Rep of Ireland (1) vs Bosnia (1), Euro qualifier playoff 2nd leg

GLaDOS

Dots1982 wrote: »

I believe there is way too much fluffy talk about our conservative style of play and far too little about our main issue....we don't produce goal scorers

I don't know about that, it's well documented that we never replaced Keane once he began to decline.

Dots1982

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I don't know about that, it's well documented that we never replaced Keane once he began to decline.

The talk on RTE which heavily informs the debate that is had on newstalk's Off the Ball and other sports programme is always lamenting how we don't play an expressive style of football.

The narrative is that this is why we don't get good results. I can't ever remember it mentioned on the RTE panel that our players are simply not goalscorers be it at club or international level.

topmanamillion

Dots1982 wrote: »

The talk on RTE which heavily informs the debate that is had on newstalk's Off the Ball and other sports programme is always lamenting how we don't play an expressive style of football.

The narrative is that this is why we don't get good results. I can't ever remember it mentioned on the RTE panel that our players are simply not goalscorers be it at club or international level.

Is kyle laferty a goal scorer at club level? But yet he's one of the main reasons the nordies are going to the Euros.
It's all about how you play and your approach to the game. Of course it helps to have Luis suarez or Messi up front but most teams don't have that luxury.
Our approach is very conservative and we under utilise the likes of wes, Brady and Henderick. It's ridiculous that creative players are benched for the likes of Whelan. We dont score too many goals because we don't aim to score goals.
Our approach is to go out and stifle the opposition, nick a goal and sit back and defend.

Dots1982

topmanamillion wrote: »

Is kyle laferty a goal scorer at club level? But yet he's one of the main reasons the nordies are going to the Euros.
It's all about how you play and your approach to the game. Of course it helps to have Luis suarez or Messi up front but most teams don't have that luxury.
Our approach is very conservative and we under utilise the likes of wes, Brady and Henderick. It's ridiculous that creative players are benched for the likes of Whelan. We dont score too many goals because we don't aim to score goals.
Our approach is to go out and stifle the opposition, nick a goal and sit back and defend.

Kyle Lafferty has had one good campaign in a weak group when for most of his career he has been crap so you can't really cite him as an example of a player who is crap at club level but brilliant at international level. For most of his career bar a few games he has just been crap.

Take Spain as an example, have a great number of creative keep ball merchants but have no goalscorer so score very few goals.

In the end it usually comes down to the personnel you have in terms of keeping the ball out and putting the ball in.

A load of creative players in itself doesn't make a team that special. It still boils down to the cutting edge.

Pro. F

Dots1982 wrote: »

well if you see a trend like you do with ireland that they have an inability to score more than one goal in a game you see both to a large extent.

If that were true then you wouldn't come to daft conclusions like that Hoolahan wasn't decisive in us beating Germany.

Dots1982 wrote: »

I believe there is way too much fluffy talk about our conservative style of play and far too little about our main issue....we don't produce goal scorers

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can take issue with the style of play while also acknowledging that we're short on goal scorers.

There is naturally going to be less talk about the lack of goal scorers when:
A) Everybody agrees that we lack goal scorers
and
There's nothing the manager can do to change that

So while we all accept that we're short on goal scorers there's still a discussion to be had on how to get the most out of the players that we do have.

Dots1982

Pro. F wrote: »

If that were true then you wouldn't come to daft conclusions like that Hoolahan wasn't decisive in us beating Germany.



The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can take issue with the style of play while also acknowledging that we're short on goal scorers.

There is naturally going to be less talk about the lack of goal scorers when:
A) Everybody agrees that we lack goal scorers
and
There's nothing the manager can do to change that

So while we all accept that we're short on goal scorers there's still a discussion to be had on how to get the most out of the players that we do have.

Its not daft. Decisive means you believe the reason we bet Germany was because of Wes Hoolahan. I can't agree. He helped us keep the ball and hence not conceding but he had nothing to do with scoring the goal on the night.

There is a discussion to be had... my side of the discussion would be Martin O'neill's policy of keeping us very defenively solid is the right strategy as our players don't score goals so turning games into shoot-outs would be a mad idea.

jones

Very good original post and i pretty much agree with everything you said. I do think that the goalscorer thing is very hard to define because are the strikers not scoring because of a technical deficiency or is it because they are not getting the service from the midfield.

As you stated most media seem to say it's due to our midfield lack of creativity that we don't score and your argue is it's down to the goalscorers or lack thereof. I think the real answer is somewhere in the middle. Our midfield isn't very creative going forward (apart from Wes) and our strikers aren't technically good at scoring goals. Robbie Keane is far and away the best goal poacher ireland have ever had and look like we wont have another one for a while but he's long past his best.

