John Giles to be dropped by RTE

Pro. F

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

No he's not.

Most pundits have good prior knowledge on the teams they are commenting on.

From what I can see, with nearly all of the English ex pros, outdide of PL and the top CL teams, all they usually know is the names of the players. They are just winging it the vast majority of the time. Giles is just honest about it.

Pro. F

Billy86 wrote: »

Don't mean to be too harsh on Giles here (he's just long past his sell by date, as opposed to the clown he is associated with), but the fact is that Sadlier tends to know his stuff whereas Giles genuinely struggles to know who most of the guys on the pitch are. The 2014 World Cup was especially embarrassing in that situation, not even knowing the names of many of the players out there, even when the game was finished.

Seems a perfect gentleman, he's a very good speaker, and I'd have all the time in the world for him as a guest giving stories about 'way back when' etc. But the guy has been getting dated since the turn of the century, never mind in 2016.

I'll ask again, which of his ideas on football are dated?

Billy86

eagle eye wrote: »

I still enjoy listening to John Giles whether it's on RTE as a panelist or on the phone-in to Newstalk.

I also enjoyed reading his articles in the Evening Herald many years ago.

I think the new pundits on RTE for the most part are pretty bland compared to Giles, Brady and Dunphy. They aren't always right but they are far more enjoyable to listen to.

It's one thing not always being right, but it'd a whole other when you spend half time talking about the performances of players who not only are not on the field, but who don't even exist!

jungleman

I hope they get Brian Kerr back for the match commentary in the Euros this summer. He was the absolute highlight of the last World Cup.

It's mind boggling that Giles would be let go, yet Sadlier and Cunningham still get gigs. They talk a lot but say absolutely nothing.

Billy86

Pro. F wrote: »

I'll ask again, which of his ideas on football are dated?

I'd say comments like not believing in tactics and formations, not liking it "when defenders try to play football" and considering squad rotation and resting to be unnecessary and a bit of a joke (tell that to Martin O'Neills Villa sides from last decade!), which is especially interesting as he only played about 2/3rds of the league games during his time at Leeds.

The fact that he argues points like this while bringing up players from the 60s and 70s as his examples most frequently really doesn't help either - those are players from a bygone era and the game has changed incredibly since then. Sure, there were plenty of guys back then for example that could play every game (there still are some today), but the game was also played at a much slower pace back then. That he struggles badly on his knowledge of current players does absolutely nothing to help this. Sure otherwise, we'd be lamenting the fact that there are no Bob Crompton's or Billy Meredith's around anymore and that substitutions are a joke because sure, didn't Bert Trautmann play on with a broken neck?

Nidgeweasel

Should have happened about 20 years ago.

Insufferable.

DeanAustin

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

There is one thing about Giles I really enjoyed.
Certain things always really annoyed him.
For example:
If Danny Mills was mentioned or if it was said that teams always play better with 10 men.

I remember a game where a team scored in the first few minutes and lost. Bill asked Giles "John, would it be fair to say that they scored too early?"

Giles threw a look of disdain. "How can you score too early Bill? That's a stupid thing to say."

As funny as it was, it illustrated some of the brilliance of Giles. He didn't allow nonsensical clichés to go unchallenged and pointed out the blatantly obvious. Fantastic pundit.

Pro. F

Billy86 wrote: »

I'd say comments like 1 not believing in tactics and formations, 2 not liking it "when defenders try to play football" and 3 considering squad rotation and resting to be unnecessary and a bit of a joke (tell that to Martin O'Neills Villa sides from last decade!), which is especially interesting as he only played about 2/3rds of the league games during his time at Leeds.

1 This is just a matter of terminology imo. I've heard him saying that type of thing, but he pretty much always qualifies it by pointing out that you do need to have organisation and a plan, and that some teams can play above their ability because of good organisation. But it can cause problems when you focus on those too much, to the detriment of the team's play.

2 I've heard him countless times talking about the importance of playing it out from the back and defenders who are willing and able to keep it on the deck and pass it to midfielders.

