Faroe Islands v Republic of Ireland - 16/10/2012 - 19:00 - RTE2

Pro. F

gosplan wrote: »

We didn't drop any points in the group to anyone ranked lower than us and i think that might be the second campaign in a row that's happened.

I've an issue with no credit going to the team or the manager for that because despite what people think, it's not always a given.

I mean Staunton was villified for losing to Cyprus, and drawing with NI and Lichtenstien was the end for Jack but when it comes to Trap it takes a couple of posts for people to even acknowledge that games against lesser teams actually took place at all.

It doesn't take a couple of posts before I acknowledge the fact that we didn't drop any points against the lower seeds. Just because I don't preface every post with "We didn't drop any points against lower seeds and/but..." does not meant that I don't appreciate it.

It still doesn't change the fact that having to beat Armenia to second is not overly impressive.

noodler

Pro. F wrote: »

It doesn't take a couple of posts before I acknowledge the fact that we didn't drop any points against the lower seeds. Just because I don't preface every post with "We didn't drop any points against lower seeds and/but..." does not meant that I don't appreciate it.

It still doesn't change the fact that having to beat Armenia to second is not overly impressive.

You are talking rubbish.

The Armenia fixture was not in a vaccum, it was played in the context of 9 other games - the Armenia one was simply the last one.

Pro. F

noodler wrote: »

You are talking rubbish.

The Armenia fixture was not in a vaccum, it was played in the context of 9 other games - the Armenia one was simply the last one.

I'm not talking about just the Armenia fixture, obviously. Fúck sake.

Beating Armenia into second place in a mini league is not an impressive achievement.

noodler

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm not talking about just the Armenia fixture, obviously. Fúck sake.

Beating Armenia into second place in a mini league is not an impressive achievement.

We also beat Slovakia.

Along with Macedonia and Andorra.

noodler

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm not talking about just the Armenia fixture, obviously. Fúck sake.

Beating Armenia into second place in a mini league is not an impressive achievement.

Winning in Yerevan when Slovakia and Russia couldn't was pretty impressive.

Pro. F

noodler wrote: »

Winning in Yerevan when Slovakia and Russia couldn't was pretty impressive.

Russia subsequently showed how inconsistent they were ie extremely inconsistent. Slovakia completely imploded in the group. Just because people thought they were something special before the group started doesn't mean that they were.

noodler wrote: »

We also beat Slovakia.

Along with Macedonia and Andorra.

Woop-di-do. Armenia finished ahead of them all, that shows the quality of that group if you needed any more proof.

Brain Stroking

kitakyushu wrote: »

Ok, here is the current squads of those teams you mentioned and the clubs represented in each:

• Czech (Anorthosis Famagusta , Augsburg , Baumit Jablonec , Bayer Leverkusen , Beşiktaş , Bordeaux , Chelsea , Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk , Hamburg , Hertha Berlin , Nürnberg , Shakhtar Donetsk , Sparta Prague , Spartak Moscow , Viktoria Plzeň , Watford , Werder Bremen)

• Russia ( Anzhi Makhachkala , CSKA Moscow , Dynamo Moscow , Lokomotiv Moscow , Spartak Moscow , Zenit Saint Petersburg )

• Denmark ( Aarhus , Ajax , Brøndby , Celta Vigo , Copenhagen , Évian , Juventus , Liverpool , Monaco , Nordsjælland , OB , Sampdoria , Stuttgart , Wolfsburg , Young Boys )

• Croatia (Bayern Munich , Borussia Dortmund , Dinamo Zagreb , Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk , Dynamo Kyiv , Dynamo Moscow , Everton , Hajduk Split , Hamburg , Lokomotiv Moscow , Lyon , Monaco , Pescara , Real Madrid , Rostov , Sevilla , Shakhtar Donetsk , Sparta Prague)

OK, now look at that list of clubs. Now tell me how many of the Irish lads currently or have ever played for any of those clubs? I see McGeady matching one team? Coleman matching another? Anyone else?

Now look at Sweden representation. we actually have (and recently had) SEVERAL players AT THE VERY SAME clubs that Sweden do now. That was the original basis for comparison. It was to say that Sweden operating on resources whereby they readily accept guys at that level into their squad from the very same clubs as our players play at and yet somehow they are able to pull of exceptional results and performances year after year. It was about as straight forward a comparison as is possible between international teams. So if you can't understand that much then it's your own problem.



It that's the prerequisite then I guess you're right at home.

The bold bit. A crucial aspect to your argument. Now please list those exceptional performances that Sweden produce "year after year".

gosplan

kitakyushu wrote: »

Now look at Sweden representation. we actually have (and recently had) SEVERAL players AT THE VERY SAME clubs that Sweden do now. That was the original basis for comparison. It was to say that Sweden operating on resources whereby they readily accept guys at that level into their squad from the very same clubs as our players play at and yet somehow they are able to pull of exceptional results and performances year after year. It was about as straight forward a comparison as is possible between international teams. So if you can't understand that much then it's your own problem.

