Moldova vs Ireland, World Cup Qualifier, RTE 2 & Sky Sports 1, KO 7.45

TheCitizen

applehunter wrote: »

We deserved our 3 points tonight.

We deserved a loss on Thursday.

Maybe you can draw up an alternative table and distribute points to teams "who deserve it" in your head. I wonder how that will look at the end:pac:

noodler

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

O'Donoghue treated Trappatoni with a complete lack of respect as his reign developed. He tries the same thing and O'Neill puts him in his ****ing box. And rightly so. You can ask the tough questions if you like, but you deserve to be treated with aggression in return.

Not sure about that.

I defend Trap but O'Donoghue was faced with a man who couldn't understand him and everything had to be through a translator. Subtlety would have been lost.


MON is being pretty disrespectful to Tony at the moment. The opening three performances have been poor bit the points are on the board. Still, 5 tough games to come against group rivals (three at home for all the good that generally does us) and a tough trip to Tbilisi.

I think MON could do with being a bit less defensive with his replies. There's not been an unreasonable question asked yet IMO.

TheCitizen

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

Really? I have to say Sadlier strikes me as honest and intelligent. I won't see that I agree with everything that he says but he does seem to make sense most of the time but maybe I'm in the minority here?

I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say he doesn't belong on the panel.

Do you know what I remember most about "Ritchie" as a pundit - because I have no recollection of him at all as a player - it was after the game v Scotland in Dublin. Ritchie was sitting there with a glum head on him being all serious like it matters what he thinks. Ritchie declared "I don't think we'll qualify". There was nearly half of the campaign left and this nomark was writing it off already.

For me a pundit needs to be accurate, if he's going to make a "call" he should be smart enough to make sure he gets it right. Tony O'Donoghue is well able to look after himself, he doesn't need "Ritchie" to be siding with him. MON won't take any sht off O'Donoghue. What "Ritchie" says is neither here nor there, but he will try to make a name for himself to make himself somehow relevant.

The_Kew_Tour

Have to say I thought we did OK last night.

The days of hammering teams 5 and 6-0 are more rare.

We were pathetic in 1St half on Thursday and were much better in 2nd.

I think if you discount their goal which was deflected by the numerous changes we created in 1St half.

I don't think last night was as bad as some suggest. Bar first 10-12 minutes in 2nd half we were better side with comfort

noodler

TheCitizen wrote: »

Do you know what I remember most about "Ritchie" as a pundit - because I have no recollection of him at all as a player - it was after the game v Scotland in Dublin. Ritchie was sitting there with a glum head on him being all serious like it matters what he thinks. Ritchie declared "I don't think we'll qualify". There was nearly half of the campaign left and this nomark was writing it off already.

For me a pundit needs to be accurate, if he's going to make a "call" he should be smart enough to make sure he gets it right. Tony O'Donoghue is well able to look after himself, he doesn't need "Ritchie" to be siding with him. MON won't take any sht off O'Donoghue. What "Ritchie" says is neither here nor there, but he will try to make a name for himself to make himself somehow relevant.

Well that's bull.

The general consensus would have been that the odds were firmly against us after the Scotland game. Requiring a back to the walls win against the world hampions and Georgia beating Scoand just shows how desperate our situation was.

gucci

Jelle1880 wrote: »

But how many of these teams just went on cruise control and simply did what is needed ?

I can't see Spain for example go all out against Albania. Also, Italy have a history of performing average in qualifiers.

I wouldn't necessarily chalk that up to the small countries becoming better.

Really?

I would settle for Ireland being capable of being this average.....

ahlookit

TheCitizen wrote: »

What "Ritchie" says is neither here nor there, but he will try to make a name for himself to make himself somehow relevant.

Isn't that what Dunphy has spent the last 30 years doing?

I was at the Scotland game, so I didn't see the analysis you're referring to, but I think the vast majority of people watching the game in the ground and on TV reckoned we were out of the running after the draw.

I quite like Sadlier on the panel, I think he's much better than Dunphy, who should have been moved aside years ago. The trio on there last night were a good change from Dunphy and Brady.

Who would you prefer to see on the panel?

TheCitizen

noodler wrote: »

Well that's bull.

