Rep Ireland v USA

The_Kew_Tour

Fudge You wrote: »

Dig up stupid!

Oh ya a friendly changes everything.

You're playing blind .

Mantis Toboggan

SantryRed wrote: »

We only looked good on the ball tonight because the opposition allowed us to be. You don't get that much time in competitive football.

That's the problem though. Scotland worked unbelievably hard Friday night and ran themselves into the ground.

Then we play a friendly, get loads of time on the ball, play well and people say why can't we play like that in competitive games? It's just not that simple.

Clueless fans then say stuff like the manager is out of his depth or the players disobeyed the manager by trying to play football! Mind-numbing stuff really.

The_Kew_Tour

rarnes1 wrote: »

I don't think we are as far ahead of Scotland as you say.

I'd say there's not much between the teams tbh

We aint miles ahead of Scotland but like for like we beat them in most departments.

The difference on Friday night was the Managers. One showed bit of bottle while the other hoped for a draw playing hoofball.

The_Kew_Tour

Buddy Holly wrote: »

That's the problem though. Scotland worked unbelievably hard Friday night and ran themselves into the ground.

Then we play a friendly, get loads of time on the ball, play well and people say why can't we play like that in competitive games? It's just not that simple.

Clueless fans then say stuff like the manager is out of his depth or the players disobeyed the manager by trying to play football! Mind-numbing stuff really.

Clueless fans make out that Scotland are something they ain't.

KungPao

SantryRed wrote: »

We only looked good on the ball tonight because the opposition allowed us to be. You don't get that much time in competitive football.

I don't know.

For most countries in friendlies, yes. But the US usually give their all...very competitive nation in all sports.

Billy86

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

We aint miles ahead of Scotland but like for like we beat them in most departments.

The difference on Friday night was the Managers. One showed bit of bottle while the other hoped for a draw playing hoofball.

I reckon Scotland if anything probably have a bit more talent than us, especially once you take McCarthy out of the equation. They had a lot more than us in midfield and used it to their advantage.

The_Kew_Tour

Billy86 wrote: »

I reckon Scotland if anything probably have a bit more talent than us, especially once you take McCarthy out of the equation. They had a lot more than us in midfield and used it to their advantage.

They had more in Midfield cause we let them.

The San Marino midfield would have looked decent against us Friday night.

rarnes1

rarnes1 wrote: »

Same under Trap.

"Remember that time all the players ignored the manager and nearly beat France! "

It is hard to envisage Trap ever being that adventurous tho to be honest. O'Neill plays it cagey but whatever chance about him going all gung ho it is just nigh on impossible to think that Trap would say to the lads 'Go out and express yourselves'. He is your typical Italian style manager.

Thats not to say he didnt now in fairness but id just take some convincing that he instructed them to do this

Billy86

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

They had more in Midfield cause we let them.

No, they had more in midfield because they had better players there.

The_Kew_Tour

Billy86 wrote: »

No, they had more in midfield because they had better players there.

I disagree and I'm a big fan of Scott Brown from his time at Hibs.

Billy86

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I disagree and I'm a big fan of Scott Brown from his time at Hibs.

So you honestly think Gibson (not long back from a year out injured) and Hendrick are better than Brown and Mulgrew (who have also played together for club and country for over four years now)? Really?

Dunphy and Joe Brolly giving out about the controversy that follows Keane is hillarious really

Soups123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Dunphy and Joe Brolly giving out about the controversy that follows Keane is hillarious really

Dunphy giving out about attention seeking and drama you can only laugh

The_Kew_Tour

Billy86 wrote: »

So you honestly think Gibson (not long back from a year out injured) and Hendrick are better than Brown and Mulgrew (who have also played together for club and country for over four years now)? Really?

Both Brown and Mulgrew are average players, no more.

You are making them sound Quality level.

NIMAN

To be fair, Keano is becoming a parody of himself.

The way he was standing staring into the 4th officials eyes the other night was embarrassing. Like something you'd see outside a nightclub at 3am just before a fight kicked off.

Dearg81

Billy86 wrote: »

No, they had more in midfield because they had better players there.

Yep, the Scottish midfield of Mulgrew and Brown have been playing champions league football for years while we had a young championship player and Gibson who's just back from injury.

The_Kew_Tour

Ya but one of those 3 scored in QF and SF of CL if ye are going down that route.

Cillian Sheridan is playing CL football. Maybe we missed the boat.

