England v Iceland

KdjaCL

Fook we never gonna hear the end of that , god iceland were bad.

Odds on to win it now in UK bookies:/

6-1 btw.
kdjac

mike65

Too many ssons and not enough footballers it seems.

Mike.

Shaque attack

Tommorow's Sun headline: Bring On The French england can now take on anyone :rolleyes: can wait to see what actually happens to them when they play their first game

Big Ears

Suns Headline 8 days from now : Beckham off as England lose 4-0 to French .

mike65

Ha! You hope!

Mike.

bizmark

Better hope not england is around the same level (maybe worse) as ireland if france hammers them they will hammer ireland

therecklessone

Originally posted by bizmark
Better hope not england is around the same level (maybe worse) as ireland if france hammers them they will hammer ireland

Are you even thinking of suggesting England are worse than Ireland? :rolleyes:

Lets get real for a minute folks, and leave the inferiority complexes at the door for a while. My prediction is England to finish second to France in their group, then exit to Portugal in QF. The will not lose any match 4-0, regardless of the opposition (unless, that is, they continue to concede soft goals from set pieces).

On a related topic, was Rooney's 2nd goal today helped by a slight deflection? In all the crowing by the commentators they didn't seem willing to acknowledge it, but I think it did. Any thoughts?

Big Ears

that 4-0 thing was a joke , anyway . Rooney's goal had a slight deflection , but most of the movement of the ball was actually cause he sliced it .

I saw the goal a couple of times and I realy focused on the way he struck it , and it was definetly because of him slicing it and not so much the defender deflecting it .

eirebhoy

Originally posted by therecklessone
Are you even thinking of suggesting England are worse than Ireland? :rolleyes:

I really believe Ireland are a better team than England. England have a load of world class players on paper but so do Holland (I'm not mentioning Holland because we beat them, just because they're shít). Very few England players can reproduce their club form on the international stage (Scoles, Cole, Neville and Beckham spring to mind). Although, 6-1 against Iceland isn't an easy task.:)

Pigman II

Originally posted by Shaque attack
Tommorow's Sun headline: Bring On The French

(Seeing as Rooney got 2 )

Tommorow's Sun headline: 'Scum's gone thru Iceland.'

therecklessone

Originally posted by eirebhoy
Very few England players can reproduce their club form on the international stage

Same can be said about a few of our players...Carr? Holland?

Try comparing the following two XIs

England:

James
Neville
Terry
Campbell
Cole (personally I'd have Bridge in there)
Beckham
Lampard
Gerrard
Scholes
Rooney
Owen

Ireland:

Given
Finnan (will Carr play for us under Kerr?)
Cunningham
O'Brien
Harte/Maybury
Andy Reid
Roy Keane
Miller (Kerr would probably pick Holland)
Duff
Robbie Keane
Morrison

Fairly academic because it is a paper exercise, but of those only Given, Finnan and Duff would *definitley* be better than their opposing number. Roy Keane vs Gerrard? Tough call that. And Robbie Keane with a bit of decent coaching might hold his own against either Rooney or Owen. Cunningham is unfortunate that he's up against Terry/Campbell, if it was King or Southgate he'd win hands down.

All in all I'd say we'd give them a good run for their money, but based on tactics rather than skill/talent. England are the better side.

The Brigadier

Originally posted by eirebhoy
I really believe Ireland are a better team than England. England have a load of world class players on paper but so do Holland (I'm not mentioning Holland because we beat them, just because they're shít). Very few England players can reproduce their club form on the international stage (Scoles, Cole, Neville and Beckham spring to mind). Although, 6-1 against Iceland isn't an easy task.:)

England got further than Ireland in the last world cup....Ireland failed to qualify for this competition.

England ARE a better team, no matter what you might think.

At the end of the day though it is another meaningless friendly. I have been reading the papers this morning and there is not the imagined "England World Beaters" headlines that some of you were expecting.

What we have are some balanced stories about a good win for England, but still a puzzle as to how to play the midfield quartet.

All that really matters 6-1 wins aside is how we fare in the tournament itself.

therecklessone

Originally posted by The Brigadier
England got further than Ireland in the last world cup....

