapp or Andy Gray or ITV's clowns anyday. You don't need punditry really.

But they're paid to do some research - that's their job. You may laugh at them or whatever, but they're not being paid as comedians.

You can say what you like about Gray, I personally don't have much time for the guy, but I would bet that he does a lot more research into things than the RTE guys. Or his team do a lot more. Whichever.

gimmick

It is not just for this tournament though. This is the case all the time in the CL and any international qualifiers. Unless it is an English or a big European side (and even then they are hopelessly prone to cliche), they never do any homework.

Might be more noticeable now due to the saturation of the coverage perhaps.

GavRedKing

TBH I have come to relaise your not going to get brillant anaylsis from RTE, and I think we can see that if we go back throughout the years.

Only blesing is Sky dont have it and we dont gotta listen to Jamie Redknapp.

x in the city

lads lads lads

billo eamon and giles are celbs, not silly pundits

get over it

meh!

Drag00n79

Maybe it's just me but I sense a distinct air of arrogance from the RTÉ panel this time around. Giles' almost pride in saying he knew nothing about a team (e.g. Japan). Then asking when they were last in a major tournament?! It's not good enough - is some basic research beyond them? Dunphy is more egotistical than ever before, I find. Before the Germany Aussie match Hamann's views on German football were completely ignored so Dunphy could spout on about the Bayern players' performance in the latter stages of the Champions League. Also Bill on Saturday night informing viewers "he" would be back on Sunday night - is there a match on too, Bill? Has all the Apres Match stuff gone to their heads?

Catenaccio!

Defo. Seems as if they've become caricatures of themselves, yet people are buying it.

Roaster

I actually find Hamman very good, even with his german scouse accent

The Sparrow

Well Giles is the Senior Analyst so it is his job to analyse the game that is happening, not find out about the players.:)

Seriously though, I see where you are coming from. But RTE's coverage is still a million times better than UTV's or BBC's. Ok so sometimes they don't know anything about players from the smaller teams, but that will improve as they go on. At least they have opinions, unlike so many pundits in the UK and they don't just wheel out former players just because they used to be good footballers.

Didi Hamann has been really good annytime he has been on and his punditry has been much more insightful than a million Andy Townsend's or Alan Shearers. At least RTE pundits take a point of view, even if the logic is flawed. Dunphy did have the balls to admit that he had got the German team completely wrong and that he should have done more research.

And they were largely right about Italy... they were rubbish last night and Italy is not producing the same level of players as they used to.

And Bill... well Bill is just awesome!:)

Boskowski

It took me a while to get to grips with the concept - and actually I still haven't managed entirely - but apparently it's some sort of Irish thing where it's perfectly cool to show off your incompetence and do something 'just for the laugh'. Which is the perfect disguise for incompetence if you think about it because everybody just assumes that you're sooo competent that you can afford to take it not so seriously when really you haven't fkn clue what you're talking about. Which is brilliant. I must use that myself more often.

Anyway...

In case of "Eamon and the lads" it's gotten to the stage where the boundaries between the actual product and the comedy based on said product has become somewhat blurred. To be honest it only annoys me when they're slating my team/country which they do quite frequently but I'm beginning to come to terms with that even. At this stage I find the whole thing quite entertaining if not excellent at times and I just go along with it.

I suggest you do the same. If they retire and be replaced with 'serious' analysts you will miss them badly.

steelcityblues

Apart from Brady and maybe Souness, they 'jumped the shark' years ago!

Not saying the coverage on other channels is miles ahead, but I don't know why so many people highly respect them as pundits.

Catenaccio!

The Sparrow wrote: »

And they were largely right about Italy... they were rubbish last night and Italy is not producing the same level of players as they used to.

I thought they were way off the mark in relation to Italy last night (similar to how far off the mark they were when it came to the USA team). They said they were an aging team, and while they have a few old (but excellent) players, the average age of the side isn't terribly high. They're just rehashing the same old material. And like I said, it was surprising to hear this coming from Brady.

They weren't 'rubbish' last night. They didn't play too well, but had periods of the game where they showed their class, and dominated the game (but didn't test the keeper enough). Of all the teams we've seen so far, they've been far the best passers of the ball, and the most confident in possession.

baldbear

The lads are prone to talk drivel but at least they don't buy into all the media hype like they do in England. They are a breath of fresh air compared to other bland stations.