The general consensus would have been that the odds were firmly against us after the Scotland game. Requiring a back to the walls win against the world hampions and Georgia beating Scoand just shows how desperate our situation was.

See if you know anything about football, Scotland losing to Georgia wouldn't surprise you. We were behind in the race at the time but far from out of it. "The general consensus" from my recollection at the time was we were still in the hunt for qualification despite Ritchie's glumness.

TheCitizen

ahlookit wrote: »

Isn't that what Dunphy has spent the last 30 years doing?

I was at the Scotland game, so I didn't see the analysis you're referring to, but I think the vast majority of people watching the game in the ground and on TV reckoned we were out of the running after the draw.

I was at the game as well, I recorded the TV coverage. I don't pretend to speak for others, but personally I didn't think we were out of the running at the time after that draw, there was still nearly half of the campaign left. It was a ridiculous call.

ahlookit wrote: »

I quite like Sadlier on the panel, I think he's much better than Dunphy, who should have been moved aside years ago. The trio on there last night were a good change from Dunphy and Brady.

Who would you prefer to see on the panel?

Dunphy can be entertaining and he has journalistic experience. I think Sadlier wants to be a Dunphy type pundit because he has no clout whatsoever from his football career to fall back on, he just doesn't have much of a personality however.

I like Hamann, Dunphy, Brady, even though I wouldn't always agree with them. Duff is good. Pat Bonner. Ritchie has his arse on the seat though, he'll be hard to shift.

ahlookit

TheCitizen wrote: »

I was at the game as well, I recorded the TV coverage

Jaysus you must be a glutton for punishment!!!

I don't get your dislike for Sadlier, but then again I don't like Dunphy as a pundit, so its all personal taste...

Its good to see RTE putting some new faces in. Thought Duff had some interesting points on McClean last night.

sky88

ahlookit wrote: »

Jaysus you must be a glutton for punishment!!!

I don't get your dislike for Sadlier, but then again I don't like Dunphy as a pundit, so its all personal taste...

Its good to see RTE putting some new faces in. Thought Duff had some interesting points on McClean last night.

Dont think Duff is great for ireland games as hes still too close to the camp as hes played with majority of the players so hes always going to go kindly for them. Tbh i think thats any pundit he has just stopped playing not just duff.

Nalz

Gavin McCumiskey - Irish Times

TheDoc

Nalz wrote: »

Gavin McCumiskey - Irish Times

Hard to disagree and nice to see him not receiving totally misplaced praise.

TheDoc

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Tony O'Donoghue is very negative in his questioning. Starting off with "why do we keep losing the lead" after showing good heart and character in the game is just painful and stupid. Nobody is saying we are perfect but O'Neill has every right to get annoyed when O'Donoghue has so much negative to say, even when we win a damn game.

Considering people like O'Donoghue are partially to act as a conduit to fans, by having the finger on the pulse and getting some answers the masses are after, I think it's perfectly fine and reasonable to question O'Neill on what are some clear issues and in some cases failing of the management.

Considering the salaries paid, partially funded by third parties, I think it's not outragous to somewhat question what is happening, regardless of results.

Nalz

TheDoc wrote: »

Hard to disagree and nice to see him not receiving totally misplaced praise.

First time ever I agreed 100% with the ratings of the players from one to eleven.

Duffy, Whelan (might agrue for a 6 but nah) and McCarthy all got 5s.
Rest were 6 and 7s with Coleman, McClean & Hoolahan getting 8s.

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

Hard to disagree and nice to see him not receiving totally misplaced praise.

Don't get the dislike for McCarthy. While he wasn't the motm or anything, he was solid and played quite well in the 2nd half v Georgia and also at times last night played well too.

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

Considering people like O'Donoghue are partially to act as a conduit to fans, by having the finger on the pulse and getting some answers the masses are after, I think it's perfectly fine and reasonable to question O'Neill on what are some clear issues and in some cases failing of the management.

Considering the salaries paid, partially funded by third parties, I think it's not outragous to somewhat question what is happening, regardless of results.

He can question all he likes, O'Neill is entitled to have a go back at him if he likes as well. O'Donoghue is choosing to be negative in the way he frames his questions, I wonder what he'd be like if we were actually not winning games.

