Trap Watch

eagle eye · 10-10-2015 2:46am

TheCitizen wrote: »

Let Paully D speak for himself. He has an agenda against MON and that's what is behind the "points" that he is making.

There doesn't appear to be any agenda in his post. In fact I don't see him running down Martin O'Neill either. He is just telling it as he, and many others, see it.

Do you remember our game against Scotland in the Aviva? What would you call that performance? What about the Poland game? And the Georgia game at the Aviva?

Anyways we have put up two great performances against the World Champion's and O'Neill and Keane deserve credit for that but what PaullyD says is correct. Even if we do come out second in the group it's not like we have done any better than we did under Trap. Only difference is that two teams qualify now instead of one for every other campaign over the last decade.

Edit to add: Most of us are delighted with what O'Neill has done but for me anyways it's just not that different to what Trap did.

TheCitizen · 10-10-2015 3:09am

eagle eye wrote: »

There doesn't appear to be any agenda in his post. In fact I don't see him running down Martin O'Neill either. He is just telling it as he, and many others, see it.

Do you remember our game against Scotland in the Aviva? What would you call that performance? What about the Poland game? And the Georgia game at the Aviva?

Anyways we have put up two great performances against the World Champion's and O'Neill and Keane deserve credit for that but what PaullyD says is correct. Even if we do come out second in the group it's not like we have done any better than we did under Trap. Only difference is that two teams qualify now instead of one for every other campaign over the last decade.

He is not telling it how it is, that poster has an agenda against MON going back a few years on this board. He is incorrect and always has been when it comes to MON 'cos he has a fixation about him. I don't get why you and others feel the need to speak for him and his strawman arguments.

As for Trap, yes Trap got the team qualified but what MON has achieved even thus far is a marked improvement on the performances under Trap' s last two years in charge in particular. Yes I saw every game, against Scotland in Dublin it was a good 1st half and I thought we were unlucky not to win. Against Georgia we upped the tempo in the 2 nd half and got the result. We've beaten the World champions it's the best result since 2001, we never had a result like that under Trap. The last time the Germans were in town under Trap we were beaten out the gate in our own backyard 6--1, and still we have posters like Paully D there carping about MON and making stuff up to create strawman arguments.

Kirby · 10-10-2015 3:10am

eagle eye wrote: »

There doesn't appear to be any agenda in his post. In fact I don't see him running down Martin O'Neill either. He is just telling it as he, and many others, see it.

Do you remember our game against Scotland in the Aviva? What would you call that performance? What about the Poland game? And the Georgia game at the Aviva?

Anyways we have put up two great performances against the World Champion's and O'Neill and Keane deserve credit for that but what PaullyD says is correct. Even if we do come out second in the group it's not like we have done any better than we did under Trap. Only difference is that two teams qualify now instead of one for every other campaign over the last decade.

Edit to add: Most of us are delighted with what O'Neill has done but for me anyways it's just not that different to what Trap did.

We were the better team at home to Scotland and deserved to win. We didnt play great but we were much better than Scotland on the day and they were lucky to come away with a point. We've played poorly in certain games this campaign but that wasnt one of them.

TheCitizen · 10-10-2015 3:15am

eagle eye wrote: »

Edit to add: Most of us are delighted with what O'Neill has done but for me anyways it's just not that different to what Trap did.

It's very different to what was happening in Trap's last two years in charge.

duffman13 · 10-10-2015 5:03am

TheCitizen wrote: »

He is not telling it how it is, that poster has an agenda against MON going back a few years on this board. He is incorrect and always has been when it comes to MON 'cos he has a fixation about him. I don't get why you and others feel the need to speak for him and his strawman arguments.

Your being unfair to other posters, I've read hus post in isolation and he's making a somewhat valid point. If you feel the need then dispute the post and reference what you deem to be a "fixation" then do that. People agree with him and are making that point.

I have never read other posts from Paully and you may well be right but people can weigh in and agree or disagree with any post. It's not people speaking for him

TheCitizen · 10-10-2015 10:04am

duffman13 wrote: »

Your being unfair to other posters, I've read hus post in isolation and he's making a somewhat valid point. If you feel the need then dispute the post and reference what you deem to be a "fixation" then do that. People agree with him and are making that point.