AnCapaillMor

Compared to the redknapp\lineker drivel these guys are gods amongst analysists. They call a spade a spade, ok something a diamond a spade but it works. check out youtube and hour or so after every match, the uploaded analysis of the boys is always one of the top hits.

glanman

totally agree with the OP and similar posters.

The lack of knowledge of these guys, mainly dunphy and giles is shocking. They base everything on the premiership and the champions league and this is only because they are forced to watch it in their job.

They only know premier league players and the main players from the top clubs in champions league. For Dunphy to analysis and predict that Germany would draw with Australia based on the two games he saw Bayern Munich in this season is farcical.

Its a joke that these guys are paid very good money to do a job that they probably just turn up for 10 minutes before the show starts and do absolutely no research for...

I think RTE need to change this up, its got old and tired. Perhaps someone like Ken Early or even the whole OTB team but that will only happen when the whole panel are dead, until then, Bill, John and Eamo are hear to stay.

mike65

Billo and the core are a bit like Jezza, Captain Slow and Hamster on Top Gear. The show used to be about cars, now its about them. Which if you like the mix (I do) and blowing up caravans, works fine but the TG crew retain all their enthusiam whereas Brady and Giles to a lesser degree looks and sounds utterly bored to me. And they can't blow up caravans.

glanman

I presume they will be previewing the game tonight so it will be all about brazil, they will know nothing about north korea. I dont know anything about them but thats not my job, it is theres.

They will say robhino is crap, even though he is in savage form. Tired cliches then like crap defense, great going forward etc... but the fact is that Brazil are a very well organised, tight team who have a very good keeper, good defense and defensive holding midfielders and actually quite boring to watch these days

Fizman

Yellowledbetter wrote: »

Had to laugh at Giles the other day talking about Japan,"Well Bill,I dont know anything about the team but I can confirm they will play with 11 players"... or better again "Id say Honda will motor around the field today".

Like seriously lads,do your research.

Giles said exactly the same thing for the Champions League semi final. He couldn't say a word about Lyon and basically admitted it. Sure only last Friday night he was talking after the French game about how poor they were, and named one or two midfielders and then said "I don't know who else was in midfield but...." and Dunphy had to step in and mention Gourcuff and Toulalan.

I like Souness and I'll admit that I'm enjoying Denis Irwin (he seems to have a genuine knowledge and interest about the European leagues and their players) but in general the whole thing is a very unprofessional setup when you take away the few positive factors.

Mitch Connor

glanman wrote: »

I presume they will be previewing the game tonight so it will be all about brazil, they will know nothing about north korea. I dont know anything about them but thats not my job, it is theres.

They will say robhino is crap, even though he is in savage form. Tired cliches then like crap defense, great going forward etc... but the fact is that Brazil are a very well organised, tight team who have a very good keeper, good defense and defensive holding midfielders and actually quite boring to watch these days

in fairness - no one knows much about the North Korean side, the DPR Korea (i think that is the correct term) Government don't allow 'outsiders' to know much about them.

parker kent

Catenaccio! wrote: »

What is it with the punditry this time round? I presume these guys are getting a tidy little sum to research a few things but all they seem to do is rehash the same old stuff they've been talking about for the last 5 years. Now I know that I shouldn't be expecting amazing analysis or anything like that, but it'd be sort of nice to know that they've done a little bit more than your average person. Take last night's game for example - The guys on RTE came out with the usual clichés "Italy are an aging team", "Italy are a very defensive side", "The Italian game is...", and so on. For what it's worth, the average age of the Italian side is 28.2 years while it's 28.4 for the English team - yet that doesn't get mentioned at all. It was surprising that even Brady couldn't provide much of an insight into the game last night considering he was on the Irish setup for the WC campaign.

It seems to me that they haven't done any bit of research for this tournament (see John Giles' comment about Cameroon for example), yet again.

Well Italy do have the 4th oldest average age in the tournament. Several key positions in the squad are filled with aging players (Buffon, Cannavaro, Zambrotta). Then other squad positions are filled with inadequate replacements for aging players on the bench (Gattuso). The most influential players from the 2006 world cup have not been replaced by better players. Those players are aging. This means that it is hardly a sin to describe the team as aging. Stats like average age can be skewed by one or two players at extreme ages (David James for England as an example).