3 Nah, he always admits that these days the game is more intense and you can't play every game like in the past. But he points out that sometimes managers use rotation as an excuse for dropping a player, which is true.

Billy86 wrote: »

The fact that he argues points like this while bringing up players from the 60s and 70s as his examples most frequently really doesn't help either - those are players from a bygone era and the game has changed incredibly since then.

It really hasn't. Bring back the young Pele or Cruyff and give them the benefit of modern fitness training and they'd be just as good in the modern game as they were back then.

Dirty Dingus McGee

DeanAustin wrote: »

I remember a game where a team scored in the first few minutes and lost. Bill asked Giles "John, would it be fair to say that they scored too early?"

Giles threw a look of disdain. "How can you score too early Bill? That's a stupid thing to say."

As funny as it was, it illustrated some of the brilliance of Giles. He didn't allow nonsensical clichés to go unchallenged and pointed out the blatantly obvious. Fantastic pundit.

Or it showed his misunderstanding of phrases that are not meant to be taken 100% literally

It's sometimes harder to play against ten men was one he used to criticise forgetting again that it's a phrase not suppose to be taken 100% literally.

Sometimes phrases like that are better than going on a ramble using a few sentences to explain something when it could be explained with a simple phrase.

Billy86

Pro. F wrote: »

1 This is just a matter of terminology imo. I've heard him saying that type of thing, but he pretty much always qualifies it by pointing out that you do need to have organisation and a plan, and that some teams can play above their ability because of good organisation. But it can cause problems when you focus on those too much, to the detriment of the team's play.

2 I've heard him countless times talking about the importance of playing it out from the back and defenders who are willing and able to keep it on the deck and pass it to midfielders.

3 Nah, he always admits that these days the game is more intense and you can't play every game like in the past. But he points out that sometimes managers use rotation as an excuse for dropping a player, which is true.

4 It really hasn't. Bring back the young Pele or Cruyff and give them the benefit of modern fitness training and they'd be just as good in the modern game as they were back then.

1. You can't really make that claim when he was well known to regularly make statements like "there's no such thing as five formations, there's only one formation, playing your best players in their best positions".

2. And countless times I heard him saying defenders jobs was to defend, and not play football, and that he simply did not trust centrebacks to 'play football' (often in relation to Rio Ferdinand and Carvalho who were amongst the very best of their generation at that). So if he is saying both regularly, he is speaking out both sides of his mouth regularly, depending on which one suits his argument at any given time.

3. I've don't ever recall him even once saying anything along those lines. I have however heard him on multiple occasions writing off rotation as simply "nonsense" pointing out how rarely anyone needed to be rotated back in his day, without recognising the increased tempo of the game, and without recognising that he was missed a good 33% of Leeds' league games during his time there.

4. It really has. The fact that great players from way back when would still be quality in the modern game - they wouldn't be -as good- though, simply because the average defender is better trained beyond just athleticism now than 40, 50, 60 years ago, defenses are on average more organised (despite what John would likely try to tell you) and better prepared. Like I said, if everyone took that mentality of talking almost exclusively about players who played a long long time ago rather than researching current players, we'd still be on about Bob Crompton or Billy Meredith. Knowing about older players is grand, but there is no excuse for any pundit to have so little knowledge on the players they are meant to be covering.

Pro. F

Billy86 wrote: »

1. You can't really make that claim when he was well known to regularly make statements like "there's no such thing as five formations, there's only one formation, playing your best players in their best positions".

Meh, it's just a meaningless statement meant to convey the idea that you should pick your best players and not overlook them for silly reasons like a fixation on a particular formation.

If you were to get rid of analysts who say silly phrases at times then there'd be non left.

Billy86 wrote: »

2. And countless times I heard him saying defenders jobs was to defend, and not play football, and that he simply did not trust centrebacks to 'play football' (often in relation to Rio Ferdinand and Carvalho who were amongst the very best of their generation at that). So if he is saying both regularly, he is speaking out both sides of his mouth regularly, depending on which one suits his argument at any given time.

Yep, I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that he's making contradictory points and not expressing himself very well. It's probably his biggest flaw as an analyst imo. Something I'm more than willing to put up with though, because he does have interesting things to say.