As regards Glen Whelan i do think he gets a lot of unwarranted stick, he's there to do a job and he does it. Is he going to beat a man and ping a 40 year pass through the defense? No but he is going to break up play.

My head says we can get something in Bosnia and have it all to play for at home. I do think Bosnia will score in both legs so it mean we'll have to do the same...COYBIG

Pro. F

Dots1982 wrote: »

Its not daft. Decisive means you believe the reason we bet Germany was because of Wes Hoolahan. I can't agree. He helped us keep the ball and hence not conceding but he had nothing to do with scoring the goal on the night.

So only the goal scorer or the direct assister can be decisive?

Dots1982 wrote: »

There is a discussion to be had... my side of the discussion would be Martin O'neill's policy of keeping us very defenively solid is the right strategy as our players don't score goals so turning games into shoot-outs would be a mad idea.

Lol at the idea that holding on to, and using, possession better would mean turning games into shoot outs.

Dots1982

Pro. F wrote: »

So only the goal scorer or the direct assister can be decisive?



Lol at the idea that holding on to, and using, possession better would mean turning games into shoot outs.

The players that score, assist and prevent goals consisently are more decisive than those that don't. They are the ones that ultimately decide games. Hence players that score and assist and top class defenders/goalkeepers are the most expensive in the game.

If you pick players that are good on the ball over players that are good without the ball...say Gibson over Whelan are you going to give away more chances? Do we even have the players to hold on to the ball better? Its highly debatable. Gibson, Meyler, Quinn, Whelan, McCarthy...we once had Roy Keane but we expect to play a possession based game when we rarely played that sort of game with one of the best CMs in the world

Dots1982

jones wrote: »

VI do think that the goalscorer thing is very hard to define because are the strikers not scoring because of a technical deficiency or is it because they are not getting the service from the midfield.

Our players simply don't score goals, o'shea, coleman, brady, hendrick,mccarthy, long, mcclean etc etc, from back to front how many of thes players score an above average portion of goals for their position...answer: Zero

edgecutter

I still think O'Neill messed up the chance against Poland. That was in my opinion an easier opportunity than what we face on Friday.

SSN reporting Long ruled out of Fridays game.

secman

edgecutter wrote: »

I still think O'Neill messed up the chance against Poland. That was in my opinion an easier opportunity than what we face on Friday.

We had a 45 min second half where we only had to get 1 goal and could concede 1 !
Really easy a much better prospect than what we face now. Bookies have Bosnia firm favourite. ..they seldom get it wrong.
Hard to see where goals will come from and we will concede over 2 legs.

Dots1982

secman wrote: »

We had a 45 min second half where we only had to get 1 goal and could concede 1 !
Really easy a much better prospect than what we face now. Bookies have Bosnia firm favourite. ..they seldom get it wrong.
Hard to see where goals will come from and we will concede over 2 legs.

What??...no we didn't..

Dots1982

secman wrote: »

We had a 45 min second half where we only had to get 1 goal and could concede 1 !
Really easy a much better prospect than what we face now. Bookies have Bosnia firm favourite. ..they seldom get it wrong.
Hard to see where goals will come from and we will concede over 2 legs.

and bosnia and ireland almost priced up to the same odds, certainly Bosnia not firm favourites

topmanamillion

Dots1982 wrote: »

Kyle Lafferty has had one good campaign in a weak group when for most of his career he has been crap so you can't really cite him as an example of a player who is crap at club level but brilliant at international level. For most of his career bar a few games he has just been crap.

Take Spain as an example, have a great number of creative keep ball merchants but have no goalscorer so score very few goals.

In the end it usually comes down to the personnel you have in terms of keeping the ball out and putting the ball in.

A load of creative players in itself doesn't make a team that special. It still boils down to the cutting edge.

What? So a player has to be good over a number of campaigns to be effective?
My point is club form has Shag all relevance to international football. Building a team is far more important than giving lads with the most premier league appearances a run out.

Pudsy33

secman wrote: »

We had a 45 min second half where we only had to get 1 goal and could concede 1 !
Really easy a much better prospect than what we face now. Bookies have Bosnia firm favourite. ..they seldom get it wrong.
Hard to see where goals will come from and we will concede over 2 legs.

Where are Bosnia firm favourites? Most bookies have them 5/6 and us 11/10, basically evens.

Dots1982

topmanamillion wrote: »

My point is club form has Shag all relevance to international football.

