Hungary v Rep. of Ireland KO 7.30 - Setanta Ireland MOD POST #5

Francie Barrett

Ormus wrote: »

1. Amateur opinion passed off as expert gospel knowledge? Check
2. Inciteful personal insult thrown in out of the blue? Check
3. Friendly chat about football turned into teenage slagging match? Check

Pro F is in da house.

You're talking nonsense, mate.

Trap has gotten so much wrong at this stage it's unreal. A few weeks ago, you couldn't get a word in edgeways about how his system, it was virtually sacrosanct and it couldn't be made to accommodate certain players. Now, just days before the finals, Trap is talking about completely changing it.

Yet if you say anything to criticise the squad/team/tactics, you will have a bunch of people ganging up on you, accusing you of not having a clue (the irony!) and wanting the team to lose!

Laois_Man

Francie Barrett wrote: »

So much for our "system" :rolleyes:

I don't believe for a second Trapp is going to change anything! He's far too cautious of a man to change anything at this late stage. More likely, he's trying to confuse Bilic!

Ormus

Francie Barrett wrote: »

You're talking nonsense, mate.

Trap has gotten so much wrong at this stage it's unreal. A few weeks ago, you couldn't get a word in edgeways about how his system, it was virtually sacrosanct and it couldn't be made to accommodate certain players. Now, just days before the finals, Trap is talking about completely changing it.

Yet if you say anything to criticise the squad/team/tactics, you will have a bunch of people ganging up on you, accusing you of not having a clue (the irony!) and wanting the team to lose!

Eh, where did I say any of that? You sure you quoted the right post?

tolosenc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I mean, in 88 we had Whelan on the pitch. In 94 we had Keane and Sheridan in the middle. We had players who were used to getting it down and playing it year round at club level. Then the likes of Staunton, Irwin, Babb, McAteer were all playing in systems where the ball was knocked about on the deck.

I think the make up of the 90 starting 11 was demonstrably different, and it makes sense that the football was a little different too.

You think about our current lineup:

- Given / Dunne spent the season under McCleish;
- Whelan / Walters spent the season at Stoke;
- Andrews played for Hodgson during the second half of the year, Long / Cox the whole season;
- McClean broke into the team under O'Neill who plays a very direct game / O'Shea / Westwood were playing under Bruce before that, hardly samba stuff;
- Doyle / Hunt / Ward have spent the year playing at Wolves under McCarthy who to be fair aren't the worst though it does involve getting it wide and putting a lot of crosses in, etc;
- O'Dea spent the last few months under Warnock at Leeds;

Gibson, Duff and McGeady have come from a more expansive footballing tableau I guess (and Keane is a genius) - but really, when you consider the core of our current squad, what we are doing fits what they are doing week in, week out.

This is key.

In the past, we had a squad made up of players plying their trade at top-half of the table premiership teams, with the odd one from lower down. Now it's the reverse.

There are quite a few younger lads coming through at bigger/better clubs, and we may in the not too distant future see a return to an Ireland which is more permanently a top 20 in the world team.

Francie Barrett

Ormus wrote: »

Eh, where did I say any of that? You sure you quoted the right post?

Pro F's statement was factual and perfectly correct. You are one of the people that just attacks anyone with anything mildly critical to say about Trap.

Felexicon

Pro. F wrote: »

The majority of people who might have some criticisms of how Trap is managing the team do not want Ireland to play some open attacking style. It's stupid to pretend they do.

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Pro F's statement was factual and perfectly correct. You are one of the people that just attacks anyone with anything mildly critical to say about Trap.

Where exactly are the facts in his statement?

Francie Barrett

Felexicon wrote: »

Where exactly are the facts in his statement?

The facts are that virtualy no one is actually calling for us to play attacking football.

Felexicon

Francie Barrett wrote: »

The facts are that virtualy no one is actually calling for us to play attacking football.

This makes baby Jesus cry. You really cannot be this stupid

Banjaxed82

Felexicon wrote: »

Ormus wrote: »

1. Amateur opinion passed off as expert gospel knowledge? Check
2. Inciteful personal insult thrown in out of the blue? Check
3. Friendly chat about football turned into teenage slagging match? Check

Pro F is in da house.

No response when asked to back up his point? Check

LOL

Cause we all sit in front of our computers 24/7. Maybe some of you do.

Felexicon

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

LOL

Cause we all sit in front of our computers 24/7. Maybe some of you do.

