McGeady is class - discuss

Dempsey

Blatter wrote: »

McClean >>>>>>>>>>> McGeady

No

the realpigiron

lordgoat wrote: »

Christ, world class? The delusion sometime makes you wonder if people watch the same game as you. He's a decent player. I'd have Duff and McClean ahead of him, why? They are more intelligent players, they use the ball better. They don't try and beat a player unnecessarily. They work harder. They don't get caught out of position. The don't need 50+ appearances to demonstrate they can cross a football. They help their fullback out more. They hold the shape of the team better. I could probably go on. But i'll stop now.
He's a poor man's Matt Jarvis (especially on the right)

Speaking for myself, I never said he was world class, though he has the potential to be if he was more clinical and can find more consistency. Hopefully this tournament will bring that out of him, I think he's going to make a big impact in Poland/Ukraine.

As for the rest of your comment there is so much wrong with it that I don't know where to start, especially the highlighted bits.

Pro. F

the realpigiron wrote: »

McGeady is a first choice pick for Ireland and rightly so. His performance yesterday - albeit in a friendly game - was excellent. I'm expecting more of the same from McGeady in the tournament when it starts. It really reflects poorly on people like you that you can't give credit where it's due, just because you can't admit when you are wrong.

I was wrong to say he is shít at crossing because he put in some good crosses in an end of season friendly against opposition who had clearly already started their holidays and because he put in one half decent cross against Estonia? Get a fúcking grip.

He played well yesterday. I never said any different. You need to get over the idea that just because I don't think he is class I'm not giving him the credit he deserves.

Right now, considering the form of the rest of our wingers, I agree there's a strong case for him to be first choice opposite Duff. That still doesn't mean that he has shown an ability to consistently put in good crosses. Nor would I be expecting him to perform like yesterday at the Euros. I've seen him have the odd stormer of a game and then go back to his usual international level before. If you've been watching him in the Russian league and you think otherwise, cool. Personally I'll hold judgement until I see him play some good international opposition again.

darkman2 wrote: »

LIES - did you not see his cross for Andrews for the first away goal? The credibility of your argument has just been shot.

If you are joking, you aren't funny. If you are serious, you are very funny.

darkman2

Pro. F wrote: »

If you are joking, you aren't funny. If you are serious, you are very funny.

You said he was not putting in decent crosses against Estonia. The first goal in Talinn was from a great cross by McGeady. So you are wrong. Simples.

Pro. F

darkman2 wrote: »

You said he was not putting in decent crosses against Estonia. The first goal in Talinn was from a great cross by McGeady. So you are wrong. Simples.

Ah so you were serious. Yes funny.

That's not what I said, you may want to read it again.

the realpigiron

Pro. F wrote: »

I was wrong to say he is shít at crossing because he put in some good crosses in an end of season friendly against opposition who had clearly already started their holidays and because he put in one half decent cross against Estonia? Get a fúcking grip.

He played well yesterday. I never said any different. You need to get over the idea that just because I don't think he is class I'm not giving him the credit he deserves.

Right now, considering the form of the rest of our wingers, I agree there's a strong case for him to be first choice opposite Duff. That still doesn't mean that he has shown an ability to consistently put in good crosses. Nor would I be expecting him to perform like yesterday at the Euros. I've seen him have the odd stormer of a game and then go back to his usual international level before. If you've been watching him in the Russian league and you think otherwise, cool. Personally I'll hold judgement until I see him play some good international opposition again.

I knew you'd be the type that would refuse to admit when you are wrong. Doesn't matter, I'm sure McGeady will prove his critics wrong in this tournament.

Pro. F

the realpigiron wrote: »

I knew you'd be the type that would refuse to admit when you are wrong. Doesn't matter, I'm sure McGeady will prove his critics wrong in this tournament.

Such a pathetic argument. Go and get a quote of mine and show me how it was wrong or stfu.

the realpigiron

Pro. F wrote: »

Such a pathetic argument. Go and get a quote of mine and show me how it was wrong or stfu.

I'd say picking a quote where you'd be right would be handier. You're wrong about McGeady that's a certainty.

Pro. F

the realpigiron wrote: »

I'd say picking a quote where you'd be right would be handier. You're wrong about McGeady that's a certainty.

