Republic of Ireland Team Talk/News/Rumours

Dempsey

TheCitizen wrote: »

I don't care if you watch it again. I knew you couldn't resist droning on repeating yourself, hoofball, hoofball:pac:.....

Yet, you kept asking me to watch the match again! You are full of shít tbh

Seems you've a bee in your bonnet about the term 'hoofball' being used. My heart bleeds for you! :rolleyes:

TheCitizen

Dempsey wrote: »

Yet, you kept asking me to watch the match again! You are full of shít tbh

I'm just catching you out for the spoofer that you are.

Dempsey wrote: »

Seems you've a bee in your bonnet about the term 'hoofball' being used. My heart bleeds for you! :rolleyes:

As well as being completely inaccurate in your criticism, some Celtic fan you are.:rolleyes:

Dempsey

TheCitizen wrote: »

I'm just catching you out for the spoofer that you are.




As well as being completely inaccurate in your criticism, some Celtic fan you are.:rolleyes:

You havent caught me out on anything!

What does Celtic have to do with this conversation?

Meglamonia

It's cleary obvious ireland played hoofball Saturday I was at the game, anyone who says otherwise is mad it was horrible stuff.

keeponhurling

For clarity, what exactly is a hoof ?
Does a cross from the wing count as a hoof ?

Pro. F

Meglamonia wrote: »

It's cleary obvious ireland played hoofball Saturday I was at the game, anyone who says otherwise is mad it was horrible stuff.

Oh you were at the game? Well that changes everything then. Clearly the TV broadcast was wonky and all the passes along the ground that were transmitted were only an illusion.

Meglamonia

Pro. F wrote: »

Oh you were at the game? Well that changes everything then. Clearly the TV broadcast was wonky and all the passes along the ground that were transmitted were only an illusion.

There's no need to get smart.

I was just stating I was at, anyone watching it on TV had as good a view as me im sure.

Yes, there a few nice periods of play in the first half but you can't ignore the amount of balls hoofed up hoping either Walters or Murphy would get on the end of the of them. At one stage in the first half Brady lumped a ball towards the left corner flag under no pressure without even looking and there wasn't a player near it.

The second half in my opinion descended into "hoofball". Given was receiving the ball numerous times to just lump it up the pitch in a hit and hope which was frustrating to watch. There was little or no effort to play the ball out from the back in the second half.

Pro. F

Meglamonia wrote: »

There's no need to get smart.

I was just stating I was at, anyone watching it on TV had as good a view as me im sure.

You were clearly trying to use being at the game to add weight to your opinion. It's silly to try denying it now.

Meglamonia wrote: »

Yes, there a few nice periods of play in the first half but you can't ignore the amount of balls hoofed up hoping either Walters or Murphy would get on the end of the of them. At one stage in the first half Brady lumped a ball towards the left corner flag under no pressure without even looking and there wasn't a player near it.

The second half in my opinion descended into "hoofball". Given was receiving the ball numerous times to just lump it up the pitch in a hit and hope which was frustrating to watch. There was little or no effort to play the ball out from the back in the second half.

"At one stage in the first half" - yeah, a convincing argument that. One moment of play that you can remember is supposed to explain what happened during the entire game.

Given lumped the ball up the pitch "numerous" times? How precise. If you read my earlier post you'll see that once we get passed the vague recollections of people like yourself and actually count how often these things happened, what actually took place is quite different from what you remember.

Wilberto

Pro. F wrote: »

Given lumped the ball up the pitch "numerous" times? How precise.

To be fair, every time the ball goes to Given it seems like all he wants to do is lash it down the field. This isn't really a comment on the actual game itself, but something that Given himself has been very suspect of in his entire career.

I especially noticed it at City actually. Every goal kick etc. was just pumped straight down the field, regardless of whether his full backs were in acres of space or not.

Whereas Forde on the other hand, actually throws the ball out to his fullbacks occasionally.

Pro. F

Adamocovic wrote: »

Care to elaborate on the bold part, maybe I am too tired but I don't follow.