And South Korea got further than both...;)

The Brigadier

And in the last 10 years Irelands Qualification record is :

Euro 96 - DNQ
WC 98 - DNQ
Euro 00 - DNQ
WC 02 - Last 16
Euro 04 - DNQ

Sure....Ireland are better than England....oh and Brazil and France while you are at it...:rolleyes:

Pigman II

Try comparing the following two XIs

In football terms, this is definetly a problem we Irish have as a nation. Comparing ourselves to the 'Auld Enemy'. It is a problem not because we should accept we are inferior, but more so a problem because England is not a team we should be trying to emulate/match as they venture bravely down their long-and-winding-road to mediocrity.

England are currently a VERY AVERAGE side who (if they play their best) might make it to the last eight this summer. We shouldn't be comparing ourselves to them because it's like setting the bar at about 6 inches off the ground.

People call me negative because I took the 'Irish Attitude' v France. I was being realistic there just as I'm being realistic in saying that if we'd been paired with England for 2006 then I'd have been the first to get the drinks in.

No disrepect to England and their fans but I don't think they've had a truly top quality side since the end of the Bobby Robson era (and no - your 2 wins out of 5 home games in Euro 96 doesn't count).

England got further than Ireland in the last world cup

And the fact that we had to play Spain (with their 3 wins outta 3) whereas you only drew Denmark had nothing to do with it?

....Ireland failed to qualify for this competition.

Any of the national sides representing top 5 Europeans leagues (Spain/Italy/England/Germany/France) will nearly always 'qualify' because unlike a smaller country like Ireland they'll always have enough players of sufficent quality available to put out a decent side in any match.
It's no great achievement for you IMHO and TBH I'm surprised when any of you fail in this task.

Big Ears

well we've got a valid excuse for not qualiying this time :changing manager , but we realy should have qualified for Euro 2000 , and when I think about it our World cup 98 Qualifing group was crap . We wouldnt have gotten far in that World cup with our team though . PLayoff in 96 well hmmmm .

eirebhoy

The last qualifying campaign was probably the first time we were top seeds in any group, can anyone confirm this? England are always a seed higher than us in every qualifying campaign so it is obvious they will have a better qualifying record. I mean, look at England's group for the WCQ's, Wales, N.Ireland, Poland, Austria and Azerbaijan. We have France and Switzerland.

Same can be said about a few of our players...Carr? Holland?

Try comparing the following two XIs

As I said, they are very good on paper. Some of their players don't give it there all for England but thats not the only reason I think we'd beat them. They just can't play together as a team. It doesn't matter how many Irish players would get into the England team. If you want to compare them individually I'll do so.

Most English people would admit that Given is better than James.

Cole is better for England than O'Shea is for Ireland but that isn't saying much.

Neville wouldn't get ahead of Carr and Finnan for a starting place.

Cunningham probably isn't as good as Terry or Campbell but he's certainly more consistant and puts in better performances then both of them. I don't think any English player would push Cunningham out of the Irish team on current form.

Every centre half in the first choice England (which includes Woodgate, Southgate and Rio) would get ahead of O'Brien. But, the O'Brien-Cunningham partnership hasn't conceded a goal so they seem like the perfect partnership. Thats what I mean about the English, they rarely get a partnership that brings the best out of both players. Ireland have 10 clean sheets in the 18 matches since Kerr took over, England have 4.

The midfield would be built around Duff.

I would say Gerrard is the best central midielder in the premiership but Keane is just as good on the international stage.

Scholes would take over from whoever would partner Keane but again, he's only half the player he is for United.

Beckham would start. What does he do other than cross and take set pieces though? He trys to tackle but usually gets a card for it.

Neither Owen or Rooney would push Keane out of the Irish team. Keane has 20 goals for Ireland in 52 appearances, Owen has 25 in 56 appearances. Keane is also 8 months younger and works a lot harder than Owen.

Morrison would be straight out.

So, you asked how Irish players would get into the English team, not many. How many English player would get into the Irish team, 5. Those 5 players wouldn't necessarily make the team better though. Maybe two of the players would make it better, Owen and Cole and thats because O'Shea and Morrison are both crap for Ireland.

therecklessone

Originally posted by eirebhoy



As I said, they are very good on paper. Some of their players don't give it there all for England but thats not the only reason I think we'd beat them. They just can't play together as a team. It doesn't matter how many Irish players would get into the England team. If you want to compare them individually I'll do so.

