Republic of Ireland Team Talk/News/Rumours 2019/2020

smelly sock

The issue is we have failed miserably in our last 2 games.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again etc.....

We need to try something different. Hourihane needs to start for set pieces alone. If Mclean starts its a joke.

Collins isnt a viable option and either is Hogan. They are just not up to the level and McGoldrick, Connolly and Long are all better options at this point.

My gut feeling is we will revert to hoof ball because the configuration of the team and the players selected wont permit retaining the ball. Going on that id play McGoldrick up front with either Long or Connolly. If we are going to play hoof ball we may aswell go for the little and large partnership and do it properly.

smelly sock

noodler wrote: »

Sure he started Connolly and Browne last game.

Went with Egan over Clarke for Georgia/Swiss.

I'm not sure absolute wholesale changes are viable for the make or break game.

Edit: people might not agree with Collins but he was also new blood in an Irish international context (realise he's not actually young)

Collins is ****e though and its a crazy embarassing call by Mick picking him and then Hogan with Shane Long sitting at home. Seriously puzzling.

Brock Turnpike

noodler wrote: »

Sure he started Connolly and Browne last game.

Went with Egan over Clarke for Georgia/Swiss.

I'm not sure absolute wholesale changes are viable for the make or break game.

Edit: people might not agree with Collins but he was also new blood in an Irish international context (realise he's not actually young)

It's Clark. And he didn't "go with Egan over Clarke". Clark hasn't been in contention at club level all year until his appearance against United a few weeks ago. There is no way he could be seen as a viable option to have started either game.

johnnyryan89

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Reading between the lines, he's going to pick a 40 man squad, play all the young/fringe players against NZ, then stick with his tried and trusted payers for the Denmark game. Hendrick, McClean, et al

Yeah think against New Zealand we'll see mostly fringe players with maybe some regulars who might not have played much at club level.

Probably something like:

...................Travers

Christie - Long - Clark - Manning

..........McCarty - Cullen

...O'Dowda - Judge - Brady

...................Connolly

That's similar to the Bulgaria starting XI with Brady starting instead of Curtis, Clark coming in for Egan and McCarthy for Browne. I'd prefer to see Byrne or Parrott get that run out as the ten against New Zealand but will probably be Judge as there's a chance he'll see game time against Denmark.

fullstop

topmanamillion wrote: »

Jose Gomes had taken his place at Reading when they let him go for feck all.
It was a punt by Stam and it hasn't worked out.
It's highly unlikely a new manager is going to see him as a key player.
He's nearly 24. He's not all that young for a footballer.

But Wales would have capped him.

smelly sock

fullstop wrote: »

But Wales would have capped him.

Wales who got to the Euros semis.

fullstop

smelly sock wrote: »

Wales who got to the Euros semis.

Christ...

Brock Turnpike

Trevor Clarke played 70 minutes, before being replaced by Chiedozie Ogbene, in Rotherham's 2-0 win away to Ipswich tonight. Alan Judge didn't get a run out for Ipswich.

Callum O'Dowda played 90 mins as Bristol City best Charlton 2-1. Josh Cullen played 90 mins for Charlton.

noodler

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

It's Clark. And he didn't "go with Egan over Clarke". Clark hasn't been in contention at club level all year until his appearance against United a few weeks ago. There is no way he could be seen as a viable option to have started either game.

Exactly the same as Long FFS!

Yet people are criticising his absence, which is it?

He easily could have selected Clark. He'd just played in a 1-0 over Utd.

Edit: and thanks for pointing out the typo. Bit sad but whatever.

johnnyryan89

Mr.Maroon wrote: »

No mention of Ciaran Clark who's back in the Newcastle team and has two 90 minutes under his belt.
Brady gets mentioned after just one 65 minute appearance.

Interestingly Crowley is being talked about again. I wonder if he has been given the go ahead from FIFA.

Because Brady missed the September games because of the rib injury and was then sitting on the bench until the October games. If Brady wasn't injured he probably would've started whereas Clark is like third or fourth choice CB and was sitting on the bench for months not getting game time.

Doubtful that he has. He probably falls into the same category as Ryan Johansson there was still no news from FIFA about that as of the last internationals.

Brock Turnpike

noodler wrote: »

Exactly the same as Long FFS!

Yet people are criticising his absence, which is it?

He easily could have selected Clark. He'd just played in a 1-0 over Utd.

Edit: and thanks for pointing out the typo. Bit sad but whatever.