Sincere apologies, i see your logic now.

Kackalinic, who is a squad player and at the moment a sub on the Swedish team, plays for Fulham ... alongside Duff, the best winger we've had for the last 20 years who actually no-longer plays for us but we'd love to have him back.

But the key point is they both play for Fulham so when we're comparing national sides, they're pretty much the same player?

I just don't agree. For me some of the squad players are similar but Sweden have a far more gifted midfield and one of the best strikers in the world. I mean you could equally discount Keane *2, Duff and Given from the WC2002 qualifying team and say we're very similar now to then?

Do you not see the huge problem with that??

noodler

Pro. F wrote: »

Russia subsequently showed how inconsistent they were ie extremely inconsistent. Slovakia completely imploded in the group. Just because people thought they were something special before the group started doesn't mean that they were.



Woop-di-do. Armenia finished ahead of them all, that shows the quality of that group if you needed any more proof.

Nope.

You are painting this in a way to suit your argument.

You won't credit Slovakia with being a good team because we subsequently finished ahead of them. Despite the fact Russia also struggled with Armenia.

Armenia weren't given a prayer before the group and you won't admit they surpsied everyone with their performances.

In fact, you want to be portray Russia as inconsistent when they finished with 23 points out of a possible 30 (and God knows how they didn't beat us).

Do you not see the way you are skewing things to avoid awarding any credit whatsoever?

Dempsey

kitakyushu wrote: »

Oh so Rangers losing to Kilmarnock and St.Mirren (with Jelavic both times btw, so its fairly weak using him as a factor) was alll part of the plan and was not a sign of trouble? Oh ok, I must watch some more SPL. I had no idea the league had such strength in depth that results like this for a team like Rangers were just par for the course!

Everything after that is just irrelevant fan waffle. You had ups, you had downs. You then won the SPL. You are now the best team in the SPL (as tho that means anything) and then played a team from Sweden and Finland to get a place in the CL. That's the point.

Losing 2 games is a meltdown? LOL, I think what I described was more of a meltdown! Ask Rangers supporters about selling Jelavic, the fact that his goals & general play was responsible for alot of their results in those 6 months and he wasnt replaced, ask them about the selling of 4 years season tickets. Ask them about administration. I know what they think about it, pissed off doesnt cover it! 2 losses, a month apart isnt a meltdown as you described it. Maybe if you did watch the SPL then you'd know something about it. At the moment all you know is what wikipedia tells you.

Being the best team in the SPL means that you are the champions of Scotland and you get the best position possible for entering european competitions! The fact that Celtic had to play 2 rounds of qualifiers is a consequence of Scotland's coefficient. The fact that Celtic were seeded in both draws is a consequence of their coefficient. Neither are a reflection of the current Celtic squad. Its not much of a point that you are making as Celtic won both games convincingly. Surely Celtic wouldnt have a point in the UCL group stages if you actually had a valid point to make?

Pro. F

noodler wrote: »

Nope.

You are painting this in a way to suit your argument.

You won't credit Slovakia with being a good team because we subsequently finished ahead of them. Despite the fact Russia also struggled with Armenia.

Armenia weren't given a prayer before the group and you won't admit they surpsied everyone with their performances.

In fact, you want to be portray Russia as inconsistent when they finished with 23 points out of a possible 30 (and God knows how they didn't beat us).

Do you not see the way you are skewing things to avoid awarding any credit whatsoever?

I don't care if people thought Slovakia were better than they were before the group. I don't care if Armenia surprised everybody. A group that has teams like Slovakia limping along to fourth and Armenia surprising people and ending up finishing third is the group I want to be in every time.

Russia are inconsistent. They wupped us for the first hour in Lansdowne and then folded. They failed to score away in Armenia but beat them 3-1 at home. They destroyed the Czechs in the first game of the Euros, then drew with Poland, lost to Greece and went out. The qualification groups are weighted (roughly) so the top seed dropping 7/30 points is not amazing consistency.

I do acknowledge that us not dropping any points to teams ranked lower than us in the campaign was a good thing. It is a tick in Trap's favour. I also acknowledge that qualifying out of a group ahead of Armenia in third place shows that the group was fairly handy.

SantryRed

Dempsey wrote: »

Losing 2 games is a meltdown? LOL, I think what I described was more of a meltdown! Ask Rangers supporters about selling Jelavic, the fact that his goals & general play was responsible for alot of their results in those 6 months and he wasnt replaced, ask them about the selling of 4 years season tickets. Ask them about administration. I know what they think about it, pissed off doesnt cover it! 2 losses, a month apart isnt a meltdown as you described it. Maybe if you did watch the SPL then you'd know something about it. At the moment all you know is what wikipedia tells you.

Being the best team in the SPL means that you are the champions of Scotland and you get the best position possible for entering european competitions! The fact that Celtic had to play 2 rounds of qualifiers is a consequence of Scotland's coefficient. The fact that Celtic were seeded in both draws is a consequence of their coefficient. Neither are a reflection of the current Celtic squad. Its not much of a point that you are making as Celtic won both games convincingly. Surely Celtic wouldnt have a point in the UCL group stages if you actually had a valid point to make?