I have never read other posts from Paully and you may well be right but people can weigh in and agree or disagree with any post. It's not people speaking for him

Do you agree with his strawman argument that all of a sudden people are saying we've been like Brazil in the 1970's? No-one said that absolutely no-one, classic use of a strawman from him.

I can tell you I have read his posts on MON over the years and had plenty of arguments with him, and he most definitely does have a fixation about him, there's plenty of evidence for it.

duffman13 · 10-10-2015 10:44am

TheCitizen wrote: »

Do you agree with his strawman argument that all of a sudden people are saying we've been like Brazil in the 1970's? No-one said that absolutely no-one, classic use of a strawman from him.

I can tell you I have read his posts on MON over the years and had plenty of arguments with him, and he most definitely does have a fixation about him, there's plenty of evidence for it.

No I don't agree with the strawman argument. People playing down Traps achievements on the basis last time we played Germany we lost 6-1. PaullyD referenced that although it's a fantastic result that we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves. He's right we had a fantastic result in the two games against Germany but some other posters are getting a dig in about trap when it's absolutely not necessary.

Trap did really well for Ireland (despite the turgid football) and it should not be a time to be looking back on his reign. MON achieved a fantastic result and should be credited, my only point to you was that although you feel PaullyD has a fixation with MON, in this instance his points have some merit, strawman aside.

TheCitizen · 10-10-2015 11:21am

duffman13 wrote: »

No I don't agree with the strawman argument. People playing down Traps achievements on the basis last time we played Germany we lost 6-1. PaullyD referenced that although it's a fantastic result that we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves. He's right we had a fantastic result in the two games against Germany but some other posters are getting a dig in about trap when it's absolutely not necessary.

Trap did really well for Ireland (despite the turgid football) and it should not be a time to be looking back on his reign. MON achieved a fantastic result and should be credited, my only point to you was that although you feel PaullyD has a fixation with MON, in this instance his points have some merit, strawman aside.

I didn't play down Trap's achievements, he got the team to the Euro's but it fell apart after the Euro's and continued to fall apart thereafter. That poster has a fixation with MON, his judgement on him is not trustworthy at all.

The strawman I'm talking about is him bringing up something along the lines of people saying "we've played like 1970's Brazil under MON", when nobody said any such thing.

I'm not going to continue arguing with you about what another poster might be saying. Let him speak for himself, he'll be back.

By the looks of it my opinion and yours aren't that different at all. I'm not getting a dig in at Trap, he did a good job up to a point and then he really should have left after the Euro's, there was two wasted years after the Euro's there.

Pro. F · 10-10-2015 3:13pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

O'Neill started:

Daryl Murphy over Long
Stephen Ward over McGeady essentially

And subbed Randolph on ahead of Forde

The world did not explode in furious anger.

O'Neill started Brady, Hendrick, McCarthy and Hoolihan. Trap never would have even contemplated having so many ball players in one team, never mind a team which also had enforced changes in the back four.

I have plenty of time for criticising MON - he has bottled a good few away game selections for example - but it's right that he gets more leeway than Trap because he shows a hell of a lot more bravery and intelligence in his selections than Trap did and the performances reflect that.

The_Kew_Tour · 10-10-2015 3:24pm

Fair is fair and O Neill has done well with this group of players since Scotland

I liked how organised we were for the last 20 minutes in both Georgia and Germany games.

Lucky to beat Germany,maybe, but sometimes you deserve a break and I'm delighted he has.

I have been his biggest critic but credit where it's due too.

I'm not going to pound on him tomorrow if we don't qualify. It's still odds against that we will do the business tomorrow night.

I think we can do it, but most likely a 2-2 draw. If I had put bet on it, I say Poland by a goal, but you never know.