No.......... just the 8 hours a day in work really

_blank_

Felexicon wrote: »

No.......... just the 8 hours a day in work really

Must be pretty quiet where you work...

briany

Francie Barrett wrote: »

The facts are that virtualy no one is actually calling for us to play attacking football.

Ireland do look to play attacking football though....in the first 15 minutes. It's why the team scored early openers against Italy ('8), Slovakia ('16) and Bulgaria ('1), Macedonia (twice- '2/'7), Andorra (twice '15/'7), Cyprus (twice '5/'5) and Georgia ('13). They'll usually huff and puff within that first 15 and either the other team capitulates and concedes a goal or they stand strong and totally outplay Ireland like when Slovakia and Russia came to town.

That seems to be the current Irish game at the moment; open intensely for the first 15, contain and counter for the intervening 60 and then another 10 or 15 minutes of intensity at the end, depending on the score but it's the 60 in the middle, where the team contracts and gives the ball away too easy and employs the defensive long ball, that has caused most of the criticism and it's where almost all the goals are conceded by the team as well.

Felexicon

Des wrote: »

Must be pretty quiet where you work...

It's more that I'm so good at my job I'm able to keep an eye on boards without letting my performance slip

eire4

Not really a good performance last night against Hungary. Some good saves from Given in the first half and Westwood in the second being for me the main reason we got away with a 0-0 draw. Although we did create some chances in the second half with Walters in particular looking lively.

There seems to be some real harsh criticism of Ireland from many on here and understandbale to an extent. We didn't play well. But I think you have to be fair and look at it from the players perspective. It would be unrealistic to not expect them to be thinking about the finals and next Sunday against Croatia to an extent. Hard for the players to really be fully focused and on the ball mentally last night and it showed in our performance.

Pro. F

Felexicon wrote: »

No response when asked to back up his point? Check

You do know this is a forum, not an IRC channel? Real life gets in the way sometimes. Be patient for fùck sake.

Felexicon wrote: »

So what do they want?

Well for starters, if we are going to base our game on a defensive strategy then a bit of solidity in the midfield would be nice. We are amazingly open for a defensive team. The midfield pushing up even when the defense stays deep, getting dragged out of position, etc. There is a lot of room for improvement in that regard.

Another criticism that's got nothing to do with open attacking football is the call for a change up front. I'm a big fan of Doyle and he does amazingly well with what he has, but he is neither fast nor strong. Adding a faster (Shane Long) or stronger (Walters) outlet up front would seriously improve our ability to do something when counter attacking.

Yet another thing people criticise is the lack of a plan B for when we go behind. I'm not really an adherent of this argument because I think perfecting the plan A is more of a priority, but it is a common criticism that still doesn't call for open attacking football.

That's only a few. There are more.

There are a few cranks who complain about being bored and talk as if entertainment is more important than the result, but they are in the minority. The open attacking football thing is a strawman and really shouldn't need to be dealt with again at this stage.

Pro. F

Ormus wrote: »

1. Amateur opinion passed off as expert gospel knowledge? Check

Where did I pass my opinion off as gospel?

This is always the same with you. Any criticism or disagreement with a manager and you start crying. It's like you want every single comment on a managers decisions to be prefaced with ''I'm not a professional manager but...'' and followed by ''...only in my opinion of course.'' It's fùcking pathetic.

Go on, make sure to take a note of that for your diary of mean things I say.

Ormus wrote: »

2. Inciteful personal insult thrown in out of the blue? Check
3. Friendly chat about football turned into teenage slagging match? Check

Pro F is in da house.

The open attacking football strawman argument has been regurtitated and dealt with ad nauseam. It is stupid to still be spewing it at this stage.

This thread was far from a friendly chat before I came along so dry your eyes.

kitakyushu

briany wrote: »

Ireland do look to play attacking football though....in the first 15 minutes. It's why the team scored early openers against Italy ('8), Slovakia ('16) and Bulgaria ('1), Macedonia (twice- '2/'7), Andorra (twice '15/'7), Cyprus (twice '5/'5) and Georgia ('13). They'll usually huff and puff within that first 15 and either the other team capitulates and concedes a goal or they stand strong and totally outplay Ireland like when Slovakia and Russia came to town.

That seems to be the current Irish game at the moment; open intensely for the first 15, contain and counter for the intervening 60 and then another 10 or 15 minutes of intensity at the end, depending on the score but it's the 60 in the middle, where the team contracts and gives the ball away too easy and employs the defensive long ball, that has caused most of the criticism and it's where almost all the goals are conceded by the team as well.