Will you take this bollocks somewhere else. You completely jumped down the throat on a completely valid point made. All he was saying is playing for Celtic in the Champions League doesn't make a player better than someone who is playing mid table/lower half in the Premiership. Which is completely true.

Dempsey

SantryRed wrote: »

Will you take this bollocks somewhere else. You completely jumped down the throat on a completely valid point made. All he was saying is playing for Celtic in the Champions League doesn't make a player better than someone who is playing mid table/lower half in the Premiership. Which is completely true.

I'll argue whatever point I like and I'll correct him on false and misleading statements if I want so jog on!

He made a different point and its complete waffle. As I said in my last post, UEFA cofficients arent a valid representation of the current state of a squad/team nor does a team playing 2 rounds of qualfiers quantify, in any way, the current level of ability/form of any player like he suggested.

kitakyushu

gosplan wrote: »

Sincere apologies

No problem. Thanks for the apology.

SantryRed wrote: »

Will you take this bollocks somewhere else. You completely jumped down the throat on a completely valid point made. All he was saying is playing for Celtic in the Champions League doesn't make a player better than someone who is playing mid table/lower half in the Premiership. Which is completely true.

This times ten. It's always amusing how some people have to pick one sentence out of the middle of post, ignore the rest and then go off on some possibly never-ending tangent .

Speaking of which....

Brain Stroking wrote: »

The bold bit. A crucial aspect to your argument. Now please list those exceptional performances that Sweden produce "year after year".

Sweden 2000-2012

Euro 2000 : Qualified (qualified undefeated and finished ahead of England in qualifying group)

World Cup 2002 : Qualified (won group ahead of subsequent semi-finalist Turkey, beat Turkey. Won finals group. Won group undefeated ahead of England and Argentina)

Euro 2004 : Qualified (got to last 8 in the finals and were eliminated from finals at QF stage undefeated)

World Cup 2006 : Qualified for finals. Made to last 16.

Euro 2008 : Qualified (beat Spain in qualifying)

World Cup 2010 : Failed to qualify behind Portugal and Denmark.

Euro 2012 : Qualified (beat France in group stage beat Holland in qualifying group.)

World Cup 2014 : (4-4 draw with Germany in Berlin)

But I'm sure this is all news to you. That's just the last 10 years or so. You should go back to around 92-94 if you want to see when they were really good.

kitakyushu

Dempsey wrote: »

I'll argue whatever point I like and I'll correct him on false and misleading statements if I want so jog on!

He made a different point and its complete waffle. As I said in my last post, UEFA cofficients arent a valid representation of the current state of a squad/team nor does a team playing 2 rounds of qualfiers quantify, in any way, the current level of ability/form of any player like he suggested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZLVi4v7lSM

Brain Stroking

kitakyushu wrote: »

No problem. Thanks for the apology.



This times ten. It's always amusing how some people have to pick one sentence out of the middle of post, ignore the rest and then go off on some possibly never-ending tangent .

Speaking of which....



Sweden 2000-2012

Euro 2000 : Qualified (qualified undefeated and finished ahead of England in qualifying group)

World Cup 2002 : Qualified (won group ahead of subsequent semi-finalist Turkey, beat Turkey. Won finals group. Won group undefeated ahead of England and Argentina)

Euro 2004 : Qualified (got to last 8 in the finals and were eliminated from finals at QF stage undefeated)

World Cup 2006 : Qualified for finals. Made to last 16.

Euro 2008 : Qualified (beat Spain in qualifying)

World Cup 2010 : Failed to qualify behind Portugal and Denmark.

Euro 2012 : Qualified (beat France in group stage beat Holland in qualifying group.)

World Cup 2014 : (4-4 draw with Germany in Berlin)

But I'm sure this is all news to you. That's just the last 10 years or so. You should go back to around 92-94 if you want to see when they were really good.

Exceptional performances year on year is what you said. Now qualifying for the Euros is an exceptional performance? None of the above is news to me, hence the question.

Sweden has a population of nearly 10 million. In Europe, footballing strength is a numbers game. A brilliant crop comes along in a smaller country every now and then but it is the larger populated countries that generally win. So i would not compare us with Sweden in an argument where you are trying to compare like with like. They have twice our population. Of course they will perform better than us over a period of time.

Ps if i wanted to see them when they were "really good" it would be back to the late 40s and 50s where there was an Olympics win and a World Cup Final appearance. But i'm sure this is all news to you :rolleyes:

kitakyushu

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Exceptional performances year on year is what you said. Now qualifying for the Euros is an exceptional performance? None of the above is news to me, hence the question.

Yes it is. Also it's interesting that you're not impressed by a team generally made up a varying range of players repeatedly qualifying and picking up impressive results along the way. I suppose we'll have to wait until Sweden make it to another WC final before you'll raise an eyebrow in this regard.

