Rep.Ireland v Kazakhstan KO 19:45 *Mod Note Post #125*

RikkFlair

nbar12 wrote: »

that game was painful to watch, was looking forward to King's reign for the 2 matches but his team selection for both games has been extremely disappointing. He's a likable kind of guy but my estimation of him went down a peg or two for the way he reacted to Tony O'Donoghue's questions. As for the RTE panel, well it's time for a shake up. Get rid of them all, bar Sadlier and Bill (okey doke), Dunphy can be funny but he's a fúcking arsehole who wouldn't know what to do if he was given the responsibility to coach the Irish team. Brady is a tosser for the way he reacted to any negativity to Trap, they way he would defend him would make you think twice that they were lovers. I dont actually mind Giles too much, but he's gettin auld and maybe it's time for him to retire

I read recently that Bill is calling it a day after next summer, Dunphy is undecided, not sure about Giles.

fryup

nbar12 wrote: »

that game was painful to watch, was looking forward to King's reign for the 2 matches but his team selection for both games has been extremely disappointing. He's a likable kind of guy

he comes across as a harmless jovial easy going type of man...and to be fair Dunphy did say on friday night that he was tactically illiterate which would get anyones back up, so can't blame him for getting a tad tetchy tonight

Dempsey

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

Against the same fella's who hailed Trap as a great appointment because they hadn't a bulls notion of how he sets up teams. I'd like to think Trap (and Brady) is infinitely more qualified to speak and coach football than those two.

Forget about Dunphy, not even going to waste my time talking about that hack. As qualified as Brady is, he still was inept at managing senior sides and surprisingly knows little about European Football in general for a man thats still in the game. Giles knows a fair bit when it comes to managing Ireland as he's actually been in the hotseat and knows the pressure that comes with it but he's just trots out tired old cliches half the time. I wouldnt consider any of them great analysts at all.

Still, I wish Sadlier & Maloney would call Giles & Dunphy on their agenda tonight. They were afraid of the conversations that would of happened during the breaks!

Mr.Nice Guy

Pighead wrote: »

Disagree. We were bad tonight but it was better than most of the crap Trap served up. The lack of hoofing was refreshing.

A limited manager like King achieved this. If we get a manager in who will play the players in the right positions we have a decent team with the ability to pass it about. Brady and McGeady on the wings tonight instead of Doyle and Stokes would have made a nice team I reckon.

The football on display was no better than what we've seen before and if it had been Trap overseeing it the vitriol would have been double. I don't consider passing the ball sideways or backwards an improvement on hoofball either.

I agree that width was needed and would have improved matters but I don't think there is any evidence on tonight's showing that we have an optimistic future ahead in terms of possession football.

The away team weren't much opposition and yet they had the chances to have drawn this game, and that's even without the stupid handball moment.

I'm very depressed at the way things are as I don't see things getting any better. King is still going to be U-21 manager as well, don't forget.

I'd be keen to see Kerr back involved in the youth set-up but he'd probably tell the FAI to shove it.

Kirby

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The football on display was no better than what we've seen before and if it had been Trap overseeing it the vitriol would have been double.

We didn't play long all night, footballers were chosen....there wasn't a Sammon or Green in sight, we won 3-1, never looked like losing, and had 80% possession.

You clearly watched a different game to the rest of us. We weren't brilliant, but it was a lot better than under Trap

Lemmy Scott

the difference between trap and mrs browns team is that there was a shape to trapps team while mrs browns team was all over the shop.pure muck served up by mrs brown thank god hes gone.

noodler

I think Giles always talks sense.

Although sometimes alot of it is fairly obvious and non-controversial.

Mr.Nice Guy

Kirby wrote: »

We didn't play long all night, footballers were chosen....there wasn't a Sammon or Green in sight, we won 3-1, never looked like losing, and had 80% possession.

You clearly watched a different game to the rest of us. We weren't brilliant, but it was a lot better than under Trap

It wasn't a lot better than under Trap at all. Even Trap hater Ronnie Whelan was remarking how it felt like a friendly game and the anti-Trap panel weren't impressed either. They must have seen a different game to you too.