Billy86 wrote: »

3. I've don't ever recall him even once saying anything along those lines. I have however heard him on multiple occasions writing off rotation as simply "nonsense" pointing out how rarely anyone needed to be rotated back in his day, without recognising the increased tempo of the game, and without recognising that he was missed a good 33% of Leeds' league games during his time there.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then.

Billy86 wrote: »

4. It really has. The fact that great players from way back when would still be quality in the modern game - they wouldn't be -as good- though, simply because the average defender is better trained beyond just athleticism now than 40, 50, 60 years ago, defenses are on average more organised (despite what John would likely try to tell you) and better prepared.

Defences are more organised these days, and attacks are just as much so too. So the two balance out. The offside rule was much more beneficial for defences in the past; they were allowed to pass it back to the keeper and they were allowed to kick lumps out of the opposition - all things which made attacking play more difficult in the past.

Billy86 wrote: »

Like I said, if everyone took that mentality of talking almost exclusively about players who played a long long time ago rather than researching current players, we'd still be on about Bob Crompton or Billy Meredith. Knowing about older players is grand, but there is no excuse for any pundit to have so little knowledge on the players they are meant to be covering.

Giles makes reference to modern players all the time as well.

Billy86

Pro. F wrote: »

Meh, it's just a meaningless statement meant to convey the idea that you should pick your best players and not overlook them for silly reasons like a fixation on a particular formation.

If you were to get rid of analysts who say silly phrases at times then there'd be non left.

Yep, I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that he's making contradictory points and not expressing himself very well. It's probably his biggest flaw as an analyst imo. Something I'm more than willing to put up with though, because he does have interesting things to say.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then.

Defences are more organised these days, and attacks are just as much so too. So the two balance out. The offside rule was much more beneficial for defences in the past; they were allowed to pass it back to the keeper and they were allowed to kick lumps out of the opposition - all things which made attacking play more difficult in the past.

Giles makes reference to modern players all the time as well.

Well I think we're just looking at the same thing and seeing two completely separate things so! It's his contradictory nature that doesn't help with that I guess, and that's something I view as a negative in punditry (it's why I can't stand Dunphy in any way, shape or form - I'm assuming Trump is just copying him in the US elections :pac: ). His knowledge of current players is extremely, extremely limited though - possibly less so than a good number of even semi-casual fans. Having said that as much as I do find him antiquated at this point, Giles would be right up on the higher end of people I'd like to meet, not just in the Irish or footballing sense either. Seems very, very authentic and a genuine definition of a classy 'celebrity' would conduct themselves (he'd hate that tag though, so let's say public figure instead! ).

Also just a quick comment on changes in the game: in reverse, the likes of Messi and Ronaldo would do great back in the 60s or 70s but probably not as well as they do now if we were to reverse some advantages. It's not an argument that players from today are automatically better than I was looking to make (they technically are, but as mentioned that's because of unfair advantages in technology, fitness, nutrition, analytics and data, etc) but rather that the game has simply just changed in a lot of ways. So rather than one era's being better or worse than anothers, I tend to look at them as just being 'different', if that makes sense.

That said, one guy I think could slot into almost any era and be just as good as today would be Xavi. Because I never pass up an excuse to pimp quite possibly my all time favourite player.

jmayo

The thing people have to remember is the era Giles grew up in and the era he played his football.
Players weren't earning fortunes in comparison to the fans that went to watch them of a saturday.

He comes from a background and mindset that admires hard work, dedication, duty and actually toughness as well as talent.

Ever notice how he is always on about moral courage and doing the right things.
That is part of the old school coming through where duty and effort is very important.

I think this mindset can explain why he was never big fan of C Ronaldo as opposed to Messi.
Ronaldo to him was a poser and more interested in image and himself rather than just football and the team.
Messi was preferable because he was the hard worker who knuckled down and especially in his eyes played for the team.

He would have a similar opinion to players like Stoichkov who used to drive him nuts.
Giles couldn't stand fact he was whining on the pitch, not bothering his ar** trying for most of the match and yet Giles would admit he had all that magical talent.