And I don't know if you can come out and say I am completely wrong, maybe just my biased opinion of my comment. But when you have height, a great delivery man and around 15-18 set pieces to test the defense, and other than a scrappy goal you don't really test the goal I would call that disappointing and would wager most proffesional football teams would punish you more for giving them that many chances.

EDIT: And by punish I not only mean score but also create good goalscoring chances and causing some panic in the box

The moving the goal posts comment refers to the fact that you changed your view from "Most teams would punish you for giving them that many set pieces" to "With the sort of delivery Brady was offering you'd expect someone to get a decent header or flick onto them." Now you've clarified that by punishing the opposition from set-pieces you're referring to getting shots, flicks and causing panic in the box, rather than just scoring goals, which is fair enough.

But even if that's what you want to look at, we did a more than respectable amount of that too. We had two shots from corners; we twice had the ball land on the ground in the 6 yard box and we had a clearance land with Hoolahan inside the box. All of that counts as causing the Scots trouble from our corners. In fact, when I was looking at the corners back again, they are so good that it makes me worry we are spending too much time on them in training at the expense of the more effective ways of scoring goals.

Corners are just not an effective method of attacking. For all the corners that teams take, very few goals come from them. I would say what we saw on Saturday is about as good as it gets from wide set piece play.

TheCitizen

Dempsey wrote: »

You havent caught me out on anything!

While it's been disappointing under MON with Ireland thus far, you've been caught out being totally inaccurate in your criticism. By enlarge Ireland haven't struggled in this Group for the reasons that you have been blathering about. And the Group isn't done and dusted yet btw.

Dempsey wrote: »

What does Celtic have to do with this conversation?

You claim to be a Celtic fan. You should know that O'Neill was usually a positive manager, perhaps direct at times, but not negative in style. This "hoofball" comments stuff is glib and inaccurate.

You ought to know better, but you've dug a hole for yoursel.

Kirby

Wilberto wrote: »

To be fair, every time the ball goes to Given it seems like all he wants to do is lash it down the field. This isn't really a comment on the actual game itself, but something that Given himself has been very suspect of in his entire career.

I especially noticed it at City actually. Every goal kick etc. was just pumped straight down the field, regardless of whether his full backs were in acres of space or not.

Whereas Forde on the other hand, actually throws the ball out to his fullbacks occasionally.

I think you are misinterpreting a tactic as a goalkeeper decision. You think it's a coincidence that every single "lash up the field" finds Walters? Normally we have keane and Walters up there and it always hits Walters. It's a tactic. And his kicking is very accurate. For over a decade, Kevin Kilbane was the target if every goal kick we had. Out to the wing, for Kevin to challenge. Like clockwork. About twenty times a game. Every player on the field, including the opposition, knew where our goal kicks are going. They would all push over to one side of the pitch. If its just a random lash up the field, why would they do that?

Is it effective? Thats another issue. But to describe it as "lashing it up the field" is not just simplistic, it's actually demonstrating a lack of understanding of organised football by not recognising it. If trap or Martin set it up like that, the players follow direction.

Dempsey

TheCitizen wrote: »

While it's been disappointing under MON with Ireland thus far, you've been caught out being totally inaccurate in your criticism. By enlarge Ireland haven't struggled in this Group for the reasons that you have been blathering about. And the Group isn't done and dusted yet btw.



You claim to be a Celtic fan. You should know that O'Neill was usually a positive manager, perhaps direct at times, but not negative in style. This "hoofball" comments stuff is glib and inaccurate.

You ought to know better, but you've dug a hole for yoursel.

My criticism has been perfectly valid and accurate, im not looking for you accept it because i dont think you are capable of accepting it. I never claimed the group was done and dusted.

This has nothing to do with Celtic or his time there although there are criticisms of his celtic career but they are nothing but a strawman in terms of his ireland tenure, its a decade later and his managerial skills are in decline and without john roberston he is a ying without the yang. They had a good working relationship and Roy Keane is a poor replacement. Things are not going to get better. After the initial burst of euthusiam he always brings to a squad, unless he gets new players involved, everything goes stale. It was the case at celtic, villa and sunderland. I see no reason why it wont happen quicker in international football given the nature of it. Saying this doesnt degrade what he achieved at Celtic

Also i never called hoofball a negative tactic. Im calling it dull. I dont mind a dull winning tactic but if its not winning and its also has the added problem of being hard to watch then it deserves criticism. How is it deserving of the contract he's getting? Michael O'Neill could do what hes done for a fraction of the cost and half the headlines.