This is absolute BS

kksaints

What Ireland is really missing is the one genuinely top class player that a lot of teams around Ireland's level have. Examples would be Alaba of Austria, Lewandowski for Poland, Ibra for Sweden, Hamsik for Slovakia and Bale for Wales. Ireland have noone of this level offensively and defensively only Coleman could be said (on club form anyway) to be close and even he is somewhere the level of the players above. Bosnia have Dzeko and Pjanic who are very good players so its going to be tough for us defensively and if Long is out our attack will be blunted especially with Walters suspended for the first leg.

Sadly I dont think we will go through but it will be close say a possible 1-0 in the away leg and a 1-1 in the Aviva on Monday.

secman

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Where are Bosnia firm favourites? Most bookies have them 5/6 and us 11/10, basically evens.

Sky bet has Bosnia evens and us 3/1... Maybe that's for fri match only ?

Anyways hopefully we somehow pull 2 games out of the bag

PTH2009

Are only hope is if Bosnia ****e the bag. They have lost to way better teams than us in playoffs eg Portugal

Have never qualified for the euros and this is there best chance

kenco

Its a coin toss in my view...

We wont score more than 2 goals max over the games so as long as Bosnia dont score 2 or more on Friday we have a chance.

Bosnia attack is strong and could do a job on us but I suspect the defense will frustrate them and more likely that not keep them to a single goal (then again they could tear us apart). Best result for us I think would be 1-1 on Friday as the pressure would really be on Bosnia then.

Weakness in defense for Bosnia gives us some hope. Weirdly it could suit Murphy but really might need Long back on Monday to get us a goal.

Hard to call. Head says Bosnia narrowly, heart says Ireland just as narrowly

Pudsy33

secman wrote: »

Sky bet has Bosnia evens and us 3/1... Maybe that's for fri match only ?

Anyways hopefully we somehow pull 2 games out of the bag

That's for the match. Powers have it 4/6 Bosnia and 6/5 Ireland to qualify

mikeym

The best outcome this Friday is a score draw.

Soups123

mikeym wrote: »

The best outcome this Friday is a score draw.

Best outcome is an Ireland win

kenco

Soups123 wrote: »

Best outcome is an Ireland win

Would not be confident of us holding onto a 1-0 lead in the second leg. We would try to park the bus at home and that would not be good. One goal for them and they are right back in it.

Any sort of score draw has to help us as really its likely to be a one goal game at home

topmanamillion

Dots1982 wrote: »

This is absolute BS

Do Eloborate? The nordies, Wales and Iceland all have alot of players who are bench warmers for their club. But they have moulded them into a team. It is a team sport after all.

Richard Hillman

PTH2009 wrote: »

Are only hope is if Bosnia ****e the bag. They have lost to way better teams than us in playoffs eg Portugal

Have never qualified for the euros and this is there best chance

In fairness the same team made the last world cup. Although they did pretty poorly in a weak group.

Pro. F

Dots1982 wrote: »

The players that score, assist and prevent goals consisently are more decisive than those that don't. They are the ones that ultimately decide games. Hence players that score and assist and top class defenders/goalkeepers are the most expensive in the game.

If your theory on how football works leads you to conclude that a midfielder who doesn't create or score a goal or directly prevent the conceding of a goal, can't have been decisive in getting a good result, then I would say you need a new theory.

Dots1982 wrote: »

If you pick players that are good on the ball over players that are good without the ball...say Gibson over Whelan are you going to give away more chances?

I'd be almost certain that if we played Gibson over Whelan that we would give away more chances. However Gibson is falling apart these days and was lazy to begin with, so that is a fairly ridiculous hypothetical to use to inform your thinking regarding the pros and cons of passing the ball better.

Dots1982 wrote: »

Do we even have the players to hold on to the ball better? Its highly debatable. Gibson, Meyler, Quinn, Whelan, McCarthy...we once had Roy Keane but we expect to play a possession based game when we rarely played that sort of game with one of the best CMs in the world

We have an abundance of players who have the skills required to control and pass the ball better than we usually see from the Irish team. But we never have managers who rate controlling and passing the ball as that important in the grand scheme of things. So it doesn't matter if you even have players of the quality of Roy Keane in your team if the manager has other ideas about what is important for winning football games.

Dots1982

Pro. F wrote: »

We have an abundance of players who have the skills required to control and pass the ball better than we usually see from the Irish team.

Who?

Pro. F

Dots1982 wrote: »

Who?