You are seeing what you want to see, I think.

Playing sideways and back isn't better than playing long. And possession stats are meaningless when it is largely in your own half. :pac:

Strongbow10

noodler wrote: »

I think Giles always talks sense.

Although sometimes alot of it is fairly obvious and non-controversial.

the need to be controversial is the problem with other so called analysts.

Giles is spot on alot of the time, his constant backing up of Dunphy is getting tiresome though

bizmark

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It wasn't a lot better than under Trap at all. Even Trap hater Ronnie Whelan was remarking how it felt like a friendly game and the anti-Trap panel weren't impressed either. They must have seen a different game to you too.

You are seeing what you want to see, I think.

Playing sideways and back isn't better than playing long. And possession stats are meaningless when it is largely in your own half. :pac:

well no its very meaningful to stop us being on the backfoot 90% of the time against nearly every team we played while under trap :pac:

Where as today instead of being 1-0 down with 5 mins to go we where 3-1 up with 5 mins to go and never in any dangour thats an improvement

Francie Barrett

People are being far too harsh on King. Maybe one or two of the selections were strange, but he got the formation correct and the style of possession based football was on the money. While I don't think King has the experience to take the job, I'd think he was thinking along the right lines.

fryup

Lemmy Scott wrote: »

the difference between trap and mrs browns team is that there was a shape to trapps team while mrs browns team was all over the shop.pure muck served up by mrs brown thank god hes gone.

:pac: ah go way out of dat

ya gotta love Noel King he's your quintessential salt of the earth Dub and that big grin

howiya howiya howiya

Pighead

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The football on display was no better than what we've seen before and if it had been Trap overseeing it the vitriol would have been double. I don't consider passing the ball sideways or backwards an improvement on hoofball either.

Disagree. Even taking Andy Reid's performance alone we seen more skill and good touches tonight than we've seen in a long time. And his set pieces all evening were a huge positive. It was also great to see the team pushing for a third goal rather than sit back when 2-1 up and try and defend their league which is what was happening more often than not under Trap.

As you say there were far too many passes backwards and sideways(which is infinitely better than hoofing it to the opposition by the way) but with a decent coach we may get some decent football for the first time in a long long time.

Francie Barrett

bizmark wrote: »

Where as today instead of being 1-0 down with 5 mins to go we where 3-1 up with 5 mins to go and never in any dangour thats an improvement

They scored a wonder goal that was down to a bad individual mistake. I think we always controlled the game well enough and was confident we would still win. In the previous tie with Kazakhstan - we were extremely lucky to get out of town with the 3 points.

roanoke

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Even Trap hater Ronnie Whelan was remarking how it felt like a friendly

But he only said that at 3-1 iirc.

I hope we have many more games in future that feel like a friendly for the final 15-20mins if we've spent the previous 70 or so controlling the play and enjoying a two goal lead.

Strongbow10

Francie Barrett wrote: »

People are being far too harsh on King. Maybe one or two of the selections were strange, but he got the formation correct and the style of possession based football was on the money. While I don't think King has the experience to take the job, I'd think he was thinking along the right lines.

of course he was.

The personal criticism (despite Dunphy's claim to the contrary), was just that. Personal.

Calling a man tactically illiterate is personal. Dunphy was "critiquing him as a coach", and didn't like King doing similar in return questioning their analysis.

The criticism is baffling really, the man is caretaker manager for 2 games. 2 bloody games! Meaningless games at that.

the lads fancy themselves as being judge and jury on everything and Dunphy uses personal insults veiled as opinion.

Francie Barrett

Pighead wrote: »

As you say there were far too many passes backwards and sideways(which is infinitely better than hoofing it to the opposition by the way) but with a decent coach we may get some decent football for the first time in a long long time.

It's going to take more than 2 games to drill out 5 years of bad habits that were developed under Trap.