Dearg81

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Ya but one of those 3 scored in QF and SF of CL if ye are going down that route.

Cillian Sheridan is playing CL football. Maybe we missed the boat.

If you think playing at the highest level together as a centre mid pairing is an irrelevant point then you have some very strange views on the game.

Dearg81

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

wow those guys are deluded?

How can a team with Altidore as their main man have so many delusional fans? That was a good read though.

The_Kew_Tour

Dearg81 wrote: »

If you think playing at the highest level together as a centre mid pairing is an irrelevant point then you have some very strange views on the game.

It does not make it irrelevant, but it does not make them any better then average pairing.

I don't see host of PL clubs wanting either of the two.

Pinturicchio

Dearg81 wrote: »

How can a team with Altidore as their main man have so many delusional fans? That was a good read though.

Altidore wouldn't be in their first choice XI. They were missing some important layers like Bradley, Dempsey and Jones.

Pinturicchio

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

It does not make it irrelevant, but it does not make them any better then average pairing.

I don't see host of PL clubs wanting either of the two.

Better than average? Maybe not, but it's still better than Gibson and Hendrick.

It should be said as well that it was effectively Mulgrew, Brown and Naismith versus Gibson and Hendrick. Long and Walters didn't do anything to help them.

The_Kew_Tour

Pinturicchio wrote: »

Better than average? Maybe not, but it's still better than Gibson and Hendrick.

It should be said as well that it was effectively Mulgrew, Brown and Naismith versus Gibson and Hendrick. Long and Walters didn't do anything to help them.

Walters had a good game and ran his socks off.

A very underrated player for Ireland.

Long was awful. Naismith was best player on the field.

Pinturicchio

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Walters had a good game and ran his socks off.

A very underrated player for Ireland.

Long was awful. Naismith was best player on the field.

All of Walters' work was up against the Scottish centre halves. We were outnumbered in midfield yet again.

The_Kew_Tour

Pinturicchio wrote: »

All of Walters' work was up against the Scottish centre halves. We were outnumbered in midfield yet again.

And that blame lies with O Neill.

roanoke

We certainly didn't see much of this against Scotland.

https://vine.co/v/OJ70YX5ZKEF

https://vine.co/v/OJZWObzJAOz

It'll be interesting to see if we'd be able to repeat moments like this in the tougher games ahead. I've always felt I'd rather watch an Irish team risk losing while at least trying to play to its capabilities & with a sense of freedom, rather than watching one that just wants to spend 90mins killing the game and often just losing anyway.

JamBur

JamBur wrote: »

I've been keeping an eye on the "USMNT" forum, they consider this their "Most embarrassing loss in USMNT history"

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/united-states-vs-ireland-november-18th-2-45pm-et.2013512/page-18

my personal favourite is at the bottom of page one

first poster: "irelands lineup is a joke"

second poster:"is there any lineup they field where it wouldn't be"

then on to page two where someone said
"why do we play football against these kind of teams"

i listen to a lot of american podcasts/sports shows and while they realise there not germany/brazil etc. during the world cup they felt they would beat belgum with the team they had and they felt they where an underdog (although they did admit they where a big one) to win the world cup had altidore been there (and multiple shows claimed he was one of the best in the world)

to be honest i dont think most americans can fathom an american team not being one of the best in the world.

ya I'm going to stop reading that, lots of demeaning crap thank god we beat them

grenache

Good result, mixed performance, flattering scoreline.

On another night the U.S. could have scored 5, if it wasn't for the heroics of Given and a couple of timely interventions from Pearce. We were very careless with the ball at times, Meyler at fault for first goal and he continued to be caught in possession in second half. Brady was all at sea from a defensive point of view in first half but we can't be too unkind here as natural wingers rarely make competent replacement full backs. His attacking play more than made up for it and his two goals were wonderfully taken.

As a follower of Championship football I'm delighted that we've nailed down the services of Cyrus Christie - he is the best right full back in the division. Part of a very mean Derby defence since McClaren took over. Very comfortable with the ball at his feet and well able to go forward and join attacks.

David McGoldrick had two fantastic assists but I'm still in two minds about him. Despite having plenty of ability/skill he tends to be quite lazy at times. Has found his scoring boots again at Ipswich after four unremarkable years at Forest, where the fans took to rechristening him 'David McGoaldrought' Can be either very good or very bad. Let's hope we see more of the former.