TheCitizen

Dempsey wrote: »

My criticism has been perfectly valid and accurate, im not looking for you accept it because i dont think you are capable of accepting it. I never claimed the group was done and dusted.

This has nothing to do with Celtic or his time there although there are criticisms of his celtic career but they are nothing but a strawman in terms of his ireland tenure, its a decade later and his managerial skills are in decline and without john roberston he is a ying without the yang. They had a good working relationship and Roy Keane is a poor replacement. Things are not going to get better. After the initial burst of euthusiam he always brings to a squad, unless he gets new players involved, everything goes stale. It was the case at celtic, villa and sunderland. I see no reason why it wont happen quicker in international football given the nature of it. Saying this doesnt degrade what he achieved at Celtic

My point is; your criticism is inaccurate.

There has been no great burst of enthusiasm with Ireland in this Group yet under MON, been a very slow burner to date. Maybe they'll take off on the run in.

Kirby

I'm of the belief, and have been from the start, that if we didnt qualify that the manager should go. I havent changed in that belief. However I find the criticism of the scotland game overly harsh.

We were the better team and played the better football. Not for the whole game granted....and we were quite poor when hoolihan came off. But I've seen us play much worse.

Dempsey

TheCitizen wrote: »

My point is; your criticism is inaccurate.

There has been no great burst of enthusiasm with Ireland in this Group yet under MON, been a very slow burner to date. Maybe they'll take off on the run in.

Its not inaccurate at all.

Maybe you should think back to when MON took over, are you really trying to say nothing changed when he took over from trap? That draw in germany would have happened under trap?

Adamocovic

The result last week has made this thread quite unbearable. The arguments seem to just go in circles, I am probably guilty of it too though.

God help us if we slip up against Georgia, this place will go into meltdown :pac:

TheCitizen

Dempsey wrote: »

Its not inaccurate at all.

Maybe you should think back to when MON took over, are you really trying to say nothing changed when he took over from trap? That draw in germany would have happened under trap?

There's was definitely immediate improvement from Trap's last campaign of course - that wouldn't be hard. However the best performance of the Group so far wasn't until last Saturday, so hopefully things will progress from there.

noodler

Dempsey wrote: »

Its not inaccurate at all.

Maybe you should think back to when MON took over, are you really trying to say nothing changed when he took over from trap? That draw in germany would have happened under trap?

It happened under Trap in Bari.

It took 70 minute and a bunch of subs for us to go at Germany.

Seems fairly identical to Trap imo.

Wilberto

Kirby wrote: »

I think you are misinterpreting a tactic as a goalkeeper decision. You think it's a coincidence that every single "lash up the field" finds Walters? Normally we have keane and Walters up there and it always hits Walters. It's a tactic. And his kicking is very accurate. For over a decade, Kevin Kilbane was the target if every goal kick we had. Out to the wing, for Kevin to challenge. Like clockwork. About twenty times a game. Every player on the field, including the opposition, knew where our goal kicks are going. They would all push over to one side of the pitch. If its just a random lash up the field, why would they do that?

Is it effective? Thats another issue. But to describe it as "lashing it up the field" is not just simplistic, it's actually demonstrating a lack of understanding of organised football by not recognising it. If trap or Martin set it up like that, the players follow direction.

Ah now, clearly I had my tongue firmly in cheek when I used that phrase. I mean, obviously no professional goal keeper worth his salt will just kick down the field and hope for the best.


My point was, and you eluded to this with your own example, was that Given constantly aims long balls down the pitch and rarely does he mix it up by throwing the ball out to his full backs even when they're in acres of space. I mean, even if it reaches the player, at best it'll be a 70/30 chance of possession anyway as the player will be challenged, where as we could have clean possession (albeit closer to our own goal) if he used his full backs every so often. A little variation wouldn't go astray is all I'm saying.