TheCitizen · 10-10-2015 3:32pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

O'Neill started:

Daryl Murphy over Long

That was a mistake in my view, although there are those who claim that Long is valuable as an impact sub. For me you should start your best players and Long is far superior to Murphy. Long should've started v Scotland in Dublin as well. It worked out v Germany with him coming on and taking his chance, he's done that a couple of times recently.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Stephen Ward over McGeady essentially

Usually MON would be well disposed to picking McGeady, but McGeady has been carrying injuries and hasn't played much football lately. He's not even making the Everton bench recently.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And subbed Randolph on ahead of Forde

At the time I was surprised at that decision, but in hindsight it was the right call. The only issue i had with it was that he was slow about changing Given. Given had indicated he had a problem and MON didn't change him for another 10 minutes or so. That could have cost us, Ozil knocked a chance off target with Given rooted to the spot unable to move.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The world did not explode in furious anger.

There would've been questions asked on those calls if we didn't win v Germany.

LuckyLloyd · 10-10-2015 7:19pm

Pro. F wrote: »

O'Neill started Brady, Hendrick, McCarthy and Hoolihan. Trap never would have even contemplated having so many ball players in one team, never mind a team which also had enforced changes in the back four.

I have plenty of time for criticising MON - he has bottled a good few away game selections for example - but it's right that he gets more leeway than Trap because he shows a hell of a lot more bravery and intelligence in his selections than Trap did and the performances reflect that.

I'm not criticising his selections tbf, O'Neill is doing fine for me just as Trapp was considering our limitations. But I do think he gets away with stuff Trapp would have been pilloried for. That will likely change over time mind...

Pro. F · 10-10-2015 11:12pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'm not criticising his selections tbf, O'Neill is doing fine for me just as Trapp was considering our limitations. But I do think he gets away with stuff Trapp would have been pilloried for. That will likely change over time mind...

O'Neill probably is getting away with more than Trap did. But then O'Neill is making braver and more sensible selections in general than Trap ever did so it's reasonable that people would give him more leeway.

Corholio · 11-10-2015 2:58am

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'm not criticising his selections tbf, O'Neill is doing fine for me just as Trapp was considering our limitations. But I do think he gets away with stuff Trapp would have been pilloried for. That will likely change over time mind...

Trap was only really 'pillored' a fair bit into his reign. I don't think O'Neill is getting away with anything compared to Trap, and comparing the time spent in the job. I'm not a fan of O'Neill or anything like that either but I don't think it;s right for comparisons to what Trap was criticised for, not yet anyway.

The_Kew_Tour · 12-10-2015 12:49am

I don't think O Neill is getting away with anything.

He's been called out on plenty of things

TheCitizen · 12-10-2015 1:07am

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I don't think O Neill is getting away with anything.

He's been called out on plenty of things

You're right, he's not getting away with anything, sure why should he?

Was Hoolahan fit? We are told he said he wasn't fit to start by himself. McGeady wasn't not match fit, but in hindsight he maybe should've started.

The play offs to come. MON's Ireland tenure will be judged by results same as any other Ireland manager.

TheDoc · 12-10-2015 11:10am

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I don't think O Neill is getting away with anything.

He's been called out on plenty of things

I'd be surprised to hear O'Neill getting away with things, then I see the clamour for his new contract after the Germany defeat.

I'm seeing little to show any signs of progression in the team after the Trappatoni era. Selecting the likes of Hoolihan is not some form of managerial excellence. It's a blatantly obvious selection that Trap was rightly berated for.

While teams around us are making squads the greater then the sum of their parts, we still seem to have an incoherant mess of a team that doesn't know what to do when it has the ball at it's feet.

While an Irish manager is always going to be restricted by quality dilemmas in terms of available players, that is not an excuse. They are being paid good money to manage an international team, and I'm not sure I'm seeing where O'Neill has really excelled in this regard.

While I met his appointment with a negative view and a "ah for **** sake", I've been very willing and open to be unbias in my take on his performance. Can't say I'm convinced of why he deserves a new contract(granted that might have been media losing the run of itself)

Getting into qualification in a third spot would and should have been the minimum expectation ahead of this campaign. A win against Germany should not excuse failing to qualify in a drastically easier format, will be a disappointment and probably a failure.

thebaz · 13-10-2015 12:28am

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I don't think O Neill is getting away with anything.