It was good to see Shane Long have some space to skin the full back a couple of times, his effort that hit the post deserved to go in. It certainly beats high ball after high ball being pumped up to him like what we saw last Friday night. Also nice to see Daryl Murphy back again after being ignored since 2009. I feel he can be very useful to us and gives us another option.

Kermit.de.frog

If Coleman is fit Christie is not getting within an arses roar of the Irish team.

NIMAN

roanoke wrote: »

We certainly didn't see much of this against Scotland.

https://vine.co/v/OJ70YX5ZKEF

https://vine.co/v/OJZWObzJAOz

It'll be interesting to see if we'd be able to repeat moments like this in the tougher games ahead. I've always felt I'd rather watch an Irish team risk losing while at least trying to play to its capabilities & with a sense of freedom, rather than watching one that just wants to spend 90mins killing the game and often just losing anyway.

You're so right, unfortunately thats the way most football managers set up their teams now.

Its more "lets not lose" rather than "lets win" attitude.

Just look how many teams now play '1 up front', which is inherently negative. Pack the midfield to kill the game/stifle the opposition.

Fear to think what football tactics will be like in 20yrs time.

grenache

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If Coleman is fit Christie is not getting within an arses roar of the Irish team.

Being that he plays for Everton, having Coleman "fit" may be a tough ask more often than not....

smileyj1987

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Ya but one of those 3 scored in QF and SF of CL if ye are going down that route.

Cillian Sheridan is playing CL football. Maybe we missed the boat.

Fair play to the chap for being the only irish player in the champions league . But you have to wonder what the quality of the Cypriot league is like on a weekly basis . That could be a factor in him not getting a look in .

Billy86

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Fair play to the chap for being the only irish player in the champions league . But you have to wonder what the quality of the Cypriot league is like on a weekly basis . That could be a factor in him not getting a look in .

And that he's at Apoel because Celtic, Motherwell, Kilmarnock, Plymouth and CSKA Sofia all let him go after loans or short spells there. Then compare that with Scott Brown who was the most expensive player bought between Scottish clubs by the time he signed for Celtic, and Mulgrew who has been an ever present teammate for club and country for nearly half a decade now. And who as you said have played against the likes of Ajax, Juve, Milan, Benfica and Barca (4 times).

Gibson I would perhaps put on around the same level as those two in terms of quality, but he has only played a handful of matches after being out for a good year and is struggling to get back into the Everton team because of it - it is clear he is rusty and below the two Scots in recent tinea. Hendrick I like and he will be interesting to watch develop, but right at this point he is a clear step below any of the other three mentioned. Plus these two had played a grand total of 120 competitive minutes together (and maybe another 120 or so in friendlies) in their whole career - well less than even 1% of what their opposing members would have.

There's really not much argument over who had the better midfield heading into this match, in the stadium where Brown and Mulgrew play their club football no less, and claims that they only outplayed us in that part of the pitch because "we let them" or that we are superior to them in that particular area of the field (while missing arguably our best player), is a part of my point about certain people overrating the talent currently at our disposal.

Pro. F

Billy86 wrote: »

And that he's at Apoel because Celtic, Motherwell, Kilmarnock, Plymouth and CSKA Sofia all let him go after loans or short spells there. Then compare that with Scott Brown who was the most expensive player bought between Scottish clubs by the time he signed for Celtic, and Mulgrew who has been an ever present teammate for club and country for nearly half a decade now. And who as you said have played against the likes of Ajax, Juve, Milan, Benfica and Barca (4 times).

Gibson I would perhaps put on around the same level as those two in terms of quality, but he has only played a handful of matches after being out for a good year and is struggling to get back into the Everton team because of it - it is clear he is rusty and below the two Scots in recent tinea. Hendrick I like and he will be interesting to watch develop, but right at this point he is a clear step below any of the other three mentioned. Plus these two had played a grand total of 120 competitive minutes together (and maybe another 120 or so in friendlies) in their whole career - well less than even 1% of what their opposing members would have.

There's really not much argument over who had the better midfield heading into this match, in the stadium where Brown and Mulgrew play their club football no less, and claims that they only outplayed us in that part of the pitch because "we let them" or that we are superior to them in that particular area of the field (while missing arguably our best player), is a part of my point about certain people overrating the talent currently at our disposal.

No doubt that Brown and Mulgrew are better than what we had available to us in centre mid, but not so much that we should accept our midfield not getting a kick of the ball all night and the choice of going with endless long balls.