I suppose we'll have to agree to differ eirebhoy, but I will say that without Roy Keane in our side the English midfield would wipe the floor with ours, Duff or no Duff. And thats a vital difference as fair as I'm concerned.

England are hampered by Sven "I'm a master tactician" Goran Eriksson much more than by a lack of talent, especially in the middle of the park. If SGE had bothered to find an option on the left of midfield and played a 4-4-2 formation for the last year I reckon Owen and Rooney would be having a field day right now. Instead he's tinkered with a diamond formation and four/five players who all want to play infield, so he's relying on Neville and Cole as his wide options. T'is madness I tells ya!

eirebhoy

Originally posted by therecklessone
I suppose we'll have to agree to differ eirebhoy, but I will say that without Roy Keane in our side the English midfield would wipe the floor with ours, Duff or no Duff. And thats a vital difference as fair as I'm concerned.

They said the same about Holland. Holland put out their first team and Seedorf, van der Meyde, Robben, Zenden, Bosvelt and Overmars couldn't even make the starting 11. All 4 of last nights Irish midfielders could be dropped for the Cyprus game as we have Keane, Duff, Kilbane and Miller to come back.

Jivin Turkey

Originally posted by eirebhoy
The last qualifying campaign was probably the first time we were top seeds in any group, can anyone confirm this? England are always a seed higher than us in every qualifying campaign so it is obvious they will have a better qualifying record. I mean, look at England's group for the WCQ's, Wales, N.Ireland, Poland, Austria and Azerbaijan. We have France and Switzerland.


As I said, they are very good on paper. Some of their players don't give it there all for England but thats not the only reason I think we'd beat them. They just can't play together as a team. It doesn't matter how many Irish players would get into the England team. If you want to compare them individually I'll do so.

Most English people would admit that Given is better than James.

Cole is better for England than O'Shea is for Ireland but that isn't saying much.

Neville wouldn't get ahead of Carr and Finnan for a starting place.

Cunningham probably isn't as good as Terry or Campbell but he's certainly more consistant and puts in better performances then both of them. I don't think any English player would push Cunningham out of the Irish team on current form.

Every centre half in the first choice England (which includes Woodgate, Southgate and Rio) would get ahead of O'Brien. But, the O'Brien-Cunningham partnership hasn't conceded a goal so they seem like the perfect partnership. Thats what I mean about the English, they rarely get a partnership that brings the best out of both players. Ireland have 10 clean sheets in the 18 matches since Kerr took over, England have 4.

The midfield would be built around Duff.

I would say Gerrard is the best central midielder in the premiership but Keane is just as good on the international stage.

Scholes would take over from whoever would partner Keane but again, he's only half the player he is for United.

Beckham would start. What does he do other than cross and take set pieces though? He trys to tackle but usually gets a card for it.

Neither Owen or Rooney would push Keane out of the Irish team. Keane has 20 goals for Ireland in 52 appearances, Owen has 25 in 56 appearances. Keane is also 8 months younger and works a lot harder than Owen.

Morrison would be straight out.

So, you asked how Irish players would get into the English team, not many. How many English player would get into the Irish team, 5. Those 5 players wouldn't necessarily make the team better though. Maybe two of the players would make it better, Owen and Cole and thats because O'Shea and Morrison are both crap for Ireland.

Im all for supporting and big upping ireland but sometimes your opinion on how good we are is way off the mark.

First of all England may get easy groups because they are top seeds. But then the question has to be asked. Why are they top seeds? Hmmmmm........

Cunningham is not more consistent than Terry or Campbell, and both would push him out of the Ireland team. England may not have kept many clean sheets but their attitude to friendlys would explain that. They way they chop and change it is impossibile to keep the continuity and hence they are bound to leek a few goals. Bear in mind that they kept clean sheets home and away to turkey in the qualifiers. To claim Ireland have a better partnership than England after 3 games together is idiotic.

Scholes may not be the same player he is for United but he would still piss all over Holland/Miller/Reid in the international stage. Just because he hasnt scored in a while doesnt mean he still isnt contributing to the team. And his goal scoring record for England isnt far off Robbie Keanes (58/13) and bear in mind he is a midfielder.

As regrds Beckham? Do you ever watch England games, he plays amazing for them, and many a time has got them through games.