He's been called out on plenty of things

and he doesn't like it, he tries to nearly intimidate Tony O'Donohue when he asks pertinent questions , you can see the rage in Martin , when asked about the shabby treatment of Wes , and Why he was dropped .
Feck all sympathy for the man, with his negative football and top top wages

The_Kew_Tour · 13-10-2015 12:39am

I like the next manager to be very astute tacticially and able to play a few ways.

He does not have be big name, just somebody who will not be afraid to be different.

briany · 13-10-2015 1:41am

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

He does not have be big name, just somebody who will not be afraid to be different.

I nominate Joe Lapira.

LuckyLloyd · 13-10-2015 8:30am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Speaking of Trap Watch, I hope he watched the game last night.

Hopefully last nights result will see us get over the hangover of his era, the low expectations, players being told they were just not good enough, the rows because he couldn't speak English, his fondness for his bizarre favourites like Cox, Green and Sammon, finishing 4th in a group, record defeats v Germany...oh God I'm making myself remember it again...

How you feeling now champ?

The interesting thing about the O'Neill era for me has been the continuation and consistency of tactical approach and performance level. When we have two different coaches achieve very similar results (Trapp's superior thus far) in very similar ways you have to come back to the players as the ultimate common denominator imo.

13-10-2015 6:18pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How you feeling now champ?

The interesting thing about the O'Neill era for me has been the continuation and consistency of tactical approach and performance level. When we have two different coaches achieve very similar results (Trapp's superior thus far) in very similar ways you have to come back to the players as the ultimate common denominator imo.

Oh I feel good.

We finished pretty much where we should have finished in a group, and even had a crack at finishing top going into the last game.

It seemed like such a far cry from the misery of Cox, Green and Sammon leading us to 4th place in a group with record defeats, because they were the managers pets...

Paully D · 13-10-2015 6:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It seemed like such a far cry from the misery of Cox, Green and Sammon leading us to 4th place in a group with record defeats, because they were the managers pets...

Game 1 - Kazakhastan 1-2 Ireland. Cox played 58 minutes. Green and Sammon weren't even on the bench.

Game 2 - Ireland 1-6 Germany. Cox played 83 minutes. Green and Sammon weren't even on the bench.

Game 3 - Faroe Islands 1-4 Ireland. Cox was on the bench and came on for the last 7 minutes. Green and Sammon weren't even on the bench.

Game 4 - Sweden 0-0 Ireland. Green played 90 minutes. Cox was an unused substitute. Sammon played 2 minutes off the bench.

Game 5 - Ireland 3-0 Faroe Islands. Cox played 90 minutes. Sammon played 17 minutes off the bench when Ireland were 3-0 up. Green wasn't even on the bench.

Game 6 - Ireland 1-2 Sweden. Cox played 22 minutes off the bench. Sammon and Green were unused substitutes.

Game 7 - Austria 1-0 Ireland. Green played 90 minutes. Sammon played 9 minutes off the bench. Cox was an unused substitute.

Game 7 in that campaign was Trapattoni's last.

So Cox played a total of 260 minutes in that campaign under Trapattoni (an equivalent of 2.8 full games), Green played 180 minutes in the same period (an equivalent of 2 full games) and Sammon played 28 minutes in the same period.

EDIT - I missed Ireland 2-2 Austria. Sammon played 90 (bringing his total to 118) and Green played 7 minutes (bringing his total to 187).

13-10-2015 7:48pm

Paully D wrote: »

Game 1 - Kazakhastan 1-2 Ireland. Cox played 58 minutes. Green and Sammon weren't even on the bench.

Game 2 - Ireland 1-6 Germany. Cox played 83 minutes. Green and Sammon weren't even on the bench.

Game 3 - Faroe Islands 1-4 Ireland. Cox was on the bench and came on for the last 7 minutes. Green and Sammon weren't even on the bench.

Game 4 - Sweden 0-0 Ireland. Green played 90 minutes. Cox was an unused substitute. Sammon played 2 minutes off the bench.

Game 5 - Ireland 3-0 Faroe Islands. Cox played 90 minutes. Sammon played 17 minutes off the bench when Ireland were 3-0 up. Green wasn't even on the bench.