His personal likes and dislikes come through.
He doesn't hide himself and put on a persona for the camera or the radio.
He dislikes talented players who are not making the effort, he dislikes the showy players and probably prefers the grafters who just get on with it.
And it is similar with managers when you hear what he says about Mourinho.

As for players in different eras.
I hate when fans, usually the younger ones, go on about how the likes of Messi is the greatest ever because shure the guys in the old days were playing against unfit ill prepared defenses, play was slower and there were less games.
It was a different game back then and the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, etc would have definitely missed sizable chunks of their careers because the likes of Stiles, Hunter, Rattin, Passarella, Gentile, Goikoetxea, Batista (remember that guy that kicked Strachan up and down the pitch in 1986) and indeed Giles himself would have taken lumps out of them.
Oh and way back the ball was a big heavy lump especially when wet.

I think greats like di Stefano, Puskas, Best, Pele, Maradona, Cruyff would be great if they were playing today, just like I think the likes of Messi and Ronaldo would be up there if they were playing back years ago.

Cream always rises when a little effort is added.

LuckyLloyd

Thread is proving a useful filtering device. Who cares if he doesn't know the players when he can actually analyse a game?

deaddonkey15

Does Giles or anyone on RTE really analyse a game? Don't ever recall thinking that I'd learned something new when listening to him although I must admit I have little time for any pundit and football writer apart from Neville.

eagle eye

Was listening to Giles on newstalk this evening and he was excellent as usual. Part of the conversation was about the popular language used by pundits these days like 'need to get more players in the box' etc.

He was saying about how it's the easy way out to use these popular phrases.

He was then talking about the Irish team and saying that only one of McCarthy and Whelan should be playing in any game and that he would have Houlihan in a roaming role in the team instead.

He was explaining about how with two players like McCarthy and Whelan that you are never going to have creativity in midfield and stressing that defenders and forwards are the ones that need to stay in their positions and allow the midfield to create. He was saying that Houlihan has to come too deep to get the ball when McCarthy and Whelan play together and how Wes has nobody to pass the ball onto because it's got too stretched.

I don't understand how people think he is past it.

Dirty Dingus McGee

eagle eye wrote: »

Was listening to Giles on newstalk this evening and he was excellent as usual. Part of the conversation was about the popular language used by pundits these days like 'need to get more players in the box' etc.

He was saying about how it's the easy way out to use these popular phrases.

He was then talking about the Irish team and saying that only one of McCarthy and Whelan should be playing in any game and that he would have Houlihan in a roaming role in the team instead.

He was explaining about how with two players like McCarthy and Whelan that you are never going to have creativity in midfield and stressing that defenders and forwards are the ones that need to stay in their positions and allow the midfield to create. He was saying that Houlihan has to come too deep to get the ball when McCarthy and Whelan play together and how Wes has nobody to pass the ball onto because it's got too stretched.

I don't understand how people think he is past it.

What happens if we play Hoolahan as a proper midfield player and we get cut open through the middle because he isn't very good defensively.

Most teams (and particularly teams of our level) play 2 reasonably solid midfield player and play a Hoolahan like player in front of tham to do what he likes.

for defensive reasons Ireland can't afford to carry a player like Hoolahan defensively and we are play 3 pretty good teams this summer so we need to be as solid defensively as possible.

Liam O

eagle eye wrote: »

Was listening to Giles on newstalk this evening and he was excellent as usual. Part of the conversation was about the popular language used by pundits these days like 'need to get more players in the box' etc.

He was saying about how it's the easy way out to use these popular phrases.

He was then talking about the Irish team and saying that only one of McCarthy and Whelan should be playing in any game and that he would have Houlihan in a roaming role in the team instead.

He was explaining about how with two players like McCarthy and Whelan that you are never going to have creativity in midfield and stressing that defenders and forwards are the ones that need to stay in their positions and allow the midfield to create. He was saying that Houlihan has to come too deep to get the ball when McCarthy and Whelan play together and how Wes has nobody to pass the ball onto because it's got too stretched.

I don't understand how people think he is past it.