Owen is better than Robbie Keane, and to suggest Robbie works harder is again idiotic. Robbie can be extremely lazy at times, and has no desire to link up with Clinton Morrison, he feels he has his place in the irish team by right (and he probably does), but it is very evident from his performances sometimes.

I reckon 8 not 5 players would get into the Ireland team. The only remaining Irish would be Given, Roy Keane, and Duff. In all honesty Finnan or Carr never set the international scene alight so I would have Gary Neville ahead of them. Roy Keane and Duff are exactly what England are missing, a solid holding player and a left winger.

I think alot of people are underestimating England, even if they do come second in their group they are well capable of beating Portugal, people are forgetting they drew with them away from home not too long ago.

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
First of all England may get easy groups because they are top seeds. But then the question has to be asked. Why are they top seeds? Hmmmmm........

Because they have been a top team since the 1800's, we have only started to become a decent team since big Jack took over.

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
Cunningham is not more consistent than Terry or Campbell, and both would push him out of the Ireland team. England may not have kept many clean sheets but their attitude to friendlys would explain that. They way they chop and change it is impossibile to keep the continuity and hence they are bound to leek a few goals. Bear in mind that they kept clean sheets home and away to turkey in the qualifiers. To claim Ireland have a better partnership than England after 3 games together is idiotic.

I couldn't give a crap how good Terry or Campbell are, replacing either of them with Cunningham wouldn't strengthen the team in the least.

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
Scholes may not be the same player he is for United but he would still piss all over Holland/Miller/Reid in the international stage. Just because he hasnt scored in a while doesnt mean he still isnt contributing to the team. And his goal scoring record for England isnt far off Robbie Keanes (58/13) and bear in mind he is a midfielder.

He hasn't scored in a while? He hasn't scored in nearly 3 years. Reid would probably be the best player to compare with Scholes. We all know how good Scholes is but I am honestly not being biased when I say that replacing him with Reid wouldn't strengthen our team. Reid works his arse off and has a couple of assists in his few games for Ireland. We can't compare both players by their individual attributes but by their performances for their country in the last 6 months - a year.

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
As regrds Beckham? Do you ever watch England games, he plays amazing for them, and many a time has got them through games.

I won't comment on Beckham.

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
Owen is better than Robbie Keane, and to suggest Robbie works harder is again idiotic. Robbie can be extremely lazy at times, and has no desire to link up with Clinton Morrison, he feels he has his place in the irish team by right (and he probably does), but it is very evident from his performances sometimes.

This is something that every Spurs fan would disagree with. I've never seen Robbie have a lazy day for Ireland TBH. He may have an off day but never lazy. I am 100% sure that replacing Owen with Keane wouldn't strengthen the team.

Jivin Turkey

Originally posted by eirebhoy
Because they have been a top team since the 1800's, we have only started to become a decent team since big Jack took over.

Incorrect, the seedings are based on performances in qualifiers and competitive tournaments over the last 10 years. Enlgand are top seed because they have been succesful in qualifying for tournaments in the last 10 years. We are third seeds because we have not.

Originally posted by eirebhoy
I couldn't give a crap how good Terry or Campbell are, replacing either of them with Cunningham wouldn't strengthen the team in the least.

Yes it would, Terry and Campbell have everything Cunningham have. Except they both have better pace, and more experience at playing at the highest level (Champions League).

Originally posted by eirebhoy
He hasn't scored in a while? He hasn't scored in nearly 3 years. Reid would probably be the best player to compare with Scholes. We all know how good Scholes is but I am honestly not being biased when I say that replacing him with Reid wouldn't strengthen our team. Reid works his arse off and has a couple of assists in his few games for Ireland. We can't compare both players by their individual attributes but by their performances for their country in the last 6 months - a year.

Scholes provides so much more than just goals. He works his arse of and is an amzing passer of the ball. Some people are getting seriously carried away with Andy Reid. He hasnt really done that much at all. He is yet to score in 7 games. He probably wouldnt be in my starting XI. To say that Scholes coming in for Reid wouldnt improve the team is absolutely idiotic. Think of the presence Scholes brings to the pitch before he even kicks a ball.

Originally posted by eirebhoy
I won't comment on Beckham.

Please dont if its going to be as far fetched as Scholes for Reid wouldnt be an improvement. Beckham brings so much to a team, even if its just his set pieces. But its not, its passing, presence, work rate, need I go on?