TheDoc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Which he's entitled to do, but O'Neill or anyone else is entitled to answer '**** you' in return when he does. That's all I'm saying.

Really disagree with this.

This isn't club management, this is international management, and managers and players should be accountable to the fans, especially when their association seem to be totally inept at providing any transparency.

There isn't any crisis happening, but in a global game where there is a increasing devaluation of the international game, and emphasis going into coaches and managers who can have teams achieve more then the sum of their parts, and establish some patterns of play and identity.

I'm constantly concerned with Ireland that we just lurch campaign to campaign, manager to manager, just wasting time. Without ever really establishing anything that can be used in the future.

It's worth remembering who did who a favour here, and it definitely wasn't O'Neill helping us out.....He'd be wise to remember sometimes the opportunity he was given.

TheDoc

TheCitizen wrote: »

Don't get the dislike for McCarthy. While he wasn't the motm or anything, he was solid and played quite well in the 2nd half v Georgia and also at times last night played well too.

It's not dislike really. I don't overly agree or look fondly on how he came into the international setup, but I try separate that from the player.

I never agreed with the praise he received as a player, as I saw nothing more then a very average midfielder by the standard he was playing at.

I find he is just a passenger way too much in games without really providing anything. Him actually shouting and pointing is actually a positive departure, where he just appears to be a total ghost more often then not.

There is a certain beggers can't be choosers mentality at the moment with Irish midfielders, and some Irish players in general. But I'd struggle badly to defend his selection if we moved to a single holding midfielder.

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

Really disagree with this.

This isn't club management, this is international management, and managers and players should be accountable to the fans, especially when their association seem to be totally inept at providing any transparency.

There isn't any crisis happening, but in a global game where there is a increasing devaluation of the international game, and emphasis going into coaches and managers who can have teams achieve more then the sum of their parts, and establish some patterns of play and identity.

I'm constantly concerned with Ireland that we just lurch campaign to campaign, manager to manager, just wasting time. Without ever really establishing anything that can be used in the future.

It's worth remembering who did who a favour here, and it definitely wasn't O'Neill helping us out.....He'd be wise to remember sometimes the opportunity he was given.

Is that you Tony?

O'Neill's forte is getting teams to achieve more than the sum of their parts. Sometimes the football isn't very pretty but overall he's achieving that with Ireland.

TheDoc

TheCitizen wrote: »

He can question all he likes, O'Neill is entitled to have a go back at him if he likes as well. O'Donoghue is choosing to be negative in the way he frames his questions, I wonder what he'd be like if we were actually not winning games.

It's totally fine for O'Neill to have a go back. I'm just saying at some point it might serve him better to accept there is critique out there about him and his position, and it might be worth addressing instead of trying to just brush it all away or try be funny.

To clarify again, he is perfectly entitled to respond how he likes, but he is also perfectly entitled to be questioned.

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

It's not dislike really. I don't overly agree or look fondly on how he came into the international setup, but I try separate that from the player.

What does this even mean?

TheDoc wrote: »

I never agreed with the praise he received as a player, as I saw nothing more then a very average midfielder by the standard he was playing at.

I find he is just a passenger way too much in games without really providing anything. Him actually shouting and pointing is actually a positive departure, where he just appears to be a total ghost more often then not.

There is a certain beggers can't be choosers mentality at the moment with Irish midfielders, and some Irish players in general. But I'd struggle badly to defend his selection if we moved to a single holding midfielder.

I think he plays better as the single holding midfielder. Whelan has been a solid player for Ireland over the years as well, but if choosing one of the two, McCarthy gets the nod.

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

It's totally fine for O'Neill to have a go back. I'm just saying at some point it might serve him better to accept there is critique out there about him and his position, and it might be worth addressing instead of trying to just brush it all away or try be funny.

To clarify again, he is perfectly entitled to respond how he likes, but he is also perfectly entitled to be questioned.

I think he does take on board the criticism in his own way but he doesn't have to yield to O'Donoghue on camera after a game.

TheDoc

TheCitizen wrote: »

I think he does take on board the criticism in his own way but he doesn't have to yield to O'Donoghue on camera after a game.