Mainly because he's completely misjudged the Ireland situation. It'd be all well and good against the likes of Georgia to try something like that but when you are playing the Ibrahimovics, Hazards etc. of the world with a limited team and you have 2 deep midfielders playing regularly to a pretty high standard you have to go with them.

Playing Hoolahan in a 2 man midfield is one of the more archaic suggestions that could be made imo. Complete suicide.

sReq | uTeK

Not a fan of his punditry but his autobiography is one of the best I've read.

eagle eye

Liam O wrote: »

Mainly because he's completely misjudged the Ireland situation. It'd be all well and good against the likes of Georgia to try something like that but when you are playing the Ibrahimovics, Hazards etc. of the world with a limited team and you have 2 deep midfielders playing regularly to a pretty high standard you have to go with them.

Playing Hoolahan in a 2 man midfield is one of the more archaic suggestions that could be made imo. Complete suicide.

He wasn't playing a two man midfield, he was on about playing a midfield three of McClean, Brady with McCarthy as anchor. He was saying that Hoolahan would be on the right but have a roaming role.

klose

eagle eye wrote: »

He wasn't playing a two man midfield, he was on about playing a midfield three of McClean, Brady with McCarthy as anchor. He was saying that Hoolahan would be on the right but have a roaming role.

McLean and Brady as centre mids!?!

Brian?

klose wrote: »

McLean and Brady as centre mids!?!

Brady would do a very good job centre mid IMO. Less so McLean.

Brian?

Liam O wrote: »

Mainly because he's completely misjudged the Ireland situation. It'd be all well and good against the likes of Georgia to try something like that but when you are playing the Ibrahimovics, Hazards etc. of the world with a limited team and you have 2 deep midfielders playing regularly to a pretty high standard you have to go with them.

Playing Hoolahan in a 2 man midfield is one of the more archaic suggestions that could be made imo. Complete suicide.

This is the attitude that churns out hard to beat, defensive sides that are painful to watch.

I agree with Giles here. We sacrifice all midfield creativity by playing Mccarthy and When together. If your midfield doesn't create, the team doesn't create. We might as well just park the bus and try and nick a goal from a corner.

Why not copy the best teams instead of the mediocre. Most great teams play with one defensive midfielder. By playing with more creative midfielders further up the pitch, the need to defend is reduced as you keep the ball more. The extreme case being Barca, they don't need to defend very often because their numbers keep teams pressed back.

We don't have the quality of player of Barca, but we could still make it work.

Quazzie

Brian? wrote: »

This is the attitude that churns out hard to beat, defensive sides that are painful to watch.

I agree with Giles here. We sacrifice all midfield creativity by playing Mccarthy and When together. If your midfield doesn't create, the team doesn't create. We might as well just park the bus and try and nick a goal from a corner.

Why not copy the best teams instead of the mediocre. Most great teams play with one defensive midfielder. By playing with more creative midfielders further up the pitch, the need to defend is reduced as you keep the ball more. The extreme case being Barca, they don't need to defend very often because their numbers keep teams pressed back.

We don't have the quality of player of Barca, but we could still make it work.

So replace Messi with Jon Walters, and Iniesta with Aidan McGeady. Sure that's a brilliant idea. How could it not work?

Brian?

Quazzie wrote: »

So replace Messi with Jon Walters, and Iniesta with Aidan McGeady. Sure that's a brilliant idea. How could it not work?

Right so, we'll just park the bus and hope to score from a set piece then?

See what I did there? I used an extreme example to attempt to prove a point. Just like you did.

It's not a binary decision: 1 we play like Barca 2 we play like Stoke under Pulis. There's a spectrum of styles, I think we should attempt to play a more creative game based on how Barca play, but adapted to our players.

Liam O

Brian? wrote: »

Right so, we'll just park the bus and hope to score from a set piece then?

See what I did there? I used an extreme example to attempt to prove a point. Just like you did.

It's not a binary decision: 1 we play like Barca 2 we play like Stoke under Pulis. There's a spectrum of styles, I think we should attempt to play a more creative game based on how Barca play, but adapted to our players.