Dempsey

TheCitizen wrote: »

There's was definitely immediate improvement from Trap's last campaign of course - that wouldn't be hard. However the best performance of the Group so far wasn't until last Saturday, so hopefully things will progress from there.

So there was an improvement...

noodler wrote: »

It happened under Trap in Bari.

It took 70 minute and a bunch of subs for us to go at Germany.

Seems fairly identical to Trap imo.

Not based on the performances after the euros, he wouldnt have gotten a performance like Bari.

Kirby

We arent completely dead and buried. If we beat Georgia and the Scots lose to Georgia we are back in the hunt.

Its just a shame we are down to relying and hoping for other teams to mess up.......to get 3rd. It's not very good really, is it?

Adamocovic

Kirby wrote: »

We arent completely dead and buried. If we beat Georgia and the Scots lose to Georgia we are back in the hunt.

Its just a shame we are down to relying and hoping for other teams to mess up.......to get 3rd. It's not very good really, is it?

It's the Irish way :pac:

keeponhurling

Well, here's some positive news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-33187667

Our assistant manager is off the hook, and didn't "stare aggressively" at a taxi driver

Godot.

STOKE TO MOVE FOR MURPHY
by Paul Lennon

Daryl Murphy's Indian Summer becomes rosier with every passing week.

Last Saturday's competitive debut for Ireland at the age of 32 followed on from his hugely impressive 27 league goals for Ipswich Town in the Championship in the season just ended.

Now, Mark Hughes has added the towering striker to his list of transfer targets, with a return to the Premier League with Stoke City believed to be a distinct possibility for Murphy comes August.

Already, Cardiff City have made the Waterford man their primary focus, with manager Russell Slade believing that Murphy can be the spearhead for the Bluebirds' promotion charge next season.

Murphy only has one year to run on his current deal at Portman Road, where he opted to extend his contract 12 months ago, midway through a two year term.

Ipswich and manager Mick McCarthy are doing everything to keep Murphy with the Tractor Boys but are faced with a real dilemma.

The €5.25m on offer from Cardiff will be comfortably exceeded by Hughes once the Potters enter the battle to secure the forward.

And even if Stoke stall with their interest, Cardiff's pursuit of Murphy will leave McCarthy with little option but to sell their in-form star.

McCarthy has been operating on the most restrictive transfer budget of any manager in the top two divisions over the past two years.

Before last January's arrival of Freddie Sears from Colchester United in a deal reportedly worth €200,000, McCarthy's expenditure had been in the region of €150,000 in total.

So while he will be loathe to lose Murphy, he knows that Ipswich need to balance the books and that he cannot match anything that Cardiff can offer Murphy in terms of salary.

Murphy can easily command €33,000 per week initially at the Britannia, while Cardiff would comfortably stretch to €20,000, with owner Vincent Tan happy to splash his own cash to invest in personnel.

Murphy has yet to open his Ireland account 16 games into his senior international career, but his form since last August and his recent Ireland outings against England and Scotland definitely added to his reputation.

Against England, Murphy made a decent impression in his battle against Gary Cahill and Chris Smalling.

His ability to win aerial duals played a large part in Martin O'Neill's decision to start him against the Scots six days later.

Unfortunately, the one real weakness in Murphy at this level was once more underlined against Gordon Strachan's men when his low drive - seconds after Shaun Maloney's equaliser - from Wes Hoolahan's perfect pass was saved by David Marshall.

There was a degree of good fortune to Marshall's save as his trailing leg deflected the ball away from goal. But at this level, converting the limited number of chances that fall your way is crucial.

In the England game, Murphy was unlucky to see his early angled drive fly only narrowly wide of Joe Hart's goal, but his header later in the half saw him direct his effort well off target.

Still, it was Murphy's strong run to the near post and his connection to Robbie Brady's corner that allowed Jon Walters to put Ireland ahead against the Scots.