Lightbulb Sun

The team definitely tried to play more football than under Trap. Germany were just simply on another level, tonight we had the majority of the possession, the right mentality, but no cutting edge.

devotional1993

Dunphy is a twisted bitter **** stirring bully. No matter what happened, or what King did or said , he was waiting to have a go tonight after the comedy show remark from Friday
Truth is , it is a comedy show and Dunphy is the clown.

devotional1993

Dunphy is a twisted bitter **** stirring bully. No matter what happened, or what King did or said , he was waiting to have a go tonight after the comedy show remark from Friday
Truth is , it is a comedy show and Dunphy is the clown.

sea_monkey

devotional1993 wrote: »

Dunphy is a twisted bitter **** stirring bully. No matter what happened, or what King did or said , he was waiting to have a go tonight after the comedy show remark from Friday
Truth is , it is a comedy show and Dunphy is the clown.

id rather the three of them sat on toilets and all we heard was them excreting for the 15minutes at half time.

Strongbow10

the problem on RTE is the host (be it Bill or Maloney) is simply not strong or knowledgable to pull Dunphy up on some of his guff.

They seem to bow to him as being an amazing analyst. One can only assume that Maloney and Bill just don't have either the guts or vision to see through the bullsh*t.

Dunphy is there to be taken down a peg or 2 and nobody is ever good enough to do it. Brady has also come up short on countless occasions. When pushed to the pin of his collar he shows a distinct lack of knowledge or sense and is unable to tackle Dunphy.

Surely they need to ambush him some night with a show reel of his contradictions- his turnaround on Mick McCarthy, his flip flopping between calling Gibson a "nothing player" to championing him as a huge player in exile, to reverting to his belief he was poor the other night. Once finished the host needs to calmly ask him to explain his real beliefs and where he exactly stands. And not fold under the bullying tactics like everyone else does

Pighead

Francie Barrett wrote: »

It's going to take more than 2 games to drill out 5 years of bad habits that were developed under Trap.

It's amazing how quickly a good coach can impose his stamp on a team. My local team Dundalk were a bunch of hoofball losers for years who went through awful manager after awful manager before almost getting relegated last year. Stephen Kenny came in for this season and the difference was ridiculous.

Even simple things like our goalkeeper rolling it out to the full back rather than a big hoof over the midfielders heads had the crowd rubbing their eyes in disbelief. Obviously it's not going to happen overnight but if we can get somebody in who knows what he's at, watching Ireland in the next campaign won't be quite such a chore.

LuckyLloyd

King might not be a huge fan of Trapp (or maybe he is, who knows?), but he's been working away for the FAI loosely under him for roughly five and a half years. His reaction to O' Donoghue was payback for the frankly disgraceful post match interviews conducted by him, and the attack on the panel was partially due to the Whelan comment after the Austria game. He had nothing to lose, and I'd imagine there are a number of players and backroom staff who will have loved it.

That would be my take on it anyway.

devotional1993

It's quite clear Dunphy is a guy who can dish it out but gets very very nasty and personal if somebody comes back at him.
He's had a free run on that show for far too long now. Sure he hounded Mick McCarthy as a player because he wanted Dave o' Leary in the team during Euro 88 etc when Jack prefered McCarthy. Then hounded him as manager after Saipan
Problem is he's good T.V even if "REAL FOOTBALL" people cant stand the fella

DeanAustin

As much as I enjoy the panel and think King was out of his depth, Dunphy was out of order tonight. Dunphy accused King of attacking O'Donoghue by saying "Do your homework, you dont know what you're talking about."

King said no such thing. He said "Doyle has played on the right for his club if anyone wants to do their homework." It wasn't a personal attack by King at all.

Dunphy's tirade was made all the more remarkable by the fact that seconds before falsely accusing King of personal attacks he called King "unpleasant". That was an uncalled for personal attack on King.

Dunphy also twisted Darragh's question to suit his agenda. Maloney said that King had been subjected to "harsh criticism" which is true but Dunphy twisted that and patronised Maloney unfairly.