Sweden has a population of nearly 10 million. In Europe, footballing strength is a numbers game. A brilliant crop comes along in a smaller country every now and then but it is the larger populated countries that generally win. So i would not compare us with Sweden in an argument where you are trying to compare like with like. They have twice our population. Of course they will perform better than us over a period of time.

So in Europe it's just a simple numbers game and that 10 million (9.5m actually) is a large enough population to ensure a consistent supply of acceptable players for a country? You should tell that to the next Romanian or Pole or Hungarian you meet.

For all intents an purposes Sweden is a small country (#18th in Europe by pop)) with a weak domestic league ('#24th in UEFA), and a selection of international player who and the whole do not make for impressive reading. What's more then even have a significan club overlap with us. They are achieving very good things at international level (even if you don't think so) and are the sort of nation Ireland can draw comparisons with and aspire to be closer to in terms of results/success.

Ps if i wanted to see them when they were "really good" it would be back to the late 40s and 50s where there was an Olympics win and a World Cup Final appearance. But i'm sure this is all news to you :rolleyes:

So 1992 is before 1958 now? I simply said go back further to when they were really good (ie 1992-1994). Your weak attempt at nitpicking failed on this occasion I'm afraid and doesn't change the validity of my statement. Try harder next time and probably save the rolleyes for someone who might actually be impressed by it.

gosplan

kitakyushu wrote: »

Yes it is. Also it's interesting that you're not impressed by a team generally made up a varying range of players repeatedly qualifying and picking up impressive results along the way. I suppose we'll have to wait until Sweden make it to another WC final before you'll raise an eyebrow in this regard.


So in Europe it's just a simple numbers game and that 10 million (9.5m actually) is a large enough population to ensure a consistent supply of acceptable players for a country? You should tell that to the next Romanian or Pole or Hungarian you meet.

For all intents an purposes Sweden is a small country (#18th in Europe by pop)) with a weak domestic league ('#24th in UEFA), and a selection of international player who and the whole do not make for impressive reading. What's more then even have a significan club overlap with us. They are achieving very good things at international level (even if you don't think so) and are the sort of nation Ireland can draw comparisons with and aspire to be closer to in terms of results/success.



So 1992 is before 1958 now? I simply said go back further to when they were really good (ie 1992-1994). Your weak attempt at nitpicking failed on this occasion I'm afraid and doesn't change the validity of my statement. Try harder next time and probably save the rolleyes for someone who might actually be impressed by it.

Out of curiosity, what reasons do you give for them being so superior to us over that last 2 decades?

Did this not start as 'Trap Out' - 'we could be scoring 4 against Germany without that codger'

kitakyushu

gosplan wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what reasons do you give for them being so superior to us over that last 2 decades?

Did this not start as 'Trap Out' - 'we could be scoring 4 against Germany without that codger'

See, that's the problem. I never said that. If you go back to where this all started (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81281023&postcount=811) you'll see I said I'd like a manager who'd get us to play *like* Sweden. To be brave, competitive and show character instead of just sitting back on the edge of their own area at 6-0 down and acting like we were defending a 1-0 lead. I even said in that post we might not solve everything and still lose anyway but I'd still rather that approach

Also I don't know what makes Sweden so superior to us over that last 2 decades. It's not their individual players anyway! As to the current gap, if the handful of their recent games I've seen are anything to by Hol Ukr Eng Fra and the 2nd half of Ger) then I'd say they have a manager who believes in them and lets them play, who lets them actually get more than 4 players into the opposition half when in possession, who isn't afraid to risk conceding a goal or a lead, and who doesn't just meekly fall back into to their own half with 9 men crowding the edge of the box (calling it "defending") and hand the initiative to the opposition before a ball has even been kicked.

What do you think makes Sweden so superior to us over that last 2 decades?

Idbatterim

in fairness, they have over double population now, back around 2000 etc they would have likely had nearly 3 times the population, Im not saying its the only factor, but its a big one...

gosplan

kitakyushu wrote: »

See, that's the problem. I never said that. If you go back to where this all started (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81281023&postcount=811) you'll see I said I'd like a manager who'd get us to play *like* Sweden. To be brave, competitive and show character instead of just sitting back on the edge of their own area at 6-0 down and acting like we were defending a 1-0 lead. I even said in that post we might not solve everything and still lose anyway but I'd still rather that approach

Also I don't know what makes Sweden so superior to us over that last 2 decades. It's not their individual players anyway! As to the current gap, if the handful of their recent games I've seen are anything to by Hol Ukr Eng Fra and the 2nd half of Ger) then I'd say they have a manager who believes in them and lets them play, who lets them actually get more than 4 players into the opposition half when in possession, who isn't afraid to risk conceding a goal or a lead, and who doesn't just meekly fall back into to their own half with 9 men crowding the edge of the box (calling it "defending") and hand the initiative to the opposition before a ball has even been kicked.

What do you think makes Sweden so superior to us over that last 2 decades?

Basically, you're saying there ...

'They don't have Trap'. If you won't admit that, then reread what you just wrote. You don't talk about Sweden being good, just about our tactics under our current manager.