That header was low, powerful and well directed. It would have beaten Marshall had his effort been two feet left or right of the keeper.

So if Murphy's finishing lacked an international edge, his overall display certainly didn't.

And it's this ability plus his tremendous work rate, clever movement and link play that has turned Hughes' head.

Hughes has maintained predecessor Tony Pulis's belief that having a big striker is an asset not to be dismissed.

Ironically, contract talks involving Murphy's Ireland teammate, Jon Walters, over an extention to his Stoke City contract have now stalled.

Hercule Poirot

keeponhurling wrote: »

Well, here's some positive news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-33187667

Our assistant manager is off the hook, and didn't "stare aggressively" at a taxi driver

Not football related, but it was an absolute sham that this even made it into a courtroom

Wilberto

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Not football related, but it was an absolute sham that this even made it into a courtroom

That's effectively what the Judge said as well.

tayto lover

Kirby wrote: »

We arent completely dead and buried. If we beat Georgia and the Scots lose to Georgia we are back in the hunt.

Its just a shame we are down to relying and hoping for other teams to mess up.......to get 3rd. It's not very good really, is it?

Oh yes we are.
One point out of six against the Scots tells it's own story.

TheCitizen

tayto lover wrote: »

Oh yes we are.
One point out of six against the Scots tells it's own story.

Have you noticed that there's 4 rounds of games left Nostradamus.

tayto lover

TheCitizen wrote: »

Have you noticed that there's 4 rounds of games left Nostradamus.

We are out of it.
Even if there were 8 games left we wouldn't make it.
Our football and management are not up to it in my opinion.

eire4

We are at the very best in the last chance saloon in terms of this campaign thats for sure. We really need the Scots to have an unexpected slip up next round in Georgia for us to be alive again in terms of the playoff spot for me.

briany

tayto lover wrote: »

We are out of it.
Even if there were 8 games left we wouldn't make it.
Our football and management are not up to it in my opinion.

I think it's much more the football than the management. If we keep on the merry-go-round of "it's the manager..." there probably won't be much progress made.

If the belief persists that managers who've been years in the game, and decorated, suddenly get Sunday league level when they're put in charge of the Ireland team then there's a disconnect from reality. If managers are consistently making roughly the same appraisal of the Ireland team, we have to at some point accept what they're trying to say.

eire4

briany wrote: »

I think it's much more the football than the management. If we keep on the merry-go-round of "it's the manager..." there probably won't be much progress made.

If the belief persists that managers who've been years in the game, and decorated, suddenly get Sunday league level when they're put in charge of the Ireland team then there's a disconnect from reality. If managers are consistently making roughly the same appraisal of the Ireland team, we have to at some point accept what they're trying to say.

Fair point there for me. I certainly have not agreed with some of the choices O'Neill has made in this campaign so far but for me our problems go way deeper then just who is in charge of the senior national team right now.

briany

briany wrote: »

If managers are consistently making roughly the same appraisal of the Ireland team, we have to at some point accept what they're trying to say.

Do they not usually do it when things turn sour though? They get a bit "ah we just don't have the players anyway"? Do the managers of much smaller countries that are doing better than us complain that they don't have the players? Could it possibly be that "not having the players" is a pretty standard line churned out by managers and fans of clubs and countries to dress up what may be more a case of underperforming?

Pro. F

briany wrote: »

I think it's much more the football than the management. If we keep on the merry-go-round of "it's the manager..." there probably won't be much progress made.

If the belief persists that managers who've been years in the game, and decorated, suddenly get Sunday league level when they're put in charge of the Ireland team then there's a disconnect from reality. If managers are consistently making roughly the same appraisal of the Ireland team, we have to at some point accept what they're trying to say.

Did you not see MON at Villa and Sunderland, or Trap with Italy? Your argument can only work if you pretend that they both changed their style of football when they started managing the Ireland team, but that's clearly not case.

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

Do they not usually do it when things turn sour though? They get a bit "ah we just don't have the players anyway"? Do the managers of much smaller countries that are doing better than us complain that they don't have the players? Could it possibly be that "not having the players" is a pretty standard line churned out by managers and fans of clubs and countries to dress up what may be more a case of underperforming?