Again, that's fine. I'm not O'Donoghue's biggest fan, but I think at a point it would do O'Neill some good to face up to some of the questions and genuine critique being put to him, rather then being so hostile at times.

noodler

TheCitizen wrote: »

See if you know anything about football, Scotland losing to Georgia wouldn't surprise you. We were behind in the race at the time but far from out of it. "The general consensus" from my recollection at the time was we were still in the hunt for qualification despite Ritchie's glumness.

Okay nostradamus.

You expected Scotland to lose in Georgia, despite excellent performances in Poland and Germany and having taking four points off us.

At the same time, did you also expect us to beat the world champions?


It is absolute Captain hindsight stuff to criticise Sadlier for being downbeat on our qualficiation prospects following the Scotland draw.

Everybody was and with good reason.

TheDoc

TheCitizen wrote: »

What does this even mean?

McCarthy was courted to declare for Scotland before he made a senior debut, and while the player wished to play for Scotland, he wanted to secure certain assurances which the SFA wouldn't provide. So in light of that he continued to turn out for the ROI underage teams. There was insinuations made he received assurances from the FAI.

Again whilst I dislike that behaviour and operation at international level, I try seperate it from the player on the pitch, as it happens so much with us.

I think he plays better as the single holding midfielder. Whelan has been a solid player for Ireland over the years as well, but if choosing one of the two, McCarthy gets the nod.

They both very clearly get in each others way. Some of the best performances from both have come when the other was present. But O'Neill persists with a two holding dynamic where one, the other, or sometimes both, become passengers in the game.

With our style of play, there is absolutely no justification for two holding midfielders.

I don't rate either, but it's hard to even try work out who's better. On their best day, McCarthy probably does get the nod, but those best days are few and far between

TheCitizen

noodler wrote: »

Okay nostradamus.

You expected Scotland to lose in Georgia, despite excellent performances in Poland and Germany and having taking four points off us.

At the same time, did you also expect us to beat the world champions?


It is absolute Captain hindsight stuff to criticise Sadlier for being downbeat on our qualficiation prospects following the Scotland draw.

Everybody was and with good reason.

Speak for yourself.

We weren't out of the running at the time. Sadlier was declaring that we were out, he was wrong, that's just the fact of it.

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

McCarthy was courted to declare for Scotland before he made a senior debut, and while the player wished to play for Scotland, he wanted to secure certain assurances which the SFA wouldn't provide. So in light of that he continued to turn out for the ROI underage teams. There was insinuations made he received assurances from the FAI.

Again whilst I dislike that behaviour and operation at international level, I try seperate it from the player on the pitch, as it happens so much with us.

Can you expand on these "assurances" that he sought from the SFA and got from the FAI? Or are you just making that up?

TheDoc wrote: »

They both very clearly get in each others way. Some of the best performances from both have come when the other was present. But O'Neill persists with a two holding dynamic where one, the other, or sometimes both, become passengers in the game.

With our style of play, there is absolutely no justification for two holding midfielders.

I don't rate either, but it's hard to even try work out who's better. On their best day, McCarthy probably does get the nod, but those best days are few and far between

He doesn't actually. Recently he's been playing McCarthy and dropping Whelan. Whelan came back in last night because Hendrick was suspended.

keeponhurling

RTE are incredibly negative towards Irish teams and managers, Dunphy being a case in point.
Even after a win, if you didn't know the score you'd assume we'd lost 0-5 or something.
Whoever the manager picks, of course RTE say he should have picked the other one.
Not surprised he's annoyed with them.

TheCitizen

ahlookit wrote: »

Jaysus you must be a glutton for punishment!!!

I don't get your dislike for Sadlier, but then again I don't like Dunphy as a pundit, so its all personal taste...

Its good to see RTE putting some new faces in. Thought Duff had some interesting points on McClean last night.

Ritchie is just shoring up his spot on the panel is all. If there's an argument between MON and Tony O'Donoghue it's more important for Ritchie to be on Tony's side going forward. I hope MON stays around for a good few years because I think overall he's doing and will continue to do a good job. No matter how long he stays, O'Donoghue will be doing what he's at for longer. Ritchie knows what side his bread is buttered on.

weldoninhio

TheCitizen wrote: »

Do you know what I remember most about "Ritchie" as a pundit - because I have no recollection of him at all as a player - it was after the game v Scotland in Dublin. Ritchie was sitting there with a glum head on him being all serious like it matters what he thinks. Ritchie declared "I don't think we'll qualify". There was nearly half of the campaign left and this nomark was writing it off already.