The problem is that doesn't account for historical superiority. So asking again, the last four years aside, why are they better?

I, and anyone with a fair clue about football, would say - better player.

I mean how can you suggest otherwise. It's either better players or what exactly?

The last time they qualified for a WC their front four were Kellstrom, Ljundberg, Larsson and Ibra. All of whom have won multiple leagues and cups across their career and been regulars at the top level of football. But you'd rather look at Melberg and say 'oh, Dunne plays at Villa. We've a comparable squad to them. It's the managers fault!'

But you're ranting and not being very sensible. There are plenty of logical sticks with which to beat Trap - you don't need to make stuff up.

kitakyushu

gosplan wrote: »

Basically, you're saying there ...

'They don't have Trap'. If you won't admit that, then reread what you just wrote. You don't talk about Sweden being good, just about our tactics under our current manager.

The problem is that doesn't account for historical superiority. So asking again, the last four years aside, why are they better?

Like I said I don't have that answer, but it's not because of having markedly better players on the whole to work with. If it was, then based on their international results they'd be getting snapped up by the dozen by the top clubs in Europe and their typical player selections club list would look closer to Holland's or France's than to ours.

However, you stick with your simplistic "the better a team does the better the players must be" but I'm politely disagreeing with you in this instance. I'm calling Sweden and impressive long term example of overachieving and one we might be worth investigating/emulating..

I, and anyone with a fair clue about football, would say - better player.

I mean how can you suggest otherwise. It's either better players or what exactly?

You do realise how naive and simplistic an explanation that sounds?

As a "for instance" to demonstrate you're either being obtuse or just don't know what you're talking about, answer me this: Did Ireland have better individual players than Holland when we qualified in 2002? BTW I'm not asking were Holland a better team than Ireland. I'm simply asking did Holland have a better squad and better players to choose from in most positions?

Sweden are not that far ahead of us individually and the the large margin of success between us and them in the last 10 years in particular cannot be explained just by the respective resources available.

The last time they qualified for a WC their front four were Kellstrom, Ljundberg, Larsson and Ibra. All of whom have won multiple leagues and cups across their career and been regulars at the top level of football. But you'd rather look at Melberg and say 'oh, Dunne plays at Villa. We've a comparable squad to them. It's the managers fault!'

Larsson, the big fish in the small pond? Kellstrom? Spent his best years in France. Not a major plus on anyones career but do feel free to rattle him off like I'm supposed be wildly impressed.

I'm guessing that's the most *star studded* Sweden squad you could find and that's why you went back 6 years apropos of nothing. But even then that selection doesn't set the world on fire. Nice try though.

But you're ranting and not being very sensible. There are plenty of logical sticks with which to beat Trap - you don't need to make stuff up.

Show me what I have "made up"?

Dempsey

larsson proved himself at barcelona and man utd despite being at the wrong side of 30. never mind anything he achieved at international level like a bronze medal at a world cup....

Idbatterim

As a "for instance" to demonstrate you're either being obtuse or just don't know what you're talking about, answer me this: Did Ireland have better individual players than Holland when we qualified in 2002? BTW I'm not asking were Holland a better team than Ireland. I'm simply asking did Holland have a better squad and better players to choose from in most positions?

Sweden are not that far ahead of us individually and the the large margin of success between us and them in the last 10 years in particular cannot be explained just by the respective resources available.

strongly agree with this, sure we finished level with the portuguese, with not one loss, take a look at the below!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(UEFA)

kitakyushu

Dempsey wrote: »

larsson proved himself at barcelona and man utd despite being at the wrong side of 30. never mind anything he achieved at international level like a bronze medal at a world cup....

Jesus, that didn't take long.

applehunter

Thought we did well last night.

We still stood off too much for my liking but refreshing to see Westwood play out of defence at times as opposed to the usual hoof up the pitch.

McCarthy & Coleman really injected some urgency into the side. Something that has been sorely lacking in the last few years. Wilson got a nice goal but I'm still not decided on him.

Robbie Keane showed some nice touches but his time is up as a starter for us. Shane Long should be playing.

Dempsey

kitakyushu wrote: »

Jesus, that didn't take long.

Listen if I promise to never mention anything Celtic again will you just go away or at least stick to talking about the participants of Qualifying Group C? I'm guessing "no" but at least I asked.

you brought up larsson, dummy! maybe you didnt notice that he helped barcelona win a ucl title either....he has a very impressive cv, i dont know why anyone would argue otherwise unless they have an axe to grind and obviously you do because you keep making stupid statements.

kitakyushu

Dempsey wrote: »

you brought up larsson, dummy! maybe you didnt notice that he helped barcelona win a ucl title either....he has a very impressive cv, i dont know why anyone would argue otherwise unless they have an axe to grind and obviously you do because you keep making stupid statements.

I didn't bring up Larsson. The other guy did. Get your facts right or just go back to sleep.

Dempsey

kitakyushu wrote: »

I didn't bring up Larsson. The other guy did. Get your facts right or just go back to sleep.

thats me told! :pac:

nice that you ignored everything that contradicted you big fish small pond statement though. your dunphy style analysis isnt really working...