I'm wrong about McGeady because I said he is a shíte crosser, hits the first defender or completely mis-hits his cross far too much? Eh, no I'm not. Yesterday's game doesn't prove otherwise. Stop wasting my time with this.

the realpigiron

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm wrong about McGeady because I said he is a shíte crosser, hits the first defender or completely mis-hits his cross far too much? Eh, no I'm not. Yesterday's game doesn't prove otherwise. Stop wasting my time with this.

You are wrong, and you are not man enough to admit it.

G.K.

the realpigiron, if you will argue, make a proper argument, not an ad hominem one, or don't bother.

Pro. F

the realpigiron wrote: »

You are wrong, and you are not man enough to admit it.

What exactly am I wrong about?

darkman2

McGeady has not been a bad crosser of the ball for a long time now. You just don't want to give him the credit he deserves. As for "yesterday changes nothing" - in your mind perhaps - but, erm, yesterday was a game of football and McGeady ran rings around defenders whenever he got the ball and did not put a single cross or pass wrong. He just didn't and that's a simple fact. You should at least acknowledge we are talking about a very special player who is coming along exceptionally well in the last couple of years.


But it does not matter what he does for you i'd say. For some reason you seem bitter towards him. Or is it just good old Irish begrudgery at work?:rolleyes:

the realpigiron

Pro. F wrote: »

What exactly am I wrong about?

You said and I quote - "He is a shìte crosser. He hits the first defender or completely mis-hits his cross far too much. It's not even up for debate."

That my friend is where you are wrong. You can say he is inconsistent at times with his delivery, but to say he is "shìte" as you so crudely put it is simply wrong.

PhlegmyMoses

I reckon McGeady will be our best player at these finals. He has improved a huge amount since his move to Russia and has looked increasingly more dangerous for us. Yesterday's game has noting to do with my opinion of him. He also works very hard for his fullback, contrary to what somebody said above.

James McClean, who everybody said had to be included in the squad, is far more likely to be a disappointment as he is reminiscent of a young McGeady in that he frequently takes too much out of the ball and runs down blind alleys.

Pro. F

darkman2 wrote: »

McGeady has not been a bad crosser of the ball for a long time now. You just don't want to give him the credit he deserves. As for "yesterday changes nothing" - in your mind perhaps - but, erm, yesterday was a game of football and McGeady ran rings around defenders whenever he got the ball and did not put a single cross or pass wrong. He just didn't and that's a simple fact. You should at least acknowledge we are talking about a very special player who is coming along exceptionally well in the last couple of years.

I've been hearing that McGeady is coming along brilliantly and has sorted his crossing and is about to take the world by storm for years. I used to believe the people who said it because he is a good dribbler, he plays with a good desire and it's easy to imagine him putting it all together and becoming a very good winger. But so far it hasn't happened and I tend not to believe people when they say it any more. I certainly don't believe people who claim he is world class.

He puts in the occasional very good performance, but the vast majority of the time he is nothing special. That is not to say that he can't become that, he just needs to fix his crossing, but so far he hasn't. He has been a poor crosser of the ball during the qualifying campaign just gone. He tries to beat too many players and either scuffs his cross or hits the first man too often to be considered anything else. You might want to laud his one good cross against Armenia or his one half decent cross against Estonia or his good performance (complete with crossing) in an end of season friendly against a particularly uninterested looking Bosnia Herzegovina as if that proves everything has changed. Go ahead. I'll wait until I see him do it consistently against decent opposition.

darkman2 wrote: »

But it does not matter what he does for you i'd say. For some reason you seem bitter towards him. Or is it just good old Irish begrudgery at work?:rolleyes:

I'm not bitter towards him, I have no reason to be. And no it's not begrudgery :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: If you read my posts on plenty of other Irish players you will see that I have no problem giving praise where I think it's due. I just happen to think that McGeady is nothing special at the international tournament level and that the claims of him being world class are particularly silly.

the realpigiron wrote: »

You said and I quote - "He is a shìte crosser. He hits the first defender or completely mis-hits his cross far too much. It's not even up for debate."

That my friend is where you are wrong. You can say he is inconsistent at times with his delivery, but to say he is "shìte" as you so crudely put it is simply wrong.

I think any winger that hits the first man with his crosses so often has to be described as shíte at crossing. I think it's odd that you see that differently. And I think it is ridiculous that you are trying to make out that his performance in yesterday's game proves otherwise. It was an end of season friendly and it was one game. It proves nothing.

Mikeyt086

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I reckon McGeady will be our best player at these finals. He has improved a huge amount since his move to Russia and has looked increasingly more dangerous for us. Yesterday's game has noting to do with my opinion of him. He also works very hard for his fullback, contrary to what somebody said above.