You are making out that if you face a team with a better centre midfield that it's then impossible to string a few passes together.

Billy86

Pro. F wrote: »

No doubt that Brown and Mulgrew are better than what we had available to us in centre mid, but not so much that we should accept our midfield not getting a kick of the ball all night and the choice of going with endless long balls.

You are making out that if you face a team with a better centre midfield that it's then impossible to string a few passes together.

Don't get me wrong I am not satisfied with the performance, my point is just that they were extremely up for this game (I don't think we could have been more up for it than they were, but we definitely could have done more to match them) and has been pointed out they had players better suited to helping the midfield and who have played there plenty in Maloney and Naismith, than we did. What we really failed to do was to find a way around the midfield, because we were not going to be able to go through it effectively... but then again if MON had started Quinn or Whelan with the two we had already to try and combat it, there would have been uproar again.

Hindsight is great and all, but getting Brady on earlier would have been a good choice. He gives us a little extra technique, and his set pieces could be a major factor for a side that doesn't have too much inventiveness in most of the other players. Not knee-jerking from his goal last night either, we came very close twice late on against Scotland from him and I think/hope MON will have taken note.

Pro. F

Billy86 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I am not satisfied with the performance, my point is just that they were extremely up for this game (I don't think we could have been more up for it than they were, but we definitely could have done more to match them) and has been pointed out they had players better suited to helping the midfield and who have played there plenty in Maloney and Naismith, than we did. What we really failed to do was to find a way around the midfield, because we were not going to be able to go through it effectively... but then again if MON had started Quinn or Whelan with the two we had already to try and combat it, there would have been uproar again.

Hindsight is great and all, but getting Brady on earlier would have been a good choice. He gives us a little extra technique, and his set pieces could be a major factor for a side that doesn't have too much inventiveness in most of the other players. Not knee-jerking from his goal last night either, we came very close twice late on against Scotland from him and I think/hope MON will have taken note.

You're still kidding yourself into thinking that it was an impossible situation in which to string a few passes together. Now it's that Scotland were up for the game to add to the fact that they had the mighty Brown and Mulgrew in the centre.

Billy86

Pro. F wrote: »

You're still kidding yourself into thinking that it was an impossible situation in which to string a few passes together. Now it's that Scotland were up for the game to add to the fact that they had the mighty Brown and Mulgrew in the centre.

Apologies for underestimating the sheer force of a 22 year old Championship player and Gibson who is only a few games removed from a year out injured, and their telekinetic partnership built up over probably less than 3 full hours playing together in their entire careers.

And I never said it was impossible but thanks for that anyway - I said it was unlikely given the circumstances, how up for it the two superior Scottish players were, and how Scotland have more players outside of their CMs able to help out due to experience playing there compared to anything we had at our disposal. If I suggested playing a third CM like Whelan or Quinn to assist (over say one of Long/Walters up front), how exactly did I say it was impossible?

The_Kew_Tour

We could not hang onto the ball for more then 5 seconds Friday night.

Yet Scotland had no problem passing the ball around when they liked.

When the very few times we ran at Scotland we caused a few problems.

I'm not expecting ticka Taka football, but making a team look technically good along with playing long ball most of night is down to poor management and lack of belief in players.

We ain't no Spain, Germany or even Sweden, but we ain't no Andorra either and bar few decent performances that's how bad we were.

Georgia gave Scotland a better game and that should tell its own story.

Pro. F

Billy86 wrote: »

Apologies for underestimating the sheer force of a 22 year old Championship player and Gibson who is only a few games removed from a year out injured, and their telekinetic partnership built up over probably less than 3 full hours playing together in their entire careers.

And I never said it was impossible but thanks for that anyway - I said it was unlikely given the circumstances, how up for it the two superior Scottish players were, and how Scotland have more players outside of their CMs able to help out due to experience playing there compared to anything we had at our disposal. If I suggested playing a third CM like Whelan or Quinn to assist (over say one of Long/Walters up front), how exactly did I say it was impossible?

You suggested adding Whelan or Quinn to find a way around their midfield and to try and combat it. I read that as you suggesting that we play more long ball. If that wasn't what you meant then I think you need to choose your words and suggested players more carefully.

We all know who was available to us and how often they've played together. Your claim that it was unlikely that they could have strung a few passes together is misguided. Unfortunately MON thinks the exact same and so we'll see plenty more of this rubbish.