KELTICKNIGHTT

applehunter wrote: »

Thought we did well last night.

We still stood off too much for my liking but refreshing to see Westwood play out of defence at times as opposed to the usual hoof up the pitch.

McCarthy & Coleman really injected some urgency into the side. Something that has been sorely lacking in the last few years. Wilson got a nice goal but I'm still not decided on him.

Robbie Keane showed some nice touches but his time is up as a starter for us. Shane Long should be playing.

was a better game . was impressed with mc carthy , wilson , long played good when came on , andrews was not good, missed couple nice chances but was better game , got more than sweden and germany did a passed foaore island in goals

Carlos_Ray

applehunter wrote: »

Thought we did well last night.

We still stood off too much for my liking but refreshing to see Westwood play out of defence at times as opposed to the usual hoof up the pitch.

McCarthy & Coleman really injected some urgency into the side. Something that has been sorely lacking in the last few years. Wilson got a nice goal but I'm still not decided on him.

Robbie Keane showed some nice touches but his time is up as a starter for us. Shane Long should be playing.

What a load of rubbish. You are seriously analysing a performance against the Faroe Islands for positives? A country of 48,000 people? A team of amateur players?

The only thing we can read into this game is that Robbie Keane is so bad now that the he's resorting to stealing goals from team-mates.

Is that were we are now? Analysing the Faroe islands a few days after one of our most humiliating defeats? Words fail me.....

KELTICKNIGHTT

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

What a load of rubbish. You are seriously analysing a performance against the Faroe Islands for positives? A country of 48,000 people? A team of amateur players?

The only thing we can read into this game is that Robbie Keane is so bad now that the he's resorting to stealing goals from team-mates.

Is that were we are now? Analysing the Faroe islands a few days after one of our most humiliating defeats? Words fail me.....

you already posted that else where or close to it
we get it , your anti trap regardless,
others can look forward to seeing Ireland play, Sweden and Austria
Germany don't seem to do well at home for some reason

kitakyushu

Dempsey wrote: »

thats me told! :pac:

nice that you ignored everything that contradicted you big fish small pond statement though. your dunphy style analysis isnt really working...

Should I spend excessive time discussing non-relevant matters with someone who clearly has no interest in the discussing anything beyond his own little second rate club?

Ironic also you citing " ignored everything" since that's practically all you seem to do. Why are you even on this thread? You seem to have no contribution to make on Ireland or our group opponents.

But just for you , Larsson. Two seasons at Barca, played only about half the league games, started only a quarter. The definition of a bit player.

applehunter

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

What a load of rubbish. You are seriously analysing a performance against the Faroe Islands for positives? A country of 48,000 people? A team of amateur players?

The only thing we can read into this game is that Robbie Keane is so bad now that the he's resorting to stealing goals from team-mates.

Is that were we are now? Analysing the Faroe islands a few days after one of our most humiliating defeats? Words fail me.....

This is the Faroe Islands v Republic of Ireland Thread.

It was an improvement on the Kazakhstan game. Trying to be positive.

Dempsey

kitakyushu wrote: »

Should I spend excessive time discussing non-relevant matters with someone who clearly has no interest in the discussing anything beyond his own little second rate club?

Ironic also you citing " ignored everything" since that's practically all you seem to do. Why are you even on this thread? You seem to have no contribution to make on Ireland or our group opponents.

But just for you , Larsson. Two seasons at Barca, played only about half the league games, started only a quarter. The definition of a bit player. Barca standard at the time? One CL quarter final and another last 16 finish. Mindblowing!

what needs to be said about the faroes match at this stage. i said all i needed to say on the match when it was happening. i can still read and post opinion if i like.

quarter final and last 16? err larsson has a ucl medal from his barcelona days. again with the wikipedia, they dont really cover time out injured for you, do they?

dont forget that he also has a premier league winners medal.

kitakyushu

Dempsey wrote: »

what needs to be said about the faroes match at this stage. i said all i needed to say on the match when it was happening. i can still read and post opinion if i like.

quarter final and last 16? err larsson has a ucl medal from his barcelona days. again with the wikipedia, they dont really cover time out injured for you, do they?

Too slow. I recognised my own error and fixed my post before you typed that (check it). So no points for you this time I'm afraid. Still doesn't change that Larsson was just a bit player for Barca.

Dempsey

kitakyushu wrote: »

Too slow. I changed my post before you typed that (check it). So no points for you this time I'm afraid.

i have you quoted making a stupid comment, you obviously werent quick enough with the ninja edit. suppose those two la liga medals arent worth much either? pity ireland doesnt have more bit players like him...

kitakyushu

Dempsey wrote: »

i have you quoted making a stupid comment, you obviously werent quick enough with the ninja edit. suppose those two la liga medals arent worth much either? pity ireland doesnt have more bit players like him...

Haha at least I spot my mistakes and try to correct them and even better hold up my hand and accept it when they are seen. It's more than could be said for you.