James McClean, who everybody said had to be included in the squad, is far more likely to be a disappointment as he is reminiscent of a young McGeady in that he frequently takes too much out of the ball and runs down blind alleys.

The best example of this was away to Russia in qualifying. Aiden worked his ass off for the team that day.

LuckyLloyd

Blatter wrote: »

McClean >>>>>>>>>>> McGeady

Meh, McClean has shown a lot of promise and he is pleasingly direct, but I think the above (i.e. the idea that he is far better than McGeady) is a little ridiculous.

I wouldn't deny that McGeady can be frustrating, but people are allowing this fact to blind them to his obvious talent. The guy can still make magic happen, and he seems to have a lot more in his toolbox than McClean has at this early stage in his career. People should remember that, when it comes to attacking players, the objective is not to retain possession every time or do something consistent and predictable. The objective is to cut the opposition apart a couple of times a game. To deny that McGeady has that ability is crazy to me.

Blatter

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meh, McClean has shown a lot of promise and he is pleasingly direct, but I think the above (i.e. the idea that he is far better than McGeady) is a little ridiculous.

I wouldn't deny that McGeady can be frustrating, but people are allowing this fact to blind them to his obvious talent. The guy can still make magic happen, and he seems to have a lot more in his toolbox than McClean has at this early stage in his career. People should remember that, when it comes to attacking players, the objective is not to retain possession every time or do something consistent and predictable. The objective is to cut the opposition apart a couple of times a game. To deny that McGeady has that ability is crazy to me.

For the most part, I agree, I don't think there's a huge gap in ability overall between the two. I was more stating it in the context of the Irish side. We're a side that's extremely disciplined and well drilled with a huge emphasis on getting crosses into the box. Give me the more consistent crosser in McClean over the more fluid McGeady in that set up any day of the week.

LuckyLloyd

Blatter wrote: »

For the most part, I agree, I don't think there's a huge gap in ability overall between the two. I was more stating it in the context of the Irish side. We're a side that's extremely disciplined and well drilled with a huge emphasis on getting crosses into the box. Give me the more consistent crosser in McClean over the more fluid McGeady in that set up any day of the week.

Well, I'd disagree here too!

For me, McGeady defends well enough - he maintains the shape off the ball and tracks runners. It is BECAUSE we are extremely disciplined and well drilled that a loose cannon or two like McGeady and Keane is so vital for us imo. Those two provide a sparkle and the possibility of something unexpected, and that seems vital when everything else we do is so relentless and predictable.

Don't get me wrong, McClean has been called up by Trapp because he is such a good fit for our system. He's big, strong, extremely hardworking and will fit into that role perfectly. BUT, Trapp is no fool and I'd imagine McGeady is normally one of the first names on the teamsheet after Keane because that mecurial streak and ability to come inside and make something happen is the difference for us sometimes (the examples are there over the past four years obviously).

aidan24326

I don't get why McGeady gets so much flak. He generally does alright for us and always works his socks off. A lot of the criticism on here is unfair.

LuckyLloyd

To be honest, we're in great shape here really as far as attackers goes.

You can choose any reasonable combination (i.e. Walters not on the wing / Duff not upfront) from Duff, McClean, McGeady, Long, Walters, Doyle, Hunt to play with Keane and be confident that we'll cause our opponents problems. Westwood also seems like solid cover for Given should it be required. Not a perfect squad, but it definitely has its good parts imo.

Blatter

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well, I'd disagree here too!

For me, McGeady defends well enough - he maintains the shape off the ball and tracks runners. It is BECAUSE we are extremely disciplined and well drilled that a loose cannon or two like McGeady and Keane is so vital for us imo. Those two provide a sparkle and the possibility of something unexpected, and that seems vital when everything else we do is so relentless and predictable.

Don't get me wrong, McClean has been called up by Trapp because he is such a good fit for our system. He's big, strong, extremely hardworking and will fit into that role perfectly. BUT, Trapp is no fool and I'd imagine McGeady is normally one of the first names on the teamsheet after Keane because that mecurial streak and ability to come inside and make something happen is the difference for us sometimes (the examples are there over the past four years obviously).

I can foresee us getting around 4-8 decent breaks against Spain, and they'll be absolutely vital to our chances. I would trust McClean to take the right option a higher percentage of times than I'd trust McGeady to and that's what it boils down to between the two for me. In a more even contest, where there was an emphasis on breaking down a side with a constantly solid shape, I can see a case for McGeady.