RTE punditry is by and large on another planet to other stations. Look at the way England's midfield problems were analysed compared to the head in the sand approach on BBC and ITV. Things like showing clips of the 40/50 yard gap between Gerrard and Lampard, Lampard and Gerrard not showing for the ball instead running forward leaving Terry with no option but to hoof it etc are a great way of explaining why they don't work as a combo. The English pundits are not doing that. Hamman and Giles were excellent on the Dutch game too.

Fair enough they don't research and they really should but once the game gets underway, Giles, Brady and a few others are peerless at interpreting and explaining what happens. They do not hold back because they are mates with the players á la Jamie Redknapp.

I'd much rather somebody who can watch the game and analyse it properly than somebody that can ream off stats and information on the teams. I could do that if RTE paid me. Plus do you really think Ian Wright, Jamie Redknapp and others from SKy, BBC and ITV are experts on the global game? As if.

I like RTE's "punditry" as it's enjoyable to watch.

It's comedy gold at times. If anyone takes it serious they are in trouble.

It's a panal of trolls and I think it's great !

It's also the only so called punditry I ever watch. cannot watch any other station especially Sky and ITV.

seadnamac

I honestly think Giles doesn't have all that research done because he just won't remember any of it. You see the way he forgets a players name five minutes after hearing it, he's pushing on a bit now. I think it's been fairly clear for years now that John is there to analyse the 90 minutes in front of him, to break the down the play at half time and full time. And he does this excellently, better than anyone else on the other stations. In my opinion anyway.

Maybe it's the job of the 'middle' analyst to have the names of players, their form, recent results/performances etc. like Souness does, Brady does (sometimes) and recently Hamann. I think this kind of set up is fine to be honest, you don't need to be full of facts and figures to be able to analyse a game of football.

And though I wouldn't be as critical of Dunphy as a lot of people, (I think he actually does know his stuff, but his bluntness in getting his opinion across makes it seem like he's bluffing it), we all know his main job is to entertain and provoke.

Although I can accept some of the criticisms in this thread, I still think they give the best analysis available, maybe not before the game when they might not be familiar with some players/teams but certainly at half time and after the game. Does anyone actually think that the BBC, ITV or Sky are better than them in this regard?

cherryghost

You have to agree that Dieter has done his homework :pac:

Other than that, I dont take it too seriously, just a bit of a laugh really

Catenaccio!

parker kent wrote: »

Well Italy do have the 4th oldest average age in the tournament. Several key positions in the squad are filled with aging players (Buffon, Cannavaro, Zambrotta). Then other squad positions are filled with inadequate replacements for aging players on the bench (Gattuso). The most influential players from the 2006 world cup have not been replaced by better players. Those players are aging. This means that it is hardly a sin to describe the team as aging. Stats like average age can be skewed by one or two players at extreme ages (David James for England as an example).

My comment was more to the point that they'll say it just for the teams that they're used to saying it for. They never said it for the England team because it's not a term we'd normally associate with them. And for what it's worth, I'd never describe a goalkeeper at age 32 as 'old'.

Things like showing clips of the 40/50 yard gap between Gerrard and Lampard, Lampard and Gerrard not showing for the ball instead running forward leaving Terry with no option but to hoof it etc are a great way of explaining why they don't work as a combo.

It's funny because I totally disagree with this. Once again, it's the easy route out to say that the reason England didn't win the game is because Lampard and Gerrard don't work well together in the centre. I could show you a number of clips showing them working well vs the USA. It's how they want you to see it. I really didn't see any problem with this partnership in the game on Saturday night.

Fair enough they don't research and they really should but once the game gets underway, Giles, Brady and a few others are peerless at interpreting and explaining what happens. They do not hold back because they are mates with the players á la Jamie Redknapp.

If they were that good then surely they'd be happy to take a few minutes and discuss what the opposition are doing, rather than what one team aren't doing? I'm not sure why you're bringing up Redknapp in a thread about RTE. Anyways, didn't Dunphy praise Keane etc because he was mates?

I'd much rather somebody who can watch the game and analyse it properly than somebody that can ream off stats and information on the teams. I could do that if RTE paid me. Plus do you really think Ian Wright, Jamie Redknapp and others from SKy, BBC and ITV are experts on the global game? As if.

Why are Dunphy/Giles/Brady/whoever considered experts and the others listed above not?

eightyfish

On this topic, this web article is worth a read. I don't know much about the Bleacher Report, but it looks like an American site.