Speaking of which, how exactly did I "bring up Larsson" as a matter of interest? You seemed to conveniently brush over that one when I called you on it, especially the free childish insult thrown in on the tail end for something I never even did.

Classy.

Dempsey

kitakyushu wrote: »

Haha at least I spot my mistakes and try to correct them and even better hold up my hand and accept it when they are seen. It's more than could be said for you.

Speaking of which, how exactly did I "bring up Larsson" as a matter of interest? You seemed to conveniently brush over that one when I called you on it, especially the free childish insult thrown in on the tail end for something I never even did.

Classy.

im on a phone and i couldnt be arsed trying to ninja edit. i think its more important that your big fish small pond statement has been blown out of the water than my gaff over reading quotes, which i did hold my hand up to. if i offended you with the dummy comment, apologies.

kitakyushu

Dempsey wrote: »

im on a phone and i couldnt be arsed trying to ninja edit. i think its more important that your big fish small pond statement has been blown out of the water than my gaff over reading quotes, which i did hold my hand up to. if i offended you with the dummy comment, apologies.

Fair enough.

Still doesn't change that he never established himself at a top club beyond a supporting role. Big fish, small pond, so the only water blown here is that by Larsson as he flops around in the shallows.

Dempsey

kitakyushu wrote: »

Fair enough.

Still doesn't change that he never established himself at a top club beyond a supporting role. Big fish, small pond, so the only water blown here is that by Larsson as he flops around in the shallows.

he done his anterior cruciate in his 1st season at barca and they still optioned his extension. he played alot in his 2nd season there, even though he was 34 y/o. did you actually ever watch him play for barcelona? or do you like talking out your hoop?

kitakyushu

Dempsey wrote: »

he done his anterior cruciate in his 1st season at barca and they still optioned his extension. he played alot in his 2nd season there, even though he was 33 y/o. did you actually ever watch him play for barcelona? or do you like talking out your hoop?

Nah I just leave that to you.

Dempsey

kitakyushu wrote: »

Nah I just leave that to you.

whatever tbh, grind that axe!

kitakyushu

Dempsey wrote: »

whatever tbh, grind that axe!

You're back on your Cartman mode again I see.

gosplan

kitakyushu wrote: »

Like I said I don't have that answer, but it's not because of having markedly better players on the whole to work with. If it was, then based on their international results they'd be getting snapped up by the dozen by the top clubs in Europe and their typical player selections club list would look closer to Holland's or France's than to ours.

So do you think that the only teams markedly better than us are Holland or France?

kitakyushu wrote:

You do realise how naive and simplistic an explanation that sounds?

As a "for instance" to demonstrate you're either being obtuse or just don't know what you're talking about, answer me this: Did Ireland have better individual players than Holland when we qualified in 2002? BTW I'm not asking were Holland a better team than Ireland. I'm simply asking did Holland have a better squad and better players to choose from in most positions?

Seriously, what?

We're talking about one team out performing us pretty much since the modern era of football began and you want to compare it to a team we beat once?

Do I really need to explain.

kitakyushu wrote:

Sweden are not that far ahead of us individually and the the large margin of success between us and them in the last 10 years in particular cannot be explained just by the respective resources available.

They're ahead generally by a couple of class players and that's what gets them qualified but not too far in international tournaments.

kitakyushu wrote:

Larsson, the big fish in the small pond? Kellstrom? Spent his best years in France. Not a major plus on anyones career but do feel free to rattle him off like I'm supposed be wildly impressed.

I'm guessing that's the most *star studded* Sweden squad you could find and that's why you went back 6 years apropos of nothing. But even then that selection doesn't set the world on fire. Nice try.

Yes, because we're talking about 'setting the world on fire', not comparing them to Ireland or anything. I mean, a Lyon midfielder or a Celtic striker who ended up winning titles at Barca and Utd - that's comparable to seeing out your days at LA Galaxy, no?

Like I said, anyone with a clue.

kitakyushu

gosplan wrote: »

So do you think that the only teams markedly better than us are Holland or France?

Once again you're missing the point. So look at this. Since the 2000's here the list of teams from Europe who have qualified the most for finals (six times or more).

England, Germany, Italy , Spain, Netherlands ,France , Portugal ...... Sweden.

Any team seem out of place to you there? Any team you can see with a low population, weak domestic league and not even a single decent club in their country to ensure some sort of medium point outlet for their talent? I'm betting you know which one I mean.

So now, do Sweden have have the 8th best selection of players in Europe to work with over the last decade? According to your simplistic pov they must because the results are there to see. But if you really think their fortunes match their resources then feel free to demonstrate it to me and like I said previously explain to me why why Sweden's squad list doesn't feature half-dozen or more players employed at top clubs around Europe at any given time considering they're so good?

Seriously, what?

We're talking about one team out performing us pretty much since the modern era of football began and you want to compare it to a team we beat once?

Do I really need to explain.

No of course you don't. I would expect nothing more from a guy who has distilled football down to being nothing more than "the better players always make the better team and get the better results".