What clearly happened was that Dunphy had his nose out of joint from King's comments at the weekend and was intent on pursuing that agenda. He's very good at arguing and twisted the whole situation to falsely accuse King and belittle Maloney. It was very very poor from him and as bad as King behaved, Dunphy was disingenuous and extremely unpleasant himself.

Pighead

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

King might not be a huge fan of Trapp (or maybe he is, who knows?), but he's been working away for the FAI loosely under him for roughly five and a half years. His reaction to O' Donoghue was payback for the frankly disgraceful post match interviews conducted by him, and the attack on the panel was partially due to the Whelan comment after the Austria game. He had nothing to lose, and I'd imagine there are a number of players and backroom staff who will have loved it.

That would be my take on it anyway.

Don't think it had anything at all to do with Trap. King just doesn't seem to be able to take any criticism and comes across as very false. All laughing and joking until somebody says something anyway critical. He was protecting his own rep. Think you're being over the top about O'Donoghue as well. Doesn't always get it right but at least he can ask the tough questions.

Strongbow10

Pighead wrote: »

Don't think it had anything at all to do with Trap. King just doesn't seem to be able to take any criticism and comes across as very false. All laughing and joking until somebody says something anyway critical. He was protecting his own rep. Think you're being over the top about O'Donoghue as well. Doesn't always get it right but at least he can ask the tough questions.

what the hell is there to be criticising? the bloke is caretaker manager for 2 meaningless games.

Are some folks confused thinking he is the new full time manager or what?

Giles and Dunphy belong on xfactor with their carry on.

LuckyLloyd

Pighead wrote: »

Don't think it had anything at all to do with Trap. King just doesn't seem to be able to take any criticism and comes across as very false. All laughing and joking until somebody says something anyway critical. He was protecting his own rep. Think you're being over the top about O'Donoghue as well. Doesn't always get it right but at least he can ask the tough questions.

I could be wrong on the King thing, no doubt.

O'Donoghue lacks respect however - these people are always deserving of respect imo.

noodler

sea_monkey wrote: »

id rather the three of them sat on toilets and all we heard was them excreting for the 15minutes at half time.

I don't think I'd like that at all at all!

Pighead

Strongbow10 wrote: »

what the hell is there to be criticising? the bloke is caretaker manager for 2 meaningless games.

Are some folks confused thinking he is the new full time manager or what?

Giles and Dunphy belong on xfactor with their carry on.

Tell King that! He's the one that got all pissy over a perfectly straight forward question. And it wasn't a meaningless game. We needed to win for seeding reasons.

CSF

Holy **** that interview was an awkward watch. Neither O'Donoghue nor King carry themselves in a huge amount of glory.

CSF

Pighead wrote: »

It's amazing how quickly a good coach can impose his stamp on a team. My local team Dundalk were a bunch of hoofball losers for years who went through awful manager after awful manager before almost getting relegated last year. Stephen Kenny came in for this season and the difference was ridiculous.

Even simple things like our goalkeeper rolling it out to the full back rather than a big hoof over the midfielders heads had the crowd rubbing their eyes in disbelief. Obviously it's not going to happen overnight but if we can get somebody in who knows what he's at, watching Ireland in the next campaign won't be quite such a chore.

Probably helped that you spent loads too to be fair.

Hulk Hands

CSF wrote: »

Holy **** that interview was an awkward watch. Neither O'Donoghue nor King carry themselves in a huge amount of glory.

I think that's the Long and short of it. King will rightly take the blame for what was a thoroughly unprofessional response to the questions asked, but O'Donoghue really has been sticking his nose in for too long asking questions that are inappropriate and even arguing points that he, with no football experience, has any right to argue.

In saying that, he's likely told what to ask by superiors, while King is certainly acting of his own accord.

Pighead

CSF wrote: »

Probably helped that you spent loads too to be fair.

No we didn't. Our budget was about 12k a week for this season. Much lower than Sligo and Shels and probably lower than Pats, Derry and Limerick. Anyway that's for another days discussion.

grenache

CSF wrote: »

Holy **** that interview was an awkward watch. Neither O'Donoghue nor King carry themselves in a huge amount of glory.