Game 6 - Ireland 1-2 Sweden. Cox played 22 minutes off the bench. Sammon and Green were unused substitutes.

Game 7 - Austria 1-0 Ireland. Green played 90 minutes. Sammon played 9 minutes off the bench. Cox was an unused substitute.

Game 7 in that campaign was Trapattoni's last.

So Cox played a total of 260 minutes in that campaign under Trapattoni (an equivalent of 2.8 full games), Green played 180 minutes in the same period (an equivalent of 2 full games) and Sammon played 28 minutes in the same period.

As a matter of interest, why did you omit the infamous Austria home game? Did Sammon not lead the line for the full 90 in a crucial game that we threw away?

Nightmare stuff.

Paully D · 13-10-2015 8:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

As a matter of interest, why did you omit the infamous Austria home game? Did Sammon not lead the line for the full 90 in a crucial game that we threw away?

Nightmare stuff.

My apologies. I missed it when flicking through the games. You're correct.

Add 90 minutes to Sammon's total bringing it to 118 in that whole campaign and 7 minutes to Green's total minutes.

Pro. F · 14-10-2015 12:10am

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How you feeling now champ?

The interesting thing about the O'Neill era for me has been the continuation and consistency of tactical approach and performance level. When we have two different coaches achieve very similar results (Trapp's superior thus far) in very similar ways you have to come back to the players as the ultimate common denominator imo.

Two managers who are well known to be very conservative in style chose to be conservative in style while managing Ireland and you conclude that it must be the player pool forcing their hands. Good logic.

Pro. F · 14-10-2015 12:15am

Paully D wrote: »

Game 1 - Kazakhastan 1-2 Ireland. Cox played 58 minutes. Green and Sammon weren't even on the bench.

Game 2 - Ireland 1-6 Germany. Cox played 83 minutes. Green and Sammon weren't even on the bench.

Game 3 - Faroe Islands 1-4 Ireland. Cox was on the bench and came on for the last 7 minutes. Green and Sammon weren't even on the bench.

Game 4 - Sweden 0-0 Ireland. Green played 90 minutes. Cox was an unused substitute. Sammon played 2 minutes off the bench.

Game 5 - Ireland 3-0 Faroe Islands. Cox played 90 minutes. Sammon played 17 minutes off the bench when Ireland were 3-0 up. Green wasn't even on the bench.

Game 6 - Ireland 1-2 Sweden. Cox played 22 minutes off the bench. Sammon and Green were unused substitutes.

Game 7 - Austria 1-0 Ireland. Green played 90 minutes. Sammon played 9 minutes off the bench. Cox was an unused substitute.

Game 7 in that campaign was Trapattoni's last.

So Cox played a total of 260 minutes in that campaign under Trapattoni (an equivalent of 2.8 full games), Green played 180 minutes in the same period (an equivalent of 2 full games) and Sammon played 28 minutes in the same period.

EDIT - I missed Ireland 2-2 Austria. Sammon played 90 (bringing his total to 118) and Green played 7 minutes (bringing his total to 187).

What I'm seeing here is evidence that those three players did in fact get more game time than they deserved (especially Green).

stiffler123 · 14-10-2015 12:33am

Deleted User wrote: »

It seemed like such a far cry from the misery of Cox, Green and Sammon leading us to 4th place in a group with record defeats, because they were the managers pets...

What about the misery of Given, Ward and Murphy leading us to third place here, a position that would leave us with no playoff if it took place during Trap's reign. Do you think Given and Murphy should be starting games for us?

14-10-2015 5:40am

stiffler123 wrote: »

What about the misery of Given, Ward and Murphy leading us to third place here, a position that would leave us with no playoff if it took place during Trap's reign. Do you think Given and Murphy should be starting games for us?

No.

But then again I certainly don't think O'Neills decisions are all correct. Far from it. But at least I'm back to trusting that the manager believes there are valid reasons, and he is not jeopardising our chances because he wants to shut the media up and take it out on their favourite, or there's some language based misunderstanding, or his pets are getting played, or he hasn't bothered to see the players at club level, or he liked someone singing but not someone playing guitar etc. etc.

Trap Watch

Comments