I can understand why he's going with McGeady, but personally I'd definitely prefer McClean. One thing that we will agree on is that he'll be a great option from the bench at the very least

carlop

I agree with Lloyd. We need that little bit of unpredictability. McGeady is the only player we have who could potentially make something of nothing. If you remove him, I think our football would go from little variation to a set pattern to no variation to a set pattern.

Orando Broom

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

To be honest, we're in great shape here really as far as attackers goes.

You can choose any reasonable combination (i.e. Walters not on the wing / Duff not upfront) from Duff, McClean, McGeady, Long, Walters, Doyle, Hunt to play with Keane and be confident that we'll cause our opponents problems. Westwood also seems like solid cover for Given should it be required. Not a perfect squad, but it definitely has its good parts imo.

Attack wise I think Ireland is at it's very best it has ever been. You actually would not lament to a huge degree our two first choice forwards being unavailable when you see the back-up. Obviously it would be bad for Ireland were Robbie Keane to be hurt but still the alternatives are not disasterous.

Orando Broom

Blatter wrote: »

I can foresee us getting around 4-8 decent breaks against Spain, and they'll be absolutely vital to our chances. I would trust McClean to take the right option a higher percentage of times than I'd trust McGeady to and that's what it boils down to between the two for me. In a more even contest, where there was an emphasis on breaking down a side with a constantly solid shape, I can see a case for McGeady.

I can understand why he's going with McGeady, but personally I'd definitely prefer McClean. One thing that we will agree on is that he'll be a great option from the bench at the very least

I have to say I liked the look of McGeady coming on in the second half. I think though Duff was by far the poorest of the three on show. Still he is an old pro and his tournement experience will be vital. I suppose him and Robbie would be on half power in the warm-up games to avoid any injuries and they will turn up in the group.

McGeady and McClean on both wings is a frigetening prospect for any fullbacks. Two animals for workrate, covering from endline to endline and both seriouys attacking threats.

Hopefully Gibson continues to imporve over the coming weeks and that, in my opinion, is a really neat Ireland midfield despite the criticisim.

Pighead

I'd agree with those who say his crossing needs to be a bit more consistent but anybody questioning his ability to track back obviously hasn't watched too much of him in the last couple of years. Do you really think Trap would consistently pick him if he didn't bother tracking back.

I can't remember the exact game but there was one match in particular during the qualifiers (possibly play off game against Estonia) where Ward was having an absolute stinker at left back and McGeady bailed him out six or seven times. Definitely a starter for me. Think it's great McClean is in the squad and he's a great option for us on the bench. I expect we'll see him play the 30 or 40 minutes each match.

Orando Broom

Pighead wrote: »

I'd agree with those who say his crossing needs to be a bit more consistent but anybody questioning his ability to track back obviously hasn't watched too much of him in the last couple of years. Do you really think Trap would consistently pick him if he didn't bother tracking back.

I can't remember the exact game but there was one match in particular during the qualifiers (possibly play off game against Estonia) where Ward was having an absolute stinker at left back and McGeady bailed him out six or seven times. Definitely a starter for me. Think it's great McClean is in the squad and he's a great option for us on the bench. I expect we'll see him play the 30 or 40 minutes each match.

Armenia In Aviva. He was immense that night and in Russia too!

the realpigiron

aidan24326 wrote: »

I don't get why McGeady gets so much flak. He generally does alright for us and always works his socks off. A lot of the criticism on here is unfair.

I agree. It is good to see a bit of common sense break out on this thread over the last few contributions. McGeady is a valuable player for Ireland, and it is good to see that he is generally appreciated by the majority of fans on here.

Corholio

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I reckon McGeady will be our best player at these finals. He has improved a huge amount since his move to Russia and has looked increasingly more dangerous for us. Yesterday's game has noting to do with my opinion of him. He also works very hard for his fullback, contrary to what somebody said above.

James McClean, who everybody said had to be included in the squad, is far more likely to be a disappointment as he is reminiscent of a young McGeady in that he frequently takes too much out of the ball and runs down blind alleys.

In fairness McGeady still does that, maybe not as much as he used to, but still too much for him to suddenly become a world beater. He was still doing the things he's been criticised over in the last few qualifiers, so I don't get where this thing about him looking so much better has come from. Saying all this, i'm actually a fan of McGeady because he has talent that noone else in the squad has, the problem is he just frequently doesn't use it to the level he should.