This appears to be is pretty much the way. We play our football in the first 15mins of game and hopefully score. Then winning/losing/drawing we lock up shop with a minimum risk game for another 60.

If we're winning at this point then we just keep containing. If we're still drawing or losing after 75 minutes then another concerted effort will be made up until full time to try recover the result.

Adolf Hipster

Felexicon wrote: »

No response when asked to back up his point? Check

Wow, this is a bit of a ridiculous statement to make, I don't know how long you've actually been on the SF, but one thing that Pro.F doesn't do, is shy away from debate.

I may not always agree with him, but he's one of a select few who will back up there opinion and always give reasoning for whatever he says, to say he shy's away from a debate is a bit ridiculous.

mada999

eire4 wrote: »

Not really a good performance last night against Hungary. Some good saves from Given in the first half and Westwood in the second being for me the main reason we got away with a 0-0 draw. Although we did create some chances in the second half with Walters in particular looking lively.

There seems to be some real harsh criticism of Ireland from many on here and understandbale to an extent. We didn't play well. But I think you have to be fair and look at it from the players perspective. It would be unrealistic to not expect them to be thinking about the finals and next Sunday against Croatia to an extent. Hard for the players to really be fully focused and on the ball mentally last night and it showed in our performance.

I also think there's a case that they were a little unsettled by standing in the tunnel for 20mins not knowing if the game was going ahead, while the Hungarians where back in the dressing room chillin out

Felexicon

Pro. F wrote: »

You do know this is a forum, not an IRC channel? Real life gets in the way sometimes. Be patient for fùck sake.


Well for starters, if we are going to base our game on a defensive strategy then a bit of solidity in the midfield would be nice. We are amazingly open for a defensive team. The midfield pushing up even when the defense stays deep, getting dragged out of position, etc. There is a lot of room for improvement in that regard.

Another criticism that's got nothing to do with open attacking football is the call for a change up front. I'm a big fan of Doyle and he does amazingly well with what he has, but he is neither fast nor strong. Adding a faster (Shane Long) or stronger (Walters) outlet up front would seriously improve our ability to do something when counter attacking.

Yet another thing people criticise is the lack of a plan B for when we go behind. I'm not really an adherent of this argument because I think perfecting the plan A is more of a priority, but it is a common criticism that still doesn't call for open attacking football.

That's only a few. There are more.

There are a few cranks who complain about being bored and talk as if entertainment is more important than the result, but they are in the minority. The open attacking football thing is a strawman and really shouldn't need to be dealt with again at this stage.

Yes I am aware of this. Are you aware that not everything people write is serious. It was a joke.


Kevin Doyle is not slower than Long or weaker than Walters from what I've seen. Obviously neither myself or yourself are in a position to state this as fact, as we've never wrestled or raced any of the people involved.
Also saying that wanting a change to your main attacking option has nothing to do with attacking football is moronic.

Also we clearly don't leave ourselves that open defensively as is shown by our great clean sheet record.

Felexicon

Well clearly my point is proven that Pro. F is afraid to answer back it's been 4 minutes and not a peep

Pro. F

Felexicon wrote: »

Yes I am aware of this. Are you aware that not everything people write is serious. It was a joke.

Yeah sure.

Felexicon wrote: »

Kevin Doyle is not slower than Long or weaker than Walters from what I've seen. Obviously neither myself or yourself are in a position to state this as fact, as we've never wrestled or raced any of the people involved.
Also saying that wanting a change to your main attacking option has nothing to do with attacking football is moronic.

You think Doyle is as fast as Long and as strong as Walters. Cool. I disagree.

Calling for a change of one striker for another is not a call for a change from defensive football to open attacking football. Don't waste my time by pretending it is.

Doyle is the best defensively, but the other two are no slouches.

Felexicon wrote: »

Also we clearly don't leave ourselves that open defensively as is shown by our great clean sheet record.

6 clean sheets in 12 competitive games. Yes it's good, but it doesn't prove the team aren't open or aren't giving up lots of chances. Even Staunton - the worst professional manager probably any of us has seen - managed 3 clean sheets in 11 competitive games. (I'm remembering those records from reading them recently, so I'm open to correction). We give up lots of chances and get cut open too easily, especially when you consider defending is supposed to be our primary concern. Hopefully it will change when the tournament starts.

aindriu80

nice to see the squad in Poland finally. The game was terrible last night from an entertainment point of view but at least we kept a clean sheet and of course no injuries.