You said he went with Egan over Clark. Which is as ridiculous as saying he went with Egan over Andy Boyle. Ciaran Clark hasn't been under consideration, so why you came out which such an outlandish statement as to suggest John Egan was picked to start over Ciaran Clark is difficult to understand.

Sin City

So Randolf seems to be a doubt for the Danes match

Father Hernandez

Sin City wrote: »

So Randolf seems to be a doubt for the Danes match

Of all players to be potentially missing for any game, he is the biggest IMO

He's been solid as a rock in goals for Ireland and has some big saves in him when we're backs against the wall.

Fingers crossed he'll be fit.

Sin City

Woodgate was saying it he could be out for 6 weeks

Wesstwood is injury free is he?

Dont fancy Travers or O'Hara for such a crucial game

noodler

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

You said he went with Egan over Clark. Which is as ridiculous as saying he went with Egan over Andy Boyle. Ciaran Clark hasn't been under consideration, so why you came out which such an outlandish statement as to suggest John Egan was picked to start over Ciaran Clark is difficult to understand.

Ridiculous.

Clark played 90 mins in a win over Utd the previous week.

He easily could have been drafted in instead of capping a new player.

McCarthy made a decision.

Sin City

sugarman wrote: »

He didnt say that at all, he said



Irish media have latched onto the Ireland quote and ran with it as clickbait.. they dont know yet until he is fully assessed.

Westwood himself is injured.

Your right my apologies it was the media doing its thing

This is what he said

He might not make the Ireland game, he might not make next week, I don't know how long he will be, we'll have to go through the scans in more detail. He was sore coming back from international duty. He played against West Brom and he was sore with it so he's had it for a while."

pgj2015

Rob Elliot? you couldnt throw o hara or travers into a game like denmark.

srfc d16

sugarman wrote: »

He didnt say that at all, he said



Irish media have latched onto the Ireland quote and ran with it as clickbait.. they dont know yet until he is fully assessed.

Westwood himself is injured.

Westwood is due back against Leeds on Saturday.

smelly sock

sugarman wrote: »

...but you could throw Rob Elliot into it? Someone who hasnt played a single minute of football since December 2017? :pac:

Sure why not call up Shay Given, he too hasnt played a game in 2 years.

Anyway Mick has nailed his colours to the mast here. He won't consider Long and some others due to a lack of football so he has to be consistent.

He can't pick Westwood or Travers because they haven't played football. So it would have to be a league 1 keeper in O'hara. Even though Westwood is the best option if Randolph doesn't recover.

pgj2015

sugarman wrote: »

...but you could throw Rob Elliot into it? Someone who hasnt played a single minute of football since December 2017? :pac:

Sure why not call up Shay Given, he too hasnt played a game in 2 years.

Elliot has played 191 senior games at club level mostly in the championship and premier league. in the few games he has played for ireland he has played very well, i would have more faith in him than travers and o hara thats for sure.

johnnyryan89

smelly sock wrote: »

Anyway Mick has nailed his colours to the mast here. He won't consider Long and some others due to a lack of football so he has to be consistent.

He can't pick Westwood or Travers because they haven't played football. So it would have to be a league 1 keeper in O'hara. Even though Westwood is the best option if Randolph doesn't recover.

Do you just be making things up, Westwood has played every league game bar two or three for Sheffield Wednesday

Ferris_Bueller

Randolph would be a huge loss, in his entire Ireland career it's hard to remember him having a bad game. Fingers crossed he will be fit , if not I think Westwood would be called up. Way too much of a risk throwing in Travers or O'Hara.

smelly sock

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Do you just be making things up, Westwood has played every league game bar two for Sheffield Wednesday

And some of the other players he refuses to pick have been playing also.

Maybe it's Mick making things up.

topmanamillion

sugarman wrote: »

Its off the wall to even suggest Elliot.

Id have Stephen Henderson before him or even Colin Doyle.

I'd have Talbot at Bohs ahead of any of those over the hill bench warmers.

pgj2015

sugarman wrote: »

...and Shay Given has played nearly 500 mostly in the Premier League and has played well for Ireland and Id have just as much faith in him as Elliot given neither have played a game since 2017.

Its off the wall to even suggest Elliot.

Id have Stephen Henderson before him or even Colin Doyle.

Shay Given is 43 and retired, rob elliot is 33 and still training, still at a premier league club.

look at ciaran clark who had only played 1 or 2 games in 2019, didnt stop him playing well in his last 2 games in the premier league.

pgj2015

sugarman wrote: »

Apples and Oranges, Clark has still been consistently involved in the first team when fit and has had a full preseason with the club. Training week in/out.