Catenaccio!

Does anyone actually think that the BBC, ITV or Sky are better than them in this regard?

Gullit is better, yes.

keane2097

People hear banging a drum about "they're paid to do research".

Are they?

I assume they would have been fired a long time ago if that's what they were paid for.

I'd be pretty sure they're paid to get people to watch RTE coverage, and from the detailed descriptions of stuff they've said in ye're whining posts, I'm pretty sure they've done their jobs perfectly.

Catenaccio!

keane2097 wrote: »

People hear banging a drum about "they're paid to do research".

Are they?

I assume they would have been fired a long time ago if that's what they were paid for.

I'd be pretty sure they're paid to get people to watch RTE coverage, and from the detailed descriptions of stuff they've said in ye're whining posts, I'm pretty sure they've done their jobs perfectly.

Watched it on youtube so go me.

Pro. F

I agree that it's annoying that the RTE pundits can't tell you anything you don't already know prior to kickoff. But the insight and honesty of their post match analysis is the best around (except for eamo when he decides to do some trolling). Imo, contrary to general opinion on here, they don't fall into cliches when they analyse a game. They will often observe that a team or player was different to what was generally expected.

Yesterday Giles explained in detail how the Danish full back's bad positioning got him in trouble for the og and pointed out precisely the signs that indicated to him that Cameroon were badly coached. This type of honest insight straight after the game isn't always perfect but none of bbc, itv or sky are as insightful or honest nearly as often.

And all of this is before you even mention the entertainment value of seeing three auld lads in raging arguments with each other.

@catanoccio
Italy were shìte yesterday. They drew 1-1 with Paraguay ffs. The lads were right when they pointed out the Italians didn't have anyone who could go past a player. Liam said he didn't rate Marchisio, Montelivo or Pepe and he was proven right. You can't rule them out because they're italy but they were muck in that game.

seadnamac

Catenaccio! wrote: »

Gullit is better, yes.

One person across three channels? And does he make Sky better overall? Didn't think so.

Look, you can criticise them all you like for not having reams of information before a game but when it comes to analysing the 90 minutes of football they are second to none. And lets not forget that that is primarily what they are there for, to analyse a game of football, anyone can learn off a few facts and figures. I've already given my theory as to how the setup works with regards the Giles and the research.

You are perfectly entitled to disagree with their analysis of England (I think you're way off myself, England have never and will never get anywhere with Gerrard and Lampard together in center midfield, they haven't an ounce of creativity or intelligence between them), but that doesn't mean their analysis was bad. You just disagree with it.

And why are they considered experts when the likes of Wright and Redknapp are not? Because they analyse and break down the 90 minutes of football, instead of sitting there in a tight suit making sure not to criticise anybody (Redknapp) or struggling to put a sentence together (Wright).

KerranJast

Giles and Hamann analysing the Dutch game yesterday were excellent.

Giles had a top notch theory on the failings of Dutch teams to fulfill their potential (its to do with them becoming professionals much later than the other main leagues so therefore being more independent and "stroppy").

I don't care if they know who's playing. If they analyse the game honestly at half time and full time and point out stuff I didn't notice that explains the pattern of the game then I'm happy.

lordgoat

I don't think any station will have pundits that will keep everyone happy. Personally i like rte simply because i don't expect to learn a hell of lot from the pundits, although Didi knows his stuff and has a great new perspective. I can watch a match and judge players on their own merits. I enjoy the banter between the lads i will say that Bill is getting a little annoying and trying to hard to stir it too much.

You can also level the accusation that research is not being done by pundits on other stations. The ITV/BBC are no better when it comes to smaller nations. I think it's unfair to just level criticism at one particular group if the alternatives out there are not considered as well.

Overall i wouldn't swap them for any of the other options. And I think the RTE analysis of the English game was by far the best out there.

/Edit for some reason my work PC left out a paragraph and i have no tiem to re type it. Basically i think Giles/Chippy know a hell of a lot about football in general and they can apply that post match as good as any other pundits on any other channel so while they might not know every player before the match they can certainly discuss them competantely afterwards.

parker kent

Catenaccio! wrote: »

And for what it's worth, I'd never describe a goalkeeper at age 32 as 'old'.

I said aging not old, there is a difference. Buffon is clearly suffering from the aging process too as his body is not as reliable as it once was. True he has plenty of time left in him, but he is not the athlete he once was.