How Barca play has absolutely zero relevance to the Ireland team. Not one of our players would get in their 2nd 11 bar maybe Coleman.

Stoke under Pulis level in the euros would get us through the group in the Summer so that would be great. They never had a player as good as McCarthy in midfield or someone like Wes in the team also. Way better CBs however so ours would need even more protection.

eagle eye

Liam O wrote: »

How Barca play has absolutely zero relevance to the Ireland team. Not one of our players would get in their 2nd 11 bar maybe Coleman.

Stoke under Pulis level in the euros would get us through the group in the Summer so that would be great. They never had a player as good as McCarthy in midfield or someone like Wes in the team also. Way better CBs however so ours would need even more protection.

Swansea played a Barca style of football that had them doing well in the Premier league for a couple of seasons.

Rayo Vallecano play a very fast game with a lot of players in on loan who just can't cut it at decent clubs and it works.

You are taking what he says and expecting to see us try and do what Messi, Iniesta, Neymar et al do but he is saying to try and play that style of football and he is not saying to try play at their level because we obviously don't have the players to do it.

Arghus

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Not a fan of his punditry but his autobiography is one of the best I've read.

One of the better football autobiographies. His recollections of childhood football trips with his father were hillarious.

I remember a long passage in the book where he recreated a dialogue between himself and his oul lad about what distinguishes a good player from a great player. They were arguing about Glenn Hoddle I think? He'd heard his father express admiration for Hoddle, while watching him on TV, and Gilesy attacked him like a rottweiler: systematically shredding his dad's opinion of Hoddle's greatness and scorning him for not knowing good from great. It was comedy gold because he clearly still relished that day in the eighties, when he put his father in his place, but it was also informative; it laid out his great player formula in detail. Detail that made complete sense to me at the time but, typically, can't remember now. Though I do remember honesty of effort and moral courage being mentioned...

He also seemed to be really hurt by the idea that his Leeds side were a dirty team; constantly saying it was a myth. Weirdly though, he also talked a lot about how in those days, "you didn't give it unless you could take it", and I recall several times where he talked about going in hard, real hard, into tackles. Different eras I suppose, but cometh the hour, cometh the man. I don't think he was lacking on either the giving or receiving fronts!

padd b1975

On Newstalk last night he referred to Sven Goran Ericksson as "the Italian lad that used manage England".

Say Your Number

I remember he had a hilarious rant on Eriksson, the disdain in his voice makes me laugh every time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JaimF75y5U

TheCitizen

Was listening to Giles on Newstalk. He made some interesting points re the midfield. We should get more out of Brady, he's one of our best players and playing him midfield in tandem with Hoolahan would see him get on the ball more often in central areas. Could see Brady in midfield post the Euros, Hoolahan has indicated he might quit international footballl post the Euros. MON will probably stick with playing both McCarthy and Whelan, he probably feels they provide cover for what looks on paper a weak central defense. Hoolahan and Brady seemed to link together very well v Slovakia, seemed to be on the same wavelength. Should try them together again for some of the game v the Dutch.

sReq | uTeK

Arghus wrote: »

One of the better football autobiographies. His recollections of childhood football trips with his father were hillarious.

I remember a long passage in the book where he recreated a dialogue between himself and his oul lad about what distinguishes a good player from a great player. They were arguing about Glenn Hoddle I think? He'd heard his father express admiration for Hoddle, while watching him on TV, and Gilesy attacked him like a rottweiler: systematically shredding his dad's opinion of Hoddle's greatness and scorning him for not knowing good from great. It was comedy gold because he clearly still relished that day in the eighties, when he put his father in his place, but it was also informative; it laid out his great player formula in detail. Detail that made complete sense to me at the time but, typically, can't remember now. Though I do remember honesty of effort and moral courage being mentioned...

He also seemed to be really hurt by the idea that his Leeds side were a dirty team; constantly saying it was a myth. Weirdly though, he also talked a lot about how in those days, "you didn't give it unless you could take it", and I recall several times where he talked about going in hard, real hard, into tackles. Different eras I suppose, but cometh the hour, cometh the man. I don't think he was lacking on either the giving or receiving fronts!