Elliot has been training with the kids for the better part of 2 years! Hes 4th or 5th choice at the club and is all too happy to sit there collecting his pay cheque. If he had any ambition he'd have moved on to play football elsewhere.

I agree with this part.

yabadabado

smelly sock wrote: »

Anyway Mick has nailed his colours to the mast here. He won't consider Long and some others due to a lack of football so he has to be consistent.

He can't pick Westwood or Travers because they haven't played football. So it would have to be a league 1 keeper in O'hara. Even though Westwood is the best option if Randolph doesn't recover.

Mick can pick anyone he likes.Just because Long wasnt involved doesnt mean he won't pick other players who are getting regular games.If Randolph is out I see no reason why Westwood won't be 1st choice.

Mick was obviously happy with his other attacking options to leave Long out.

Brock Turnpike

I reckon there something personal between Mick and Long.

NewMan1982

Id play who ever is the best of travers or Ohara. Why give the uncommitted Westwood a game.

Brock Turnpike

NewMan1982 wrote: »

Id play who ever is the best of travers or Ohara. Why give the uncommitted Westwood a game.

Uncommitted? Where's that coming from?

NewMan1982

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Uncommitted? Where's that coming from?

He’s been injured more times than available for Ireland duty. He also opted out of the last squad too.

smelly sock

yabadabado wrote: »

Mick can pick anyone he likes.Just because Long wasnt involved doesnt mean he won't pick other players who are getting regular games.If Randolph is out I see no reason why Westwood won't be 1st choice.

Mick was obviously happy with his other attacking options to leave Long out.

And mick was wrong.

yabadabado

smelly sock wrote: »

And mick was wrong.

His choice. Hindsight is great .

johnnyryan89

smelly sock wrote: »

And mick was wrong.

Do explain? It's not like Mick chose to bring an extra midfielder or defender instead of a striker. He brought three or four strikers in his last squad for a team that plays one up top and McGoldrick was also brought incase he was fit in time. So how's he wrong for not selecting a certain player and choosing other average players over the average Shane Long?

And don't use the whole 'he puts in a shift and gives a 110%', because whenever anyone gives out about James McClean and someone comes back with that answer they get ridiculed for it.

fullstop

smelly sock wrote: »

And some of the other players he refuses to pick have been playing also.

Maybe it's Mick making things up.

Like Shane Long? Who has started what, one league game this season?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

I reckon there something personal between Mick and Long.

There must be something up to explain his omission from the Irish squad. He's a big step up from Collins who started against Georgia (no offence to Collins).

Long would be starting for any Championship team comfortably. He just happens to be down the pecking order from Danny Ings (who is better than any player we have in the team).

Long is the only current Irish player who has actually scored goals for us. To overlook him is wrong imo.

Corholio

Long is only better until that player is tried out a bit though and ends up not good enough, 3 weeks ago nobody would have said Connolly should be in the squad ahead of Long, now I doubt there's many who wouldn't have him ahead of Long. Long has hardly got a kick in a struggling PL team, Collins has been playing games, scoring a few goals and he also fits Mick's type of striker a lot better. Long has been pretty poor in his last number of Ireland games as well. Collins might not end up good enough at all of course either but deserves to be tried out imo.

johnnyryan89

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

There must be something up to explain his omission from the Irish squad. He's a big step up from Collins who started against Georgia (no offence to Collins).

Long would be starting for any Championship team comfortably. He just happens to be down the pecking order from Danny Ings (who is better than any player we have in the team).

Long is the only current Irish player who has actually scored goals for us. To overlook him is wrong imo.

I'm sure we'll probably find that out soon enough when his contract expires and he moves to a championship team. Can't see the clamour for Shane Long when the main thing he offers is the same as James McClean but yet people criticise the shît out of him for being nothing but a workhorse.

pgj2015

At 32 coming 33 in january a move back home might be his best option or maybe to scotland.

smelly sock

Shane long is a better footballer than both James Collins and Scott Hogan

smelly sock

Corholio wrote: »

Long is only better until that player is tried out a bit though and ends up not good enough, 3 weeks ago nobody would have said Connolly should be in the squad ahead of Long, now I doubt there's many who wouldn't have him ahead of Long. Long has hardly got a kick in a struggling PL team, Collins has been playing games, scoring a few goals and he also fits Mick's type of striker a lot better. Long has been pretty poor in his last number of Ireland games as well. Collins might not end up good enough at all of course either but deserves to be tried out imo.