Catenaccio! wrote: »

I really didn't see any problem with this partnership in the game on Saturday night.

I don't mean to derail this into an England thread, but there are clear problems with them as a partnership. Ballack's comments last week sum up my feelings on them well. Each wants to be in the box scoring goals, instead of picking up the ball from the defence and starting moves.

Catenaccio! wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're bringing up Redknapp in a thread about RTE. Anyways, didn't Dunphy praise Keane etc because he was mates?

Well it is pretty common to compare somebody to somebody else that does the same job. I also did not mention Dunphy as a good analyst. He is a cretin.

Catenaccio! wrote: »

Why are Dunphy/Giles/Brady/whoever considered experts and the others listed above not?

The key part of that sentence was that I said they are experts that can explain something well...as opposed to experts who just resort to the usual superficial platitudes, glossing over things.

The RTE panel are by and large far more enthralling than any of their counterparts. Part of the this is the entertainment factor but they back it up with Giles and Brady who, for me,are better at watching a game and explaining what is happening than anybody else. They are not paid to be statisticians who can ream off details about Cameroon's second choice left-back. As I said above, you or I could that.

That_Guy

I understand that the punditry isn't everyone's cup of tea but they do provide great entertainment.

Dennis Irwin has been an excellent pundit imo and Darragh Moloney has being doing a brilliant job thus far.

The 'A' panel are the usual. Entertainment. Even though they do talk out their arse sometimes, I'd rather listen to them than their British counterparts.

Catenaccio!

Pro. F wrote: »

@catanoccio
Italy were shìte yesterday. They drew 1-1 with Paraguay ffs. The lads were right when they pointed out the Italians didn't have anyone who could go past a player. Liam said he didn't rate Marchisio, Montelivo or Pepe and he was proven right. You can't rule them out because they're italy but they were muck in that game.

See, maybe it's just me but I don't fall into this "x were sh*te" stuff. It reminds me of the people that said such things after the England game when it was hardly the case at all. Yes, they didn't win the game, but they were playing a good USA side and they created a good few chances for themselves.

So yeah, Italy were not 'sh*te' yesterday. Didn't create near enough chances in the final third but were extremely comfortable in defense and had the upper hand in midfield. They also seemed to gel a lot better when they went 4-4-2 for the last half hour. How the hell was Brady proven right when he said he didn't rate those players? Based on one game? Even so, two of those players (Montolivo and Pepe) had good games, the former came in to it when he was free from the starting formation, and Pepe causing some problems but had some disappointing final balls.

They most certainly were not muck in last night's game. Slick passing, extremely composed on the ball, but lacking that little bit of creativity in the final third. How exactly does that equate to being 'muck'?


And your 'Paraguay ffs' comment is pretty bizarre. You do realise that this team beat took four points off Argentina and three off Brazil (were one-nil up away to Brazil in their defeat) during the WC qualifying campaign?

Boskowski

Catenaccio! wrote: »

See, maybe it's just me but I don't fall into this "x were sh*te" stuff. It reminds me of the people that said such things after the England game when it was hardly the case at all. Yes, they didn't win the game, but they were playing a good USA side and they created a good few chances for themselves.

Considering the hype created around England and the high standard they are constantly setting for themselves they were pretty sh*te. Apart from the goal (that was even half a gift from the USA) and one shot from Rooney in the second half they created fvck all chances. They looked awkward, had no creativity, no pace, no spark and no plan. Ffs they claim to be 'world class' players but they were totally disconnected and even started hoofing it up the field at some stage.

I know ITV was saying they were good but for the Green mistake, but they were absolutely not. That's not a disaster its still early and I'm not saying they cannot improve, but that performance was not a good one.

Krusader

Italy were cac last night, it was only when they brought on Camronesi did they put a bit of pressure on Paraguay, but still didn't really look like scoring, a blunder from the Paraguayian keeper saved the day for them.
If you want to delude yourself Catenaccio go ahead

As the lads said last night Italy are lucky to be in the group they're in, they might just make it out

recylingbin

The RTE pundits review a match much better than they preview it. Their analysis of a game is top class. Anyone who would rather listen to BBC and, more especially ITV, over them doesn't deserve good punditry.
Hamann has been a very good addition.

Catenaccio!