For me a pundit needs to be accurate, if he's going to make a "call" he should be smart enough to make sure he gets it right. Tony O'Donoghue is well able to look after himself, he doesn't need "Ritchie" to be siding with him. MON won't take any sht off O'Donoghue. What "Ritchie" says is neither here nor there, but he will try to make a name for himself to make himself somehow relevant.

He's a pundit ffs, not Mystic bleedin Meg 😂😂😂😂😂

You must have hated Hansen the year he said you win nothing with kids.

TheCitizen

weldoninhio wrote: »

He's a pundit ffs, not Mystic bleedin Meg 😂😂😂😂😂

You must have hated Hansen the year he said you win nothing with kids.

I find him negative. He'll chime in with the RTE boys to keep his spot on the panel, that's his bottom line. Cunningham I find is much more forthright in his views, did they get rid of him?

GavRedKing

TheCitizen wrote: »

Speak for yourself.

We weren't out of the running at the time. Sadlier was declaring that we were out, he was wrong, that's just the fact of it.

You said earlier, and I qoute :

Ritchie declared "I don't think we'll qualify".

I'm going to assume Sadlier at the time said "I don't think we'll qualify".

He was right at the time, it took a Scottish bottle job to leave us back into the running, all the while we had to beat Germany and get a result in Poland and hope Scotland somehow pi**ed away a lead they built up over us over the double header.

With 4 games to go it was Poland 14 pts, Germany 13pts, Scotland 11pts, Ireland 9pts.

There was no way, from there, that we should have caught and over taken the Scottish, remember on head to head, they would have went through if we finished on the same points, so it was in effect, a 3pt lead.

Richie and pretty much anyone writing off the Irish team as having nothing but an outside chance, at the time, we're very much spot on after the draw with the Scottish at the Aviva.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

It's totally fine for O'Neill to have a go back. I'm just saying at some point it might serve him better to accept there is critique out there about him and his position, and it might be worth addressing instead of trying to just brush it all away or try be funny.

To clarify again, he is perfectly entitled to respond how he likes, but he is also perfectly entitled to be questioned.

I agree. I think alot of dressing rooms like to create 'a them against us' mindset within its confines these times as motivation.

TheCitizen

GavRedKing wrote: »

You said earlier, and I qoute :



I'm going to assume Sadlier at the time said "I don't think we'll qualify".

He was right at the time, it took a Scottish bottle job to leave us back into the running, all the while we had to beat Germany and get a result in Poland and hope Scotland somehow pi**ed away a lead they built up over us over the double header.

With 4 games to go it was Poland 14 pts, Germany 13pts, Scotland 11pts, Ireland 9pts.

There was no way, from there, that we should have caught and over taken the Scottish, remember on head to head, they would have went through if we finished on the same points, so it was in effect, a 3pt lead.

Richie and pretty much anyone writing off the Irish team as having nothing but an outside chance, at the time, we're very much spot on after the draw with the Scottish at the Aviva.

I disagree. We were 2 points behind Scotland with 4 games left, Ritchie was wrong to write us off. Scotland habitually bottle it, even when they had good teams. Also Georgia are not a walkover, our win in Tblisi turned out to be as important a win as the Germany one. We won the right to a play off and we went past Scotland even though we got no point in Poland. We'll do well to get a win in Tbilisi this time, they have improved again, but if it comes down to the wire I'd back us to get the required result. Ritchie I think would be negative.

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree. I think alot of dressing rooms like to create 'a them against us' mindset within its confines these times as motivation.

And that can be totally fine. But we all know what happens and how it goes when things go south.

The old cliches and one liners I don't think really work anymore. Fans arn't exactly smarter, but they are more demanding. They arn't happy putting up with nonsense excuses or the old cliches.

A national team really shouldn't need to create this atmosphere if I'm honest. National teams are incredibly well supported by design, and this siege mentality is totally unnecessary.

In cases where it exists, it's usually BECAUSE there is genuine issues or problems that fans want addressed or are not happy about.