Collins has been tried in two crucial games and he was utter muck. We cant keep giving him a chance. He is not good enough

pgj2015

sugarman wrote: »

So was Connolly ...but it wasn't because he was muck or not good enough, it was because he wasn't given the service from headlines chickens like McClean.

McClean who Long is almost a carbon copy of... All legs, energy, passion.. but absolutely ****ing useless when it's comes to actually playing football.

have you forgotten about his goal v the germans? hes no where near as bad as mcclean.

smelly sock

sugarman wrote: »

So was Connolly ...but it wasn't because he was muck or not good enough, it was because he wasn't given the service from headlines chickens like McClean.

McClean who Long is almost a carbon copy of... All legs, energy, passion.. but absolutely ****ing useless when it's comes to actually playing football.

Collins isnt up to the level regardless.

We are very quick to criticise Hendrick and hourihane but to be fair to them the ball just flies over the midifeld.

Long is a better option than Collins and Hogan. He puts defenders under pressure when they are running toward their own goal. He can conjure up chances out of nothing and also holds the ball up well even though most of hoofs have no direction or target whatsoever. Collins didnt do any of this.

To be fair to Connolly he was very good against the Georgians. Got on the end of a few hit and hopes and got in behind the defence to get a few shots off. Again something Connolly and Hogan cant do and havent done.

To say Collins and Hogan are better options than player still regularly getting in PL match day squad and with a proven track record of playing well in a hoof ball team is fanciful.

smelly sock

McClean has gone to the dogs.

But he wasnt always so poor. To be fair to the guy he was a big reason with got to the euros in 2016.

He doesnt have a place in out starting 11 anymore though.

Corholio

smelly sock wrote: »

Collins has been tried in two crucial games and he was utter muck. We cant keep giving him a chance. He is not good enough

I don't entirely disgaree with that about Collins, and indeed Hogan too, but the things you listed Long can do are thing he used to do and hasn't done in quite a while, if he was he'd be getting decent gametime. Just being in a PL matchday squad is a sad indictment of how players should be picked. Players will be picked on things they did 3 or 4 years ago rather than trying out players who are playing regular football. Some won't go anywhere, some will but it's the right way to go about things. Long should force a move in January to the Championship etc and wouldn't have any qualms about him being picked if he was playing and scoring a few there.

johnnyryan89

pgj2015 wrote: »

have you forgotten about his goal v the germans? hes no where near as bad as mcclean.

Have you forgotten about his goals in Austria and Wales?

johnnyryan89

smelly sock wrote: »

Collins has been tried in two crucial games and he was utter muck. We cant keep giving him a chance. He is not good enough

Might as well pack up the international team and never play again, how many games has Brady, Long, McClean, Hendrick, McCarthy and others been muck in. Why should we give any of our players another chance when they've played poor in God knows how many matches.

smelly sock

sugarman wrote: »

No, because he still seems to be living off its reputation over 4 years later despite having done nothing since.

He's gone every bit as downhill as McClean, Brady and Hendrick has in that time.. and people are either blind or ignorant to not acknowledge these players aren't up to it anymore.

Not dismissing what you are saying but regardless of that Long is still a better option than collins or hogan. I just cant see an argument for having them over him.

Ferris_Bueller

I think the assessments on Shane Long are harsh. He has been a premier league level player for almost ten years, sure he is in the wain but I definitely think he would offer more than Scott Hogan. If we are going to be playing hoof ball and hoping for the best then Long is arguably the best option for that (depressingly enough).

I understood why he was dropped due to a lack of game time but when you see Hogan in the squad who cant even get a game at the bottom of the Championship youd have to say Long is a better option.

Striking options in order for me would be: McGoldrick, Connolly, Long, Maguire, Collins, Hogan

smelly sock

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Do explain? It's not like Mick chose to bring an extra midfielder or defender instead of a striker. He brought three or four strikers in his last squad for a team that plays one up top and McGoldrick was also brought incase he was fit in time. So how's he wrong for not selecting a certain player and choosing other average players over the average Shane Long?

And don't use the whole 'he puts in a shift and gives a 110%', because whenever anyone gives out about James McClean and someone comes back with that answer they get ridiculed for it.

Shane Long has proven over the years that he fits into our hoof ball style of play. He leads the line with effect and can hold onto a ball and draw frees. That part of his game really hasnt gotten worse. Again i feel that Long should have been in the squad over either Hogan or Collins based on what we know he can do. These were two crucial games and Mick banked on Collins delivering the goods amd that gambles back fired. He could hold up the dirty ball coming his way, didnt draw fouls and really apply pressure chasing lost causes. Thats what we need with a lack of a midfield. And long gives all of those things.