McCarthy, Hendrick, Meyler, Hoolahan, Brady, Arter, Wilson and Coleman in particular all have the skills required to pass the ball about a bit. And then you have the likes of Quinn, McGeady, McClean, Pilkington, Long, Walters, etc, who can all offer good support to that aim in their own roles.

keeponhurling

Pro. F wrote: »

McCarthy, Hendrick, Meyler, Hoolahan, Brady, Arter, Wilson and Coleman in particular all have the skills required to pass the ball about a bit. And then you have the likes of Quinn, McGeady, McClean, Pilkington, Long, Walters, etc, who can all offer good support to that aim in their own roles.

Probably this argument has been done to death.

But I really don't believe that Roy Keane and MO'N tell these great passers to just hoof it, or to continuously give the ball away.
And yet we don't control matches.

If you look at it in Premier League context, not Ireland, I don't think any of those players would particularly be known as great passers.
Perhaps Hoolihan at a push.

Dots1982

Pro. F wrote: »

McCarthy, Hendrick, Meyler, Hoolahan, Brady, Arter, Wilson and Coleman in particular all have the skills required to pass the ball about a bit. And then you have the likes of Quinn, McGeady, McClean, Pilkington, Long, Walters, etc, who can all offer good support to that aim in their own roles.

I think you overrate our players.

Pro. F

Dots1982 wrote: »

I think you overrate our players.

I think you underrate them. But at least we can see that we have fundamentally different views on how football works, so it makes sense that we'd come to different conclusions about all these things.

Dots1982

Pro. F wrote: »

I think you underrate them. But at least we can see that we have fundamentally different views on how football works, so it makes sense that we'd come to different conclusions about all these things.

Ok, I guess so. We are the 42th ranked best team in the world so you must think MO'N is doing a pretty horrible job seeing as you rate the players highly?

Pro. F

keeponhurling wrote: »

Probably this argument has been done to death.

But I really don't believe that Roy Keane and MO'N tell these great passers to just hoof it, or to continuously give the ball away.
And yet we don't control matches.

Of course they don't tell the players something as simple as "continuously give the ball away." Management is obviously a lot more complicated and involved than just giving simple verbal instructions. Managers use team selections, training, tactics and psychology to install a style of play in their teams.

keeponhurling wrote: »

If you look at it in Premier League context, not Ireland, I don't think any of those players would particularly be known as great passers.
Perhaps Hoolihan at a push.

"Known as" by who?

Pro. F

Dots1982 wrote: »

Ok, I guess so. We are the 42th ranked best team in the world so you must think MO'N is doing a pretty horrible job seeing as you rate the players highly?

I haven't being paying too much attention to the rankings so I wouldn't be worrying too much about them just now. It's true that I don't rate the job that MON has been doing that highly, but identifying an alternative is difficult without access to a network of agents and so on.

And you are confusing how we rate the players' ability to control and pass the ball with how we rate the squad's potential overall, by the way. We were talking specifically about the former.

Dots1982

Pro. F wrote: »

I haven't being paying too much attention to the rankings so I wouldn't be worrying too much about them just now. It's true that I don't rate the job that MON has been doing that highly, but identifying an alternative is difficult without access to a network of agents and so on.

And you are confusing how we rate the players' ability to control and pass the ball with how we rate the squad's potential overall, by the way. We were talking specifically about the former.

Ok, the bones of your argument seems to be we should play better football and that it is the manager's fault we don't.

I'd be more of the opinion that the manager is not on the pitch and the players are on the pitch and unless I see the manager as a Tim sherwood clueless spoofer type I'm going to look to the players to be the ones with the most control over how they perform.

What solidifies this view for me in this case is that I think MoN has made quite a few calls that have been brave and good in this campaign and that the players we have are not pulling up any trees in their club careers in terms of the medals they win, the transfer fees they command or the plaudits they receive. They are obstenibly a modest set of players with no stars whatsoever.

aidan24326

PTH2009 wrote: »

3-0 Bosnia 1st leg
0-0 2ND leg

This is Bosnia we're playing, not Brazil, why would anyone think they'll beat us 3-0? We might not be great but neither are they. This will be tight and I'd call it 50-50, it could easily come down to away goals or even end up with extra time and maybe penalties. Can't see either team scoring 3.

Pro. F

Dots1982 wrote: »

Ok, the bones of your argument seems to be we should play better football and that it is the manager's fault we don't.

No, I wouldn't use language as imprecise as "play better football" because that leaves the door open to all sorts of interpretations of what good football actually is.

Dots1982 wrote: »

I'd be more of the opinion that the manager is not on the pitch and the players are on the pitch and unless I see the manager as a Tim sherwood clueless spoofer type I'm going to look to the players to be the ones with the most control over how they perform.

The idea that the manager doesn't have a huge influence over the type of football his team plays - beyond whether or not he has a minimum competence in his job - is utterly daft.