To hear some tell it, the team has been 'underperforming' for the last 4 managers. Many England fans also believe their team has been 'underperforming' since 1966. It is true that a manager plays a big role in helping to shape the mentality of his side, but is it fair to call for the sack when he can't complete that work after one campaign? I don't really think so. Brian Kerr was hounded out of the job in the same fashion. There is a timidity and unsureness in the Irish game that has plagued the team through several managers, at least going back to McCarthy. I remember far too many games that were drawn that other teams would have put to bed, and at times when Ireland had objectively better players. Who can forget the time Ireland drew 2-2 with Holland, after leading 2-0, with McCarthy celebrating like it was a victory, angering Roy Keane? That mentality is still there. It's rooted very deeply, it would seem. Now, not only do we have to deal with that mentality but also a transitional side where the team has no real key player anywhere on the pitch to dictate play.

Pro. F wrote: »

Did you not see MON at Villa and Sunderland, or Trap with Italy? Your argument can only work if you pretend that they both changed their style of football when they started managing the Ireland team, but that's clearly not case.

And is it not possible that both managers make an appraisal of the team they're coaching and adjust their style accordingly in order to get what they feel would be the best results? You're talking as if they're the only teams they have managed and they have nothing to show for their managerial careers. They're both pretty well decorated, Trapattoni especially.

keeponhurling

The one under Kerr also comes to mind, when we were 2-0 up at home to Israel, and invited them onto us to get a 2-2 draw

Pro. F

briany wrote: »

To hear some tell it, the team has been 'underperforming' for the last 4 managers.

If you rate defensive football as a good way of getting results then you won't think they've been underperforming under Trap and MON. If you don't rate defensive football as effective, then you will think the team has been underperforming under those two. It's that simple.

Obviously you should expect that a team will underperform when managed by Kerr and Stan. Including those two manages in your argument completely undermines it.

briany wrote: »

And is it not possible that both managers make an appraisal of the team they're coaching and adjust their style accordingly in order to get what they feel would be the best results? You're talking as if they're the only teams they have managed and they have nothing to show for their managerial careers. They're both pretty well decorated, Trapattoni especially.

Having won things doesn't disprove that they were cautious managers. Trap has always been famous for being a very defensive manager, including when he has had much better players than were available to Ireland. MON has been playing the exact same style for the last ten years.

They take over the Ireland job, proceed to carry on with the same cautious style as they had previously exhibited and you argue that they are doing so because of what they think of the players? It's just daft.

Nalz

keeponhurling wrote: »

The one under Kerr also comes to mind, when we were 2-0 up at home to Israel, and invited them onto us to get a 2-2 draw

ugh.... John O Shea that day.

Brings back horrible memories

briany

Pro. F wrote: »

If you rate over-cautious football as a good way of getting results then you won't think they've been underperforming under Trap and MON. If you don't rate defensive football as effective, then you will think the team has been underperforming under those two. It's that simple.

Obviously you should expect that a team will underperform when managed by Kerr and Stan. Including those two manages in your argument completely undermines it.

When Stan and Kerr came in, they were both expected to do good things, to be a boon to the fortunes of the team - Kerr with his passion for the Irish game and, of course, the miracle he worked in the youth side. "How could he fail?", we said. Then Stan, with the wise old Bobby Robson by his side, was going to be this dynamic partnership of young and old, and they kicked off their reign with a great 4-0 friendly defeat of Sweden, so it's nonsense to say it was obvious to expect underperformance. I remember performance was definitely expected and public opinion turned sharply when that did not happen.

Having won things doesn't disprove that they were cautious managers. Trap has always been famous for being a very defensive manager, including when he has had much better players than were available to Ireland. MON has been playing the exact same style for the last ten years.

They take over the Ireland job, proceed to carry on with the same cautious style as they had previously exhibited and you argue that they are doing so because of what they think of the players? It's just daft.