Originally posted by eirebhoy
This is something that every Spurs fan would disagree with. I've never seen Robbie have a lazy day for Ireland TBH. He may have an off day but never lazy. I am 100% sure that replacing Owen with Keane wouldn't strengthen the team.

Keane is very lazy at times for Ireland. Owen would at least attempt to link up with Morrison. Keane has no interest in that. Do you really think that Owen for Keane wouldnt be an improvement? I hope not.

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
Incorrect, the seedings are based on performances in qualifiers and competitive tournaments over the last 10 years. Enlgand are top seed because they have been succesful in qualifying for tournaments in the last 10 years. We are third seeds because we have not.

England have had a great team since the 1800's therefore were never a 4th or 5th seed team. Ireland have had to work their way up the hard way.

Beckham brings so much to a team, even if its just his set pieces. But its not, its passing, presence, work rate, need I go on?

Please do.

Keane is very lazy at times for Ireland. Owen would at least attempt to link up with Morrison. Keane has no interest in that. Do you really think that Owen for Keane wouldnt be an improvement?

No. Keane's record before Kerr came in was 14 goals in 40 appearances, since Kerr came in he has scored 6 in 12 which is a goal in every other game. You could say all you want about Heskey but every decent forward in the world would score a lot more goals playing with him rather than Morrison. I don't understand what you mean when you say he's not bothered to link up with Morrison. What evidence do you have?

Jivin Turkey

Originally posted by eirebhoy
England have had a great team since the 1800's therefore were never a 4th or 5th seed team. Ireland have had to work their way up the hard way.

That has nothing to do with it. The seedings are decided on the last 3 championships (I think) qualification results. Englands are far better than ours, because they are a better team.

Originally posted by eirebhoy
Please do.

He brings probably the best crossing in world football. One of the best free kick takers in world football. One of the best passers in world football. Someone who will always give his all for his team, not to mention his country. The sheer presence of a man who has won the champions league and lines out week in week out for the best team (on paper) in the world. The media frenzy behind him willing the team on.
An unquestionable work rate. A man who wouldnt be intimidated by anyone or any ground. And a little bit more than we could offer on the right side of midfield.

Originally posted by eirebhoy
No. Keane's record before Kerr came in was 14 goals in 40 appearances, since Kerr came in he has scored 6 in 12 which is a goal in every other game. You could say all you want about Heskey but every decent forward in the world would score a lot more goals playing with him rather than Morrison. I don't understand what you mean when you say he's not bothered to link up with Morrison. What evidence do you have?

Keane hardly passes to Morrison. You were saying yourself (I think) that against Romania Morrison was winning loads of headers but Keane didnt seemed bothered to get on the end of them. And its true. Look back at the footage last night, how many times would Keane lay it off to Morrison, hardly any. He would rather run down a blind alley. Keane is a man for the big occasion. Owen will do it be the opposition Belarus or Brazil. There aint much between Heskey and Morrison to be honest. Owens record for England is hardly down to Heskey. You dont win European footballer of the year and not be a good player.

Guy:Incognito

We all know the reasons why we're not as good as England so throwing things like "we're never seeded as high" or "our league isnt as good" is irrelevant, the point is they are a better team, end of. We can never realistically hope to have more than a handfull of world class players at a time, which for a small country is pretty good. There is a lot of countries our size that are a long way off our standard, and thats just the way it is.

On a slightly different point.
The whole "anti-english team everytime they play" thing is a bit done to death at this stage. Every week we follow these same players playing for clubs we support. So why when these players play for their national team does everyone attack them and hope they lose? A lot of people will go as far as to cheer on their opposition, when they are a team whose league they have absoutely no interest in but suddenly become a fan because they are playing england.

Guy:Incognito

on the Robbie Keane issue, does anyone have stats on his goals, as in how many are in friendlies Vs in competitive games?

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
That has nothing to do with it. The seedings are decided on the last 3 championships (I think) qualification results. Englands are far better than ours, because they are a better team.