Tony O'Donoghue did nought wrong. King couldn't answer one probing question with a dignified response, instead like some sort of school child he threw his toys out of the pram and attacked O'Donoghue.

King showed a total lack of professionalism in both his tactics and dealings with the media. He just came across as very amateurish, like a child who found a genie in a bottle.

witnessmenow

CSF wrote: »

Holy **** that interview was an awkward watch. Neither O'Donoghue nor King carry themselves in a huge amount of glory.

Out of curiosity what do you think O'Donoghue said wrong?

I really don't think O'Donoghue could be faulted, There is no way you could describe Doyle or Stokes as "natural wingers" even if they have played there before

Charlie19

grenache wrote: »

Tony O'Donoghue did nought wrong. King couldn't answer one probing question with a dignified response, instead like some sort of school child he threw his toys out of the pram and attacked O'Donoghue.

King showed a total lack of professionalism in both his tactics and dealings with the media. He just came across as very amateurish, like a child who found a genie in a bottle.

While I do agree that King should of held a better account of himself while answering the questions, the questions should never been asked. King took over a under performing team after a poor run of results and knew it was only going to be for two games. What new manager would get criticized for a 50% win ratio after two games.

Nolars

Charlie19 wrote: »

While I do agree that King should of held a better account of himself while answering the questions, the questions should never been asked. King took over a under performing team after a poor run of results and knew it was only going to be for two games. What new manager would get criticized for a 50% win ratio after two games.

It was a valid question, a simple question. It should of been asked.

Charlie19

Nolars wrote: »

It was a valid question, a simple question. It should of been asked.

I don't think so. We had won the game and King should have been congratulated and we move on to the appointment of the new manager.

Agricola

Whatever was or wasnt said between the panel and King since the Germany game, that was no way for an international manager to conduct themselves when dealing with the media. Trappatoni arrived in Ireland with legendary status, and he managed to answer plenty of probing questions from TOD over the years. If someone like Trap can entertain "impertinent" questions and critiquing from the RTE panel, who the hell does Noel King think he is to walk out before an interview ends because someone dared to disagree with his tactics!


And all this pride in green jersey búll****, it would make ya sick. Concentrate on the football, and sing rebel songs on yer own time.

briany

The panel really got a lot of mileage out of King's little strop which says a lot about the game and Ireland's campaign overall. There wouldn't have been that much to talk about otherwise as the new manager stuff has been done to death already.

King was a bit out of order in his conduct but his temporary tenure will be a footnote in the history of the senior team. It added a bit of flavour to an otherwise dreary night. What I thought was funny was that the panel only focused on the negatives of the selection as usual. To hear Dunphy tell it during the Trap era, a midfield of McCarthy, Gibson and Reid would have been a dream come true and it barely gets any focus here because he wants to talk about the senselessness of playing Doyle and Stokes as wing forwards with Robbie Keane as point man. How come everybody can seemingly pick the right team and tactics except for the manager?

grenache

Just after watching the game back on RTE Player there now. A bit like Trap, King seems to love playing guys out of position. His positioning of Stokes & Doyle on the wings was again baffling. They tended to come inside more often than not, it was all a bit cramped, when width was what was needed. Reid should have been played down the left, he certainly didn't have enough space to work with in the middle play-making role. Still, himself and Coleman were the best two players on the pitch.

Mick McCarthy or Guus Hiddink for the permanent job please.

rebelomar

To be honest the mini spate between King and RTÉ has very little relevance going forward. Dunphy will always try to take the controversial line so its nothing new there.

I think what is important is the way we played tonight or indeed try to play. Passing the ball is the way forward. It has been always been the progressive way to play the game and any team who has ever had any real tangible success has tried to play a possession based game or certainly a version of it.

King in this regard at least got us to try and play the right way. He also played a more relevant formation to allow us have the numbers in the right areas to support the man on the ball. I don't accept the criticism at all of too much backwards or sideways passing. It allows us relative control of the game and means we are not defending for long periods of the game against weaker teams as we have been. Also great to see us pushing for a third goal.