Ganymede Glow

Anyone with a dingbat's knowledge of football will have quickly spotted where the problem lies last night. It's looking increasingly likely that these are the bad eggs. Which is quite ironic in that they are starting to resemble dingbats.

WoollyRedHat

Martin O'Neill's subs really injected energy into the team last night and gave a sharper edge.

Billy86

Pro. F wrote: »

You suggested adding Whelan or Quinn to find a way around their midfield and to try and combat it. I read that as you suggesting that we play more long ball. If that wasn't what you meant then I think you need to choose your words and suggested players more carefully.

Or you need to improve your reading comprehension. An extra man in midfield would have helped with being outdone for numbers and ability in the middle of the park almost the whole game, which in Tillery would allow us more time in possession to dictate the tempo and to take the game to them. But Hendrick and a rusty Gibson alone, and in maybe their fourth or fifth game together were not going to be up to doing that against a duo of superior players at this very point in time who have played together probably around 200 times, the majority of them in that very ground. Especially when the like of Maloney and Naismith/Fletcher were better able to chip in than McClean or Long/Walters.

We all know who was available to us and how often they've played together. Your claim that it was unlikely that they could have strung a few passes together is misguided. Unfortunately MON thinks the exact same and so we'll see plenty more of this rubbish.

Hard to pass the ball when you are barely ever receiving it and there is no space or nearby options when you do, other than going backwards. Hence why a third man in midfield would have helped a lot since we were not winning that battle two on two, even if we had matched them there for commitment on the night.

Pro. F

Billy86 wrote: »

Or you need to improve your reading comprehension. An extra man in midfield would have helped with being outdone for numbers and ability in the middle of the park almost the whole game, which in Tillery would allow us more time in possession to dictate the tempo and to take the game to them. But Hendrick and a rusty Gibson alone, and in maybe their fourth or fifth game together were not going to be up to doing that against a duo of superior players at this very point in time who have played together probably around 200 times, the majority of them in that very ground. Especially when the like of Maloney and Naismith/Fletcher were better able to chip in than McClean or Long/Walters.

Quinn and Whelan were the least skilful of the CMs in the squad. The fact that you suggest the two of them ahead of Meyler as part of your solution to the team's poor showing in possession is weird.

You talked about playing around their midfield because you thought we couldn't play through it. No surprise that somebody would think you are talking about long ball when you describe it like that.

Fletcher is no better than Walters at holding onto the ball and Maloney no better than Brady or McGeady.

Billy86 wrote: »

Hard to pass the ball when you are barely ever receiving it and there is no space or nearby options when you do, other than going backwards. Hence why a third man in midfield would have helped a lot since we were not winning that battle two on two, even if we had matched them there for commitment on the night.

Indeed an extra man in midfield would help. So would selecting our more skilful players. So would instructing the team to pass the ball to each other rather than hoof it from the back. So would setting the team up with coaching and tactics to play that way. None of which our manager does. And yet the problem is supposed to be that the players don't have the skill to pass the ball to each other. Bollocks.

Dearg81

Pro. F wrote: »

Quinn and Whelan were the least skilful of the CMs in the squad. The fact that you suggest the two of them ahead of Meyler as part of your solution to the team's poor showing in possession is weird.

It's not weird at all, I'd be very surprised if most people thought Meyler was a more skillful player than Quinn. In my opinion Quinn is the technically better player and if you look at last nights game Meyler was playing a more holding role and Quinn was allowed to push on and join attacks.

Pro. F

Dearg81 wrote: »

It's not weird at all, I'd be very surprised if most people thought Meyler was a more skillful player than Quinn. In my opinion Quinn is the technically better player and if you look at last nights game Meyler was playing a more holding role and Quinn was allowed to push on and join attacks.

Then most people would be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

The holding role, if it's to be played well, is no less demanding of possession skills than the advanced one in centre midfield.

Iused2likebusts

Dearg81 wrote: »

It's not weird at all, I'd be very surprised if most people thought Meyler was a more skillful player than Quinn. In my opinion Quinn is the technically better player and if you look at last nights game Meyler was playing a more holding role and Quinn was allowed to push on and join attacks.

I would say quinn quite comfortably has the best technique of all our central midfielders bar mccarthy.

Ferris_Bueller

Quinn is definitely technically better than Meyler. Would agree he is probably our second best central midfielder on the ball after McCarthy. I see the qualities in both him and Meyler though, not sure who I would play first.