TheDoc

TheCitizen wrote: »

I find him negative. He'll chime in with the RTE boys to keep his spot on the panel, that's his bottom line. Cunningham I find is much more forthright in his views, did they get rid of him?

I am starting to really like him. I've gotten more into listening to Second Captains which I was never a fan off but have been slowly converted, and he features heavily on that. And his views and outlook actually at times fit in with mine.

We arn't looking for someone to create an Irish Barcalona, but we don't have to accept that our teams are incapable of playing some progressive/possesion football.

TheDoc

keeponhurling wrote: »

RTE are incredibly negative towards Irish teams and managers, Dunphy being a case in point.
Even after a win, if you didn't know the score you'd assume we'd lost 0-5 or something.
Whoever the manager picks, of course RTE say he should have picked the other one.
Not surprised he's annoyed with them.

I can see why they sometimes come across like that. I don't really rate any of the RTE panels, but some of them are old enough to have seen some brilliant Irish players be squandered through inadequate managers,coaching, setups etc.

And like many of us, they say the same things every match, feel the same nearly every match and have the same questions everytime.

One criticism I have of them is that they are not critical enough of the FAI, and unfortunately some of them seem a bit close to Delaney.

mansize

mansize wrote: »

Did we beat the made up country from the Princess Diaries???

No, Moldova was a former SSR which seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991. The place you describe is a fictional kingdom where Julie Andrews is the monarch and Anne Hathaway is heir to the throne Im utterly ashamed of my life i know this much

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

I am starting to really like him. I've gotten more into listening to Second Captains which I was never a fan off but have been slowly converted, and he features heavily on that. And his views and outlook actually at times fit in with mine.

We arn't looking for someone to create an Irish Barcalona, but we don't have to accept that our teams are incapable of playing some progressive/possesion football.

I think we do play some progressive/possession football at times. Last night, against Sweden, against France at times. We have to mix it up though and sometimes we don't get the balance right. Still we are capable of getting results.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

And that can be totally fine. But we all know what happens and how it goes when things go south.

The old cliches and one liners I don't think really work anymore. Fans arn't exactly smarter, but they are more demanding. They arn't happy putting up with nonsense excuses or the old cliches.

A national team really shouldn't need to create this atmosphere if I'm honest. National teams are incredibly well supported by design, and this siege mentality is totally unnecessary.

In cases where it exists, it's usually BECAUSE there is genuine issues or problems that fans want addressed or are not happy about.

There is alot more vitriol being delivered directly to players these times with social media. Harry Arter was just saying that he was in complete shock at the vile reaction to a mere rumour he was going to defect back to England and the rumour was completely without basis.

I can see how siege mentalities can develop in the context of the modern game. Players are closer to morons then they ever were although arguably they should learn to take the good with the bad

Players are human at the end of the day but kneejerk reactions to gobsh*tes is not the answer either.

Im not sure what is MONS issue in the case of TOD though. TOD seems a genuine soccer man thats there to do a job.

TheCitizen

TheCitizen wrote: »

I find him negative. He'll chime in with the RTE boys to keep his spot on the panel, that's his bottom line. Cunningham I find is much more forthright in his views, did they get rid of him?

I disagree, i think he is a very strong minded pundit. He admitted himself he didnt find it easy starting off on the panel given that he retired at 23 having never played a Premier league game but i think Richie puts alot of consideration into his opinions and speaks with alot of balance

TheCitizen

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree, i think he is a very strong minded pundit. He admitted himself he didnt find it easy starting off on the panel given that he retired at 23 having never played a Premier league game but i think Richie puts alot of consideration into his opinions and speaks with alot of balance

He was talking about Wes and saying he doesn't understand why there is a discussion about Wes Hoolahan and whether he should start or not. I would tend to start Wes as often as possible as well, more often than O'Neill does perhaps. But what would I know, I'm not the manager.

These games come in pairs usually and he has to game manage both. Hamann used that phrase game management last night. If Wes played against Georgia would he have been fully fit and fresh to play as he did last night? He is on record himself saying he isn't art his best playing games in quick succession. Also he does lose possession at times, in the second half he lost the ball on several occasions. He's still worth playing as much as possible, but he's not always available and if he wasn't available last night when Brady was out as well, we could've been in big trouble.

keeponhurling

TheCitizen wrote: »

He was talking about Wes and saying he doesn't understand why there is a discussion about Wes Hoolahan and whether he should start or not. I would tend to start Wes as often as possible as well, more often than O'Neill does perhaps. But what would I know, I'm not the manager.