I can understand where King was coming from playing Stokes and Doyle on the wings. Doyle gives an out ball if we need to go direct occasionally and an aerial threat at set plays. Stokes is there as an additional finisher against a team who we were always going to dominate and potentially create chances against. While I can see where King was coming from I don't agree with his selections here. One out and out winger would have stretched the opposition and allowed an out ball for a more progressive pass from midfield. As mentioned in commentary both wide players tucked in following their natural instincts as strikers and stifled the passing game at times.

I think at home against weaker teams a striker in a wide role in such a formation could be a positive development for the reasons outlined above but feel a genuine winger is a must on the opposite flank. Both can switch sides throughout the game to mix it up.

Going forward we need a coach of genuine quality. He will need to adapt a horses for courses approach to his selections depending on the opposition.
I would say a really good coach will not abandon our traditional qualities as a football nation. They will build their approach around our strengths i.e work rate, aggression, physicality.We need to incorporate these elements into our game when we don't have the ball and get back to a pressing game in the right areas of the pitch. We now with the returning players have some reasonable flair and genuine ability in the squad and a new coach imho has a pretty decent squad to work with at International level.

This approach is relevant to opposition except the first seeds. i.e Germany, Spain etc or some of the elite second seeded teams.

We are NOT on a level with the top countries obviously and could not compete in a straight shoot out and I think every football supporter I know acknowledges this completely but against teams of similar or lower levels to ourselves we should be taking the progressive approach we saw tonight. No excuses!

Against the really top sides a quality coach will adapt the game plan to a more counter attacking style imo and have us really strong on set pieces. We will be defending more which is what would be expected but we would need to defend a bit higher up the pitch than we have been doing under Trap. This involves packing the midfield and using out natural strengths and pressing hard and aggressively in the right areas once the ball crosses the half way line. We will NOT even on our very best night dominate the ball or even break even in possession against a top side but that doesn't mean we have to resort to a version of hoof ball when we win it back and all out last ditched panic induced defending we have seen. I'm not opposed to the occasional long ball but not an aimless hoof down the middle. Angle it out to a target man who peels off on the full back or at least put some thought or planning into it.

Who is the coach for the job? I don't agree with the opinion the new coach has to have an Irish connection. He very much needs to have a high level of English and be a skilled communicator but once that criteria is met then it's who has the best pedigree for the job. The Irish/British coach or foreign equivalent. If Hiddink or Belsia could be tempted I would go that route. Non of the Irish/British options being put forward excite me or appeal to me.

Adrift

I think King's interview was embarassing. Like Brian Kerr, he clearly can't handle a few probing questions. Handling the media is a big part of the job, Trap answered far harder questions with a little bit of cheek, always kept it friendly.

RTE really need to shake up that panel. It was nice to see Daragh Maloney in Bill's spot last night.The rest of them are so out of touch though, it doesn't matter what manager comes in, those lads will claim he's not doing things right. Team selection = wrong. Formation = Wrong. We win 3-0? The lads will claim we didn't do it the right way.

Oh, and Ritchie Sadlier deserves a special mention. Surely one of the most miserable individuals to ever work on Irish television. And that's saying something. Close you're eyes and you'd swear you were listening to an 80+ year old. I've read his column in the independent over the years and he continually berates the team and seemed to have an inexplicable vendetta against Trapattoni. He makes Liam Brady seem Dynamic. I really hope his involvement in the panel is limited going forward and RTE do some homework when they're lining up replacements for Giles and Dunphy.

Just to underline how progressive RTE are. The panel for the world cup in 2014 is practically the same as the panel that covered the 1990 world cup. Frightful.

DeanAustin

rebelomar wrote: »

To be honest the mini spate between King and RTÉ has very little relevance going forward. Dunphy will always try to take the controversial line so its nothing new there.

I think what is important is the way we played tonight or indeed try to play. Passing the ball is the way forward. It has been always been the progressive way to play the game and any team who has ever had any real tangible success has tried to play a possession based game or certainly a version of it.