There's a fallacy going on that Ireland's relative toothlessness is down to managerial caution exhibited by M'ON and exhibited by Trap when he was in charge, but those managers did not win championships by encouraging the team to have no cutting edge or to lump long balls. While both managers have had a reputation for caution, there can be degrees to that caution. You can be defensively robust while still knowing how to show teeth in attack and close out a game 1-0 if need be. If both managers come in and you think play a cautious game, even for their scale, you have to think that there is something happening in their appraisal of the team's ability. Ireland's inability to close out tight games and knock it long is not something merely borne out of managerial caution either, as it's a problem that goes back to Jack Charlton.

Pro. F

briany wrote: »

When Stan and Kerr came in, they were both expected to do good things, to be a boon to the fortunes of the team - Kerr with his passion for the Irish game and, of course, the miracle he worked in the youth side. "How could he fail?", we said. Then Stan, with the wise old Bobby Robson by his side, was going to be this dynamic partnership of young and old, and they kicked off their reign with a great 4-0 friendly defeat of Sweden, so it's nonsense to say it was obvious to expect underperformance. I remember performance was definitely expected and public opinion turned sharply when that did not happen.

"We" said that did we? lol

What the general public might have expected before either of those two came in and what their actual abilities are are not necessarily the same thing.

Are you denying that Stan is an awful football manager? Are you denying that Kerr is a mediocre and defensive football manager?

briany wrote: »

There's a fallacy going on that Ireland's relative toothlessness is down to managerial caution exhibited by M'ON and exhibited by Trap when he was in charge, but those managers did not win championships by encouraging the team to have no cutting edge or to lump long balls. While both managers have had a reputation for caution, there can be degrees to that caution. You can be defensively robust while still knowing how to show teeth in attack and close out a game 1-0 if need be. If both managers come in and you think play a cautious game, even for their scale, you have to think that there is something happening in their appraisal of the team's ability. Ireland's inability to close out tight games and knock it long is not something merely borne out of managerial caution either, as it's a problem that goes back to Jack Charlton.

Trap's Italy were just as defensive as Trap's Ireland. Was that because of the player quality too?

Defensive football is all well and good when you have excellent players compared to your competition. You can win things that way. We don't have that luxury.

What championships did MON win with Villa and Sunderland?

Kirby

I hate the attitude of "Ah sure we are little old ireland. We are crap. Might as well leave the current manager in the job." I dont care what level you play at. If the team fails, you do something about it.

If MON fails to qualify, he should go. Whether its him, trap, etc. Whoever is in charge should go. And you keep trying until you find the winning formula. You dont just accept mediocrity.

yabadabado

I see Kerr being mentioned ,its a shame he hasn't worked for FAI in some capacity the last few years.He mightn't have been the right man for the senior team but I would love to see him involved with underage set up again.

yabadabado

yabadabado wrote: »

I see Kerr being mentioned ,its a shame he hasn't worked for FAI in some capacity the last few years.He mightn't have been the right man for the senior team but I would love to see him involved with underage set up again.

Presume Delaney has some say in what is a really baffling one alright.

I guess he's too busy with his girlfriend and all those Sindo photoshoots and punching the head off Sepp and throwing ties and drinking and singing and drinking and the ties and punching and singing some more to bother with noticing the rather screamingly obvious, that Kerr should have some role given his amazing success with underage teams before.

Godot.

Tommie Hoban is a man that will definitely be in the Irish squad next season. Young Watford central defender, played regularly for them last season when fit.

miroslavklose

Godot. wrote: »

Tommie Hoban is a man that will definitely be in the Irish squad next season. Young Watford central defender, played regularly for them last season when fit.

What position did he play for them?

SantryRed

miroslavklose wrote: »

What position did he play for them?

CB, as part of a back three mostly.

Christy Browne

James McClean gone to West Brom.

Good move for him, be interesting to see if gets playtime though.

Adamocovic

Christy Browne wrote: »

James McClean gone to West Brom.

Good move for him, be interesting to see if gets playtime though.

A lot better than League 1 football!

RickyOFlaherty

Adamocovic wrote: »

A lot better than League 1 football!

Or Chicago Fire or the MLS which was also mooted