You don't seem to get where I'm coming from. England have always been in the top 2 seeds. They will never drop below that unless they come an average of 3rd in every group for 10 years. That is unlikely to happen because there is rarely more than one decent team (excluding themselves) in their group.
Ireland started off as more or less bottom seeds so they had to play top opposition in every group and the only way they can become top seeds is by coming 1st in nearly every group for 10 years. That again is unlikely to happen (it would also be unlikely that England would do so) because there will always be a team of the calabre of France, Spain, Italy plus another team like Russia, Switzerland, Poland. England literally got a headstart because of their history.

I'm not going to continue the debate of who's better because I'll never win on this board. Most people who post on the soccer board support an English team. You may notice that the people who support club over country (judging by my last pole there's an awful lot) don't rate our team as highly as those who's interest lie virtually solely with the Irish team and players. I take an extreme interest in the Irish team, I'd visit soccercentral, elevenaside and the Fai every day, I have a record of all the main stats since Kerr took over. Most members of foot.ie are the same and they would be equally as optimistic as myself.

Harry2001

Originally posted by Stekelly
On a slightly different point.
The whole "anti-english team everytime they play" thing is a bit done to death at this stage. Every week we follow these same players playing for clubs we support. So why when these players play for their national team does everyone attack them and hope they lose? A lot of people will go as far as to cheer on their opposition, when they are a team whose league they have absoutely no interest in but suddenly become a fan because they are playing england.

Yeah I never understand it either

The Irish players are trained and educated and made the players they are by English teams and lets not forget the amount of English born players that have pulled on the Irish jersey

I have said before that England have the better team but Ireland could play England 10 times over the next 10 weeks and the results would be even, it would just be like a Premiership game

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Stekelly
on the Robbie Keane issue, does anyone have stats on his goals, as in how many are in friendlies Vs in competitive games?

He has 11 goals in competition and 9 in friendlies. You have to remember though, he started at the age of 17 so I can see this WCQ campaign being his best.

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Harry2001
I have said before that England have the better team but Ireland could play England 10 times over the next 10 weeks and the results would be even, it would just be like a Premiership game

That is definitely true. I was probably going a bit OTT saying we are better than England but I think we'd come ahead of them in a group. Maybe the teams they play get a bit overawed by the presence of Beckham and co.

I mentioned this a couple of months back. Over the last 2 seasons or so there has been a few on fieild scruffles between two English players. Danny Mills probably had one or two, Francis Jeffers, Gary Neville, Ashley Cole. This just wouldn't happen with two Irish players with the exception of Roy. I could imagine Wayne Rooney and Ashley Cole going at it at club level, I certainly couldn't imagine John O'Shea and Robbie Keane doing so. We have such a small selection of players that they're close together and most of them are friends. This can only be a good thing.

Jivin Turkey

Originally posted by eirebhoy
You don't seem to get where I'm coming from. England have always been in the top 2 seeds. They will never drop below that unless they come an average of 3rd in every group for 10 years. That is unlikely to happen because there is rarely more than one decent team (excluding themselves) in their group.
Ireland started off as more or less bottom seeds so they had to play top opposition in every group and the only way they can become top seeds is by coming 1st in nearly every group for 10 years. That again is unlikely to happen (it would also be unlikely that England would do so) because there will always be a team of the calabre of France, Spain, Italy plus another team like Russia, Switzerland, Poland. England literally got a headstart because of their history.

Ok the seedings are based on recent qualifying form. Recent qualifying form would suggest that England are far better than Ireland. They deserve their place as 1st seeds. Remember they had to earn that back after a disastrous 1994 campaign. They are there by right. Ireland on the other hand have cocked up many a chance to get into the top tier. Most notably not qualifying from a group with Lithuania, Macedonia, Iceland, and Lichenstein. Hence England are obviously better, and have been for some time.

Originally posted by eirebhoy
I'm not going to continue the debate of who's better because I'll never win on this board. Most people who post on the soccer board support an English team. You may notice that the people who support club over country (judging by my last pole there's an awful lot) don't rate our team as highly as those who's interest lie virtually solely with the Irish team and players. I take an extreme interest in the Irish team, I'd visit soccercentral, elevenaside and the Fai every day, I have a record of all the main stats since Kerr took over. Most members of foot.ie are the same and they would be equally as optimistic as myself.

You will never win because you are wrong. The facts dont lie. England are a better team on paper and in reality. I support an English team but that has nothing to do with it. Congratulations you dont support an English team. And you definately deserve a medal for visiting all the above mentioned sites.