King in this regard at least got us to try and play the right way. He also played a more relevant formation to allow us have the numbers in the right areas to support the man on the ball. I don't accept the criticism at all of too much backwards or sideways passing. It allows us relative control of the game and means we are not defending for long periods of the game against weaker teams as we have been. Also great to see us pushing for a third goal.

I can understand where King was coming from playing Stokes and Doyle on the wings. Doyle gives an out ball if we need to go direct occasionally and an aerial threat at set plays. Stokes is there as an additional finisher against a team who we were always going to dominate and potentially create chances against. While I can see where King was coming from I don't agree with his selections here. One out and out winger would have stretched the opposition and allowed an out ball for a more progressive pass from midfield. As mentioned in commentary both wide players tucked in following their natural instincts as strikers and stifled the passing game at times.

I think at home against weaker teams a striker in a wide role in such a formation could be a positive development for the reasons outlined above but feel a genuine winger is a must on the opposite flank. Both can switch sides throughout the game to mix it up.

Going forward we need a coach of genuine quality. He will need to adapt a horses for courses approach to his selections depending on the opposition.
I would say a really good coach will not abandon our traditional qualities as a football nation. They will build their approach around our strengths i.e work rate, aggression, physicality.We need to incorporate these elements into our game when we don't have the ball and get back to a pressing game in the right areas of the pitch. We now with the returning players have some reasonable flair and genuine ability in the squad and a new coach imho has a pretty decent squad to work with at International level.

This approach is relevant to opposition except the first seeds. i.e Germany, Spain etc or some of the elite second seeded teams.

We are NOT on a level with the top countries obviously and could not compete in a straight shoot out and I think every football supporter I know acknowledges this completely but against teams of similar or lower levels to ourselves we should be taking the progressive approach we saw tonight. No excuses!

Against the really top sides a quality coach will adapt the game plan to a more counter attacking style imo and have us really strong on set pieces. We will be defending more which is what would be expected but we would need to defend a bit higher up the pitch than we have been doing under Trap. This involves packing the midfield and using out natural strengths and pressing hard and aggressively in the right areas once the ball crosses the half way line. We will NOT even on our very best night dominate the ball or even break even in possession against a top side but that doesn't mean we have to resort to a version of hoof ball when we win it back and all out last ditched panic induced defending we have seen. I'm not opposed to the occasional long ball but not an aimless hoof down the middle. Angle it out to a target man who peels off on the full back or at least put some thought or planning into it.

Who is the coach for the job? I don't agree with the opinion the new coach has to have an Irish connection. He very much needs to have a high level of English and be a skilled communicator but once that criteria is met then it's who has the best pedigree for the job. The Irish/British coach or foreign equivalent. If Hiddink or Belsia could be tempted I would go that route. Non of the Irish/British options being put forward excite me or appeal to me.

A lot of sense in your post but I think there is a danger of everyone believing that there is only one way to play and that's like Spain or Swansea or whoever.

Wimbledon won the FA Cup in 1988 - they didn't play possession football.

Greece won the Euros in 2004 - they didn't play possession football.

That's only two examples off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.

Duck Soup

The King-O'Donoghue interview. From my perspective, they seemed like fairly innocuous questions, which could have been dealt with in a much calmer manner.

martingriff

Charlie19 wrote: »

I don't think so. We had won the game and King should have been congratulated and we move on to the appointment of the new manager.

So if you win then any question in relation to the team should be put down. That is madness. There was a lot of times when Ireland won/drew under Trap and those question were asked and nobody would have said they should not have been. We were playing a weak team and having players out of position and playing not great should allways be tackled regardless. How else are you meant to improve.

We lost 3-0 to Germany with those tactics. We lost 3-0 not down to his tactics but the brillance of Forde on a night

zl1whqvjs75cdy

that's the first time I've seen that interview. He did lose the plot a bit alright. He might be saying the exact things most mangers think during a post match interview, but most have the sense to not say them. He seems like he has his back up over something.

Alpha Dog 1

Fair play to Noel King, the questions being asked by RTE have been a disgrace for a long time.