The 4-4-2 system is very rigid IMHO but if the players are best when playing it then there is not much you can do. We don't really have someone in the middle of the pitch who can keep the ball and thus change the formation. I guess all the players should keep the ball more. Any changes in this Irish team will just be about flooding the midfield

Ormus

Pro. F wrote: »

Where did I pass my opinion off as gospel?

This is always the same with you. Any criticism or disagreement with a manager and you start crying. It's like you want every single comment on a managers decisions to be prefaced with ''I'm not a professional manager but...'' and followed by ''...only in my opinion of course.'' It's fùcking pathetic.

Go on, make sure to take a note of that for your diary of mean things I say.

The open attacking football strawman argument has been regurtitated and dealt with ad nauseam. It is stupid to still be spewing it at this stage.

This thread was far from a friendly chat before I came along so dry your eyes.

Bless you, you still don't understand what opinion is no matter how many times I explain it and no matter how many times I say that I completely welcome all opinions, whether I agree with them or not. There is no need for prefaces, we've been over this, I won't walk you through it again.

My eyes are dry I promise. You are the one who gets ridiculously wound up. Personally I've never tried yoga but I think it might be beneficial to you.

Ormus

Adolf Hipster wrote: »

Wow, this is a bit of a ridiculous statement to make, I don't know how long you've actually been on the SF, but one thing that Pro.F doesn't do, is shy away from debate.

I may not always agree with him, but he's one of a select few who will back up there opinion and always give reasoning for whatever he says, to say he shy's away from a debate is a bit ridiculous.

I gotta agree with this in fairness. Its too much to demand prompt answers on a forum, people be busy.

Ormus

Pro. F wrote: »

You think Doyle is as fast as Long and as strong as Walters. Cool. I disagree.

Calling for a change of one striker for another is not a call for a change from defensive football to open attacking football. Don't waste my time by pretending it is.

Doyle is the best defensively, but the other two are no slouches.

6 clean sheets in 12 competitive games. Yes it's good, but it doesn't prove the team aren't open or aren't giving up lots of chances. Even Staunton - the worst professional manager probably any of us has seen - managed 3 clean sheets in 11 competitive games. (I'm remembering those records from reading them recently, so I'm open to correction). We give up lots of chances and get cut open too easily, especially when you consider defending is supposed to be our primary concern. Hopefully it will change when the tournament starts.

I think Doyle is as strong as Walters but not as fast as Long. He is definitely less of a goal threat than both, but better defensively, better in the air.

Most people I hear complaining about Trap are the brigade who want a more attack minded manager, who will put the likes of Coleman, Hoolahan etc in the team. Of course there are others who want different things, more subtle changes, but they've been in the minority of people I've heard.

Pro. F

Ormus wrote: »

Bless you, you still don't understand what opinion is no matter how many times I explain it and no matter how many times I say that I completely welcome all opinions, whether I agree with them or not. There is no need for prefaces, we've been over this, I won't walk you through it again.

My eyes are dry I promise. You are the one who gets ridiculously wound up. Personally I've never tried yoga but I think it might be beneficial to you.

We've been over it and yet you still don't do as you say you do.

You said I passed my opinion off as expert gospel knowledge. Where did I do that? It's a simple question.

PhlegmyMoses

I think Doyle is out of form but I wouldn't be confident in Long or Walters either. Long is a bit lightweight and Walters is a bit cumbersome when you consider that he'll be playing beside Keane.

Keane is guaranteed so it's about the right partner for him, somebody who can get behind a defence, as Keane won't be doing this, but also put himself about a bit, winning headers and getting sutck in. Doyle is probably right for this role.

Liam O

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I think Doyle is out of form but I wouldn't be confident in Long or Walters either. Long is a bit lightweight and Walters is a bit cumbersome when you consider that he'll be playing beside Keane.

Keane is guaranteed so it's about the right partner for him, somebody who can get behind a defence, as Keane won't be doing this, but also put himself about a bit, winning headers and getting sutck in. Doyle is probably right for this role.

Walters isn't what I'd call cumbersome at all. He's probably the best Irish forward at holding onto the ball and bringing others into it too.

PhlegmyMoses

Liam O wrote: »

Walters isn't what I'd call cumbersome at all. He's probably the best Irish forward at holding onto the ball and bringing others into it too.

Cumbersome may not be the right word but it's not completely wrong either. He is hardly fleet of foot and doesn't really have a turn of pace. This is what I meant.