Yea very good book. You should have a red of Zlatan autobiography. It's top class too

Arghus

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Yea very good book. You should have a red of Zlatan autobiography. It's top class too

Yeah, read that too. Though it's come out since that the ghostwriter made most of it up.

deaddonkey15

Giles making the same point over and over again about Ireland's line up against Italy "We don't know how they are going to perform". To think people reckon he's up there with the best pundits is laughable.

Billy86

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Giles making the same point over and over again about Ireland's line up against Italy "We don't know how they are going to perform". To think people reckin he's up there with the best pundits is laughable.

Well when you don't know who half the oppositions names even are, it's kind of hard to know how you'll do against them.

TiGeR KiNgS

klose wrote: »

eagle eye wrote: »

He wasn't playing a two man midfield, he was on about playing a midfield three of McClean, Brady with McCarthy as anchor. He was saying that Hoolahan would be on the right but have a roaming role.

McLean and Brady as centre mids!?!

Center folds ? after tonight

Coat22

The performance of Giles and in particular Dunphy last night will have been lost in the celebrations that followed but they outdid themselves.

The distain they have for Darragh Maloney is so obvious I feel for the guy. Dunphy dismissed him prior to kick off last night like he was some young lad in a pub looking to start an argument while glancing in awe at Giles.

Can't wait to see the back of these two - really hope Dunphy is thrown out on July 10 also

red sean

Giles and Brady were excellent players in their day, Dunphy at best was mediocre but a grafter.
The problem as I see it is that the game has evolved since they played and they're out of touch with the modern game as it's played today.
In their day there was just three team formations mainly (4-3-3,4-2-4 or 4-4-2) and they're stuck in that time warp.
Management style, rules, tactics etc. have all moved on but the lads haven't.
Dunphy (sober!) will always be a favourite with RTE because his sensational statements will bring more viewers and hence, more advertisers.

Mec27

Coat22 wrote: »

The performance of Giles and in particular Dunphy last night will have been lost in the celebrations that followed but they outdid themselves.

The distain they have for Darragh Maloney is so obvious I feel for the guy. Dunphy dismissed him prior to kick off last night like he was some young lad in a pub looking to start an argument while glancing in awe at Giles.

Can't wait to see the back of these two - really hope Dunphy is thrown out on July 10 also

I'd say they just play that up to the cameras, I've seen them at close quarters before, seem to get on.

rob316

I think the whole thing has suffered since Bill left, Dunphy is just a parody at this stage, Giles just comes across as this bitter old man and Daragh just doesn't fit in. Brady the only one with a bit of life left in him yet.

BeepBeep67

rob316 wrote: »

I think the whole thing has suffered since Bill left, Dunphy is just a parody at this stage, Giles just comes across as this bitter old man and Daragh just doesn't fit in. Brady the only one with a bit of life left in him yet.

Brady is playing the sweeper role and steps in to clean up when Giles and Dunphy's minds begin to wander. It's needs a complete refresh for the WC qualifiers.

rob316

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Brady is playing the sweeper role and steps in to clean up when Giles and Dunphy's minds begin to wander. It's needs a complete refresh for the WC qualifiers.

Don't get we wrong I enjoy listening to them alot and it still beats the hell out of most of the BBC and ITV. But I do think if Giles goes they should look at refreshing it, RTE does have a couple of decent replacements currently in the background.

sReq | uTeK

Coat22 wrote: »

The performance of Giles and in particular Dunphy last night will have been lost in the celebrations that followed but they outdid themselves.

The distain they have for Darragh Maloney is so obvious I feel for the guy. Dunphy dismissed him prior to kick off last night like he was some young lad in a pub looking to start an argument while glancing in awe at Giles.

Can't wait to see the back of these two - really hope Dunphy is thrown out on July 10 also

I've heard from plenty of reputable sources that Maloney and Dunphy get on very well and have on occasion been seen outside of the studio at non work related events together.

Could be BS though!