They're ahead generally by a couple of class players and that's what gets them qualified but not too far in international tournaments.

Ah I didn't realise for instance all you had to do was have a .7 goalscoring record for Celtic and warm the bench of a top contenental club to be class? I guess we'll eventually look back on Robbie Keane as class too in time.

Yes, because we're talking about 'setting the world on fire', not comparing them to Ireland or anything. I mean, a Lyon midfielder or a Celtic striker who ended up winning titles at Barca and Utd - that's comparable to seeing out your days at LA Galaxy, no?

Like I said, anyone with a clue.

Winning titles at United and Barca? What a joke. 7 games for United. He wasn't even in line for a medal and the club had to make a special plea to get him one. Titles at Barca? The first one for nothing, the second for 14 starts over an entire season. The bit player champion.

Same with Kellstrom. He was there for Lyon's glory years as they, almost like clockwork, made getting knocked out at the last 16 of the CL an artform.

Like you said, anyone with a clue.

Brain Stroking

kitakyushu wrote: »

Yes it is. Also it's interesting that you're not impressed by a team generally made up a varying range of players repeatedly qualifying and picking up impressive results along the way. I suppose we'll have to wait until Sweden make it to another WC final before you'll raise an eyebrow in this regard.

As i said a numbers game.

kitakyushu wrote: »

So in Europe it's just a simple numbers game and that 10 million (9.5m actually) is a large enough population to ensure a consistent supply of acceptable players for a country?

Yes.

kitakyushu wrote: »

You should tell that to the next Romanian or Pole or Hungarian you meet.

Hungary had one of the greatest football tams of all time and has a similar population to Sweden ie TWICE our population.
Poland has a population of 38 million people so irrelevant.
Romania has a population of 20 million so, again, irrelevant.
What were you saying about poor nitpicking? Ouch :pac:

kitakyushu wrote: »

For all intents an purposes Sweden is a small country (#18th in Europe by pop)) with a weak domestic league ('#24th in UEFA), and a selection of international player who and the whole do not make for impressive reading.

Makes no sense. Why would the size of a country be relevant? Should we be better than Holland so?

kitakyushu wrote: »

What's more then even have a significan club overlap with us. They are achieving very good things at international level (even if you don't think so) and are the sort of nation Ireland can draw comparisons with and aspire to be closer to in terms of results/success.

Unsurprisingly and not for the first time, i dont know what you are getting at here. I never said Sweden were poor. I said you comparing our success with theirs is flawed as they have twice our population. It is very simple.

kitakyushu wrote: »

So 1992 is before 1958 now?

Excuse me?

kitakyushu wrote: »

I simply said go back further to when they were really good (ie 1992-1994).

You dont seem to be capable of "simply" saying anything.

kitakyushu wrote: »

Your weak attempt at nitpicking failed on this occasion I'm afraid and doesn't change the validity of my statement. Try harder next time and probably save the rolleyes for someone who might actually be impressed by it.

I wasnt nitpicking. You are talking ****e. I cannot put it any more "simply". Your comparison was flawed. Now scrape some of that sand out of your vag like a good ladeen.

Edit: Just read through the thread. I wasted my time replying to you. Not a clue. Larsson a bit player and nothing else? Clown

kitakyushu

This....

Brain Stroking wrote: »

As i said a numbers game.

This....

Unsurprisingly and not for the first time, i dont know what you are getting at here. I never said Sweden were poor. I said you comparing our success with theirs is flawed as they have twice our population. It is very simple.

Then this ....

Makes no sense. Why would the size of a country be relevant? Should we be better than Holland so?

Total contradiction. Game over for you I'm afraid.

Excuse me?

Excuse you.

You dont seem to be capable of "simply" saying anything.

Look who's talking Mr. Population is a factor one minute and not the next.

I wasnt nitpicking. You are talking ****e. I cannot put it any more "simply". Your comparison was flawed. Now scrape some of that sand out of your vag like a good ladeen.

Sure you were. If I'd said "go back to when whey were their very best then you'd have had me. But I didn't and you made a mistake. Tough luck. But do try again sometime.

Brain Stroking

kitakyushu wrote: »

This....


This....


Then this ....

Total contradiction. Game over for you I'm afraid.


Excuse you.


Look who's talking Mr. Population is a factor one minute and not the next.



Sure you were. If I'd said "go back to when whey were their very best then you'd have had me. But I didn't and you made a mistake. Tough luck. But do try again sometime.

You arent that smart are you? I stopped reading when you think the country's population is its size. The size of a country is its area. I have already explained my point.
More ****ty nitpicking.

Ps population isnt a "factor". It is the whole point you moron.

kitakyushu

Brain Stroking wrote: »

You arent that smart are you? I stopped reading when you think the country's population is its size. The size of a country is its area. I have already explained my point.
More ****ty nitpicking.

Ps population isnt a "factor". It is the whole point you moron.

No, the area of a country is its area. The size can be used to describe a variety of things (area/population etc). In this case population.

Moron eh? That's nice.