Boskowski wrote: »

Considering the hype created around England and the high standard they are constantly setting for themselves they were pretty sh*te. Apart from the goal (that was even half a gift from the USA) and one shot from Rooney in the second half they created fvck all chances. They looked awkward, had no creativity, no pace, no spark and no plan. Ffs they claim to be 'world class' players but they were totally disconnected and even started hoofing it up the field at some stage.

I know ITV was saying they were good but for the Green mistake, but they were absolutely not. That's not a disaster its still early and I'm not saying they cannot improve, but that performance was not a good one.

Who's creating that hype? The media? Well, that's their job. I'm sure they're doing the same in Germany etc. I've got to say that there's been much less hype about this '10 team than there has for teams in '06 and '02. And regardless of whether they're hyped up or not, the performance they put out on Saturday night was certainly not sh*te. It didn't look like a team that could win the WC but it's the first game and things can change.

You talk about England's chances (not sure how it was a gift from USA, because they were slow to react? Then the majority of goals scored are gifts then...). I remember Heskey having a one-on-one in the second half from a great through ball from Lennon. Rooney also took the initative from a short free kick in the second half and had the keeper scrambling. Right after England conceded (what was a true gift), Johnson made a good run into the box and forced a good save from the keeper. In the first half, Lennon broke free into the box on the right but played a poor ball across...a yard in front and it was an easy tap in for Lampard. Heskey slid into the box at one stage and nearly got on the end of a cross, took out Howard in the process. Lampard also had a strike from outside the box late on in the second half afaik.


Sorry, but when I see people say ill-informed comments like 'x were sh*te' without any real reason to back such a comment up then it irritates me a little. Don't get me wrong, I didn't think they played amazing myself but certainly not as bad as some people are suggesting. I think people like to jump on this bandwagon of 'hyped up English team' stuff for some reason.

Catenaccio!

Crosáidí wrote: »

Italy were cac last night, it was only when they brought on Camronesi did they put a bit of pressure on Paraguay, but still didn't really look like scoring, a blunder from the Paraguayian keeper saved the day for them.
If you want to delude yourself Catenaccio go ahead

As the lads said last night Italy are lucky to be in the group they're in, they might just make it out

Not sure if you missed this (presuming you did judging by your comment)

Catenaccio! wrote:

Didn't create near enough chances in the final third but were extremely comfortable in defense and had the upper hand in midfield. They also seemed to gel a lot better when they went 4-4-2 for the last half hour. How the hell was Brady proven right when he said he didn't rate those players? Based on one game? Even so, two of those players (Montolivo and Pepe) had good games, the former came in to it when he was free from the starting formation, and Pepe causing some problems but had some disappointing final balls.

They most certainly were not muck in last night's game. Slick passing, extremely composed on the ball, but lacking that little bit of creativity in the final third. How exactly does that equate to being 'muck'?

FatherTed

FYI in the US on ESPN we have Klinsmann and Roberto Martinez who are great, Alexi Lalas the redheaded freak who has improved immensely, Ruud Gulli who's not too good and McManaman is pure muck in the studio. Fantastic coverage compared to that we've had here before.

x in the city

glanman wrote: »

totally agree with the OP and similar posters.

The lack of knowledge of these guys, mainly dunphy and giles is shocking. They base everything on the premiership and the champions league and this is only because they are forced to watch it in their job.

They only know premier league players and the main players from the top clubs in champions league. For Dunphy to analysis and predict that Germany would draw with Australia based on the two games he saw Bayern Munich in this season is farcical.

Its a joke that these guys are paid very good money to do a job that they probably just turn up for 10 minutes before the show starts and do absolutely no research for...

I think RTE need to change this up, its got old and tired. Perhaps someone like Ken Early or even the whole OTB team but that will only happen when the whole panel are dead, until then, Bill, John and Eamo are hear to stay.

*waves hands

Billo: lads, what do you make of that statement, a viewer says we base all our discussions on premier and cl facts, is that not controversial or what eamon.?!

fullstop

Giles was going on about Elano last night and how he flopped at Man City and was worse at Hull :rolleyes:

Ush1

They've actually become really bad for me. Just Dunphy bumlicking Giles the entire time, and the two of them passively ganging up on whoever else is there and disagrees with them. Shame, used to be entertaining.

karma_

Souness is the main man, talks sense unlike those other 2 numpties. I honestly don't know how he stands to sit between them at times.