These games come in pairs usually and he has to game manage both. Hamann used that phrase game management last night. If Wes played against Georgia would he have been fully fit and fresh to play as he did last night? Also he does lose possession at times, in the second half he lost the ball on several occasions. He's still worth playing as much as possible, but he's not always available and if he wasn't available last night when Brady was out as well, we could've been in big trouble.

It's probably a case that he prefers to use him in games where we expect to largely control possession, but the opponent could be quite defensive, so hard to carve them open.

Given Moldova are the weaker of the two teams we played this week, then target using him in that game.

TheCitizen

TheCitizen wrote: »

He was talking about Wes and saying he doesn't understand why there is a discussion about Wes Hoolahan and whether he should start or not. I would tend to start Wes as often as possible as well, more often than O'Neill does perhaps. But what would I know, I'm not the manager.

These games come in pairs usually and he has to game manage both. Hamann used that phrase game management last night. If Wes played against Georgia would he have been fully fit and fresh to play as he did last night? He is on record himself saying he isn't art his best playing games in quick succession. Also he does lose possession at times, in the second half he lost the ball on several occasions. He's still worth playing as much as possible, but he's not always available and if he wasn't available last night when Brady was out as well, we could've been in big trouble.

I agree that the love-in with Wes is severe and it seems to have gripped RTE. I think that the more creative players generally appeal more to the panel as it harks back to a time of Brady, Giles...the age of the street footballer really. Nowadays you have a very manufactured type of player who will act on instruction rather than instinct and Ireland isnt alone in this area really. Even Brazil dont produce the standard of player they once did.

nice_guy80

RTE should run a street soccer reality tv program to create more Wesley Hoolihans

keeponhurling

RTE haven't had such a love-in for a player that I can remember since Andy Reid.
Every single pre and post match "analysis" was dominated by talking about Andy Reid, the actual match in question was rarely discussed so they could have even pre-recorded their post-match analysis

nice_guy80

nice_guy80 wrote: »

RTE should run a street soccer reality tv program to create more Wesley Hoolihans

Good idea. An underdogs style show might also be a runner. Street footballers against club footballers. Id love to see street footballers beat the absolute snot out of them.

Couple of weeks ago, kids from the west bank/gaza strip (cant remember the exact area) played an irish team of under 14s off the park despite being considerably smaller and less built. Featured on the news. Showed up the shambles that is coached soccer in this country.

keeponhurling

keeponhurling wrote: »

Jeez Andy Reid looks fair out of shape in that pic. I always felt he was carrying a bit too much. That said a lovely ball player.

Jayop

TheDoc wrote: »

I can see why they sometimes come across like that. I don't really rate any of the RTE panels, but some of them are old enough to have seen some brilliant Irish players be squandered through inadequate managers,coaching, setups etc.

And like many of us, they say the same things every match, feel the same nearly every match and have the same questions everytime.

One criticism I have of them is that they are not critical enough of the FAI, and unfortunately some of them seem a bit close to Delaney.

The sad fact is now though that we don't have a single top player in the Ireland set up. As long as I can remember we had players playing at the very top level, European Cup winners, premier league winners, FA Cup winners.

Who in the current side has won anything of note apart from JoS who is way past his best?

Coleman - Play off winner Blackpool
Ward - Football league winner - Wolves
Whelan - FA Cup Runner up - Stoke
McClean - League of Ireland - 1st Div - Derry
McCarthy - FA Cup - Wigan
Hoolahan - 3 LoI Shels - League 1 Norwich
Meyler - Championship runner up - Hull
Long - Football League winner - Reading
Walters - FA Cup runner up - Stoke

That's the top honours that the pick of our players have won. Only Coleman and Long are starting players that are at clubs that would expect to be in the top half of the premier league.

It's a far cry from even recent years where we had players at the biggest clubs all over the pitch, and back a few years before that when we had genuine world class talent in the team regularly.