Dots1982 wrote: »

What solidifies this view for me in this case is that I think MoN has made quite a few calls that have been brave and good in this campaign and that the players we have are not pulling up any trees in their club careers in terms of the medals they win, the transfer fees they command or the plaudits they receive. They are obstenibly a modest set of players with no stars whatsoever.

You don't have to be winning the PL, CL or an FA Cup (the only top level club competitions open the majority of our players) or commanding huge transfer fees in order to be able to control and pass the ball better than this Irish team has been doing in recent years.

And who gives a fùck about the plaudits they receive? Plaudits from whom? The British press? British managers? If you want to increase your chances of winning at football then you should not pay any attention to the received wisdom of British football.

Dots1982

aidan24326 wrote: »

This is Bosnia we're playing, not Brazil, why would anyone think they'll beat us 3-0? We might not be great but neither are they. This will be tight and I'd call it 50-50, it could easily come down to away goals or even end up with extra time and maybe penalties. Can't see either team scoring 3.

I would say that the absence of JoS, Walters and Long would give me a major cause of concern along with the presence of an approaching world class attacking pair of pjanic and dzeko in the Bosnian attack.

I think we'll need a lot of customary Irish spirit to have a chance in this tie.

Dots1982

Pro. F wrote: »

No, I wouldn't use language as imprecise as "play better football" because that leaves the door open to all sorts of interpretations of what good football actually is.



The idea that the manager doesn't have a huge influence over the type of football his team plays - beyond whether or not he has a minimum competence in his job - is utterly daft.



You don't have to be winning the PL, CL or an FA Cup (the only top level club competitions open the majority of our players) or commanding huge transfer fees in order to be able to control and pass the ball better than this Irish team has been doing in recent years.

And who gives a fùck about the plaudits they receive? Plaudits from whom? The British press? British managers? If you want to increase your chances of winning at football then you should not pay any attention to the received wisdom of British football.

You like accusing people of being daft but you see David Meyler as a passing midfielder.

Pro. F

Dots1982 wrote: »

You like accusing people of being daft but you see David Meyler as a passing midfielder.

Another change of direction in your argument, what a surprise.

Dots1982

Pro. F wrote: »

Another change of direction in your argument, what a surprise.

I've tried to help you by explaining how things are in the land of reality but you are too attached to fantasy island so i will leave you to it.

keeponhurling

Pro. F wrote: »

"Known as" by who?

If you were a premier league manager, and your priority was to instill a real passing and ball playing culture in your team.

Would you make a move in the trensfer market for any of that list?

McCarthy, Hendrick, Meyler, Hoolahan, Brady, Arter, Wilson and Coleman in particular all have the skills required to pass the ball about a bit. And then you have the likes of Quinn, McGeady, McClean, Pilkington, Long, Walters, etc, who can all offer good support to that aim in their own roles.

secman

Dots1982 wrote: »

What??...no we didn't..

Check it again. .. a 2 all draw would have put us through. . Same points 19 and. as we would have had a higher score away draw than Poland had in Dublin we would have gone through. 1 all at half time was ideal for us.... only needed 1 goal on second half and could have Conceded 1 too.

Simples ... now we have to do it the hard way....over 180 or possibly 210 minutes

keeponhurling

secman wrote: »

Check it again. .. a 2 all draw would have put us through. . Same points 19 and. as we would have had a higher score away draw than Poland had in Dublin we would have gone through. 1 all at half time was ideal for us.... only needed 1 goal on second half and could have Conceded 1 too.

Simples ... now we have to do it the hard way....over 180 or possibly 210 minutes

Richie Keogh will have serious nightmares over that missed header, if we don't get through the play-off.

Mushy

secman wrote: »

Check it again. .. a 2 all draw would have put us through. . Same points 19 and. as we would have had a higher score away draw than Poland had in Dublin we would have gone through. 1 all at half time was ideal for us.... only needed 1 goal on second half and could have Conceded 1 too.

Simples ... now we have to do it the hard way....over 180 or possibly 210 minutes

Wasn't it 2-1 at half time?

Ireland needed win that second half by 1.

JustTheOne

Mushy wrote: »

Wasn't it 2-1 at half time?

Ireland needed win that second half by 1.

No youre wrong. Ireland would have menu through with a 2 all draw.

Dots1982

JustTheOne wrote: »

No youre wrong. Ireland would have menu through with a 2 all draw.

Secman said all we needed to do was score one in the 2nd half and could concede one.

If that had happened we would have lost 3-2 and end up where we are anyway so what secman said was wrong.