Leslie91

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Giles making the same point over and over again about Ireland's line up against Italy "We don't know how they are going to perform". To think people reckon he's up there with the best pundits is laughable.

He's a great guy in person but as a pundit he is washed up years ago. He doesn't bother to do any research whatsoever, he had no clue who was in the Italian team so kept banging on about you never know etc, covering his arse too in case what happened happened. As a pundit I will be glad to see the back of him, but as a person I wish him the very best in retirement.

eagle eye

I think Giles is doing what RTE want him to do because when you hear him on newstalk he is very good. He was an excellent writer in the Friday edition of the Evening Herald many years ago too.

Dunphy is a sensationalist and he has made a good living out of it. If you are intelligent enough to understand that then you can have a good laugh at all his rants. It's the people who take his every word seriously that I wonder about.

I fear for the future if those two go because, apart from Hamann, there is nobody worth a damn to replace them. Damien Duff is afraid to say anything out of place, Richard 'I know more than you' Sadlier is an awful pundit.

They should stick with Giles and Dunphy imo and bring in Hamann to give one of them a break for every game that Ireland isn't involved in.

vicwatson

He's a chancer, end of. "Your man this, Your man that", knows feck all of the players, couldnt be arsed

sReq | uTeK

eagle eye wrote: »

I think Giles is doing what RTE want him to do because when you hear him on newstalk he is very good. He was an excellent writer in the Friday edition of the Evening Herald many years ago too.

Dunphy is a sensationalist and he has made a good living out of it. If you are intelligent enough to understand that then you can have a good laugh at all his rants. It's the people who take his every word seriously that I wonder about.

I fear for the future if those two go because, apart from Hamann, there is nobody worth a damn to replace them. Damien Duff is afraid to say anything out of place, Richard 'I know more than you' Sadlier is an awful pundit.

They should stick with Giles and Dunphy imo and bring in Hamann to give one of them a break for every game that Ireland isn't involved in.

If they could get Souness back I think Didi, Souness and Brady would be a good mix!

rob316

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

If they could get Souness back I think Didi, Souness and Brady would be a good mix!

I like that but I think you need atleast 2 Irish lads on the main panel.

Coat22

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Coat22 wrote: »

The performance of Giles and in particular Dunphy last night will have been lost in the celebrations that followed but they outdid themselves.

The distain they have for Darragh Maloney is so obvious I feel for the guy. Dunphy dismissed him prior to kick off last night like he was some young lad in a pub looking to start an argument while glancing in awe at Giles.

Can't wait to see the back of these two - really hope Dunphy is thrown out on July 10 also

I've heard from plenty of reputable sources that Maloney and Dunphy get on very well and have on occasion been seen outside of the studio at non work related events together.

Could be BS though!

They may well do but if you get a chance look back on the footage before kick off last night, Dunphy completely dissed Maloney and threw his eyes over to Giles in a "look what we're up against" kind of way - it was very telling

Coat22

eagle eye wrote: »

I think Giles is doing what RTE want him to do because when you hear him on newstalk he is very good. He was an excellent writer in the Friday edition of the Evening Herald many years ago too.

Dunphy is a sensationalist and he has made a good living out of it. If you are intelligent enough to understand that then you can have a good laugh at all his rants. It's the people who take his every word seriously that I wonder about.

I fear for the future if those two go because, apart from Hamann, there is nobody worth a damn to replace them. Damien Duff is afraid to say anything out of place, Richard 'I know more than you' Sadlier is an awful pundit.

They should stick with Giles and Dunphy imo and bring in Hamann to give one of them a break for every game that Ireland isn't involved in.

I think everyone (well most) are intelligent enough to see through Dunphy and his tired repartee. People also have the cop on to realise this is the formula RTE have tried to replicate over every sport with Hook on Rugby and Spillane / Brolly on GAA.

But Dunphy (and Giles) are a spent force. Have been for 15+ years. But like "Ole Ole" - it worked in Italia 90 so we won't bother our ar$e thinking up a new formula and will just keep the whole thing going.

Bill had the class to make up for the shortcomings of these lads for years. Since he left it been like watching a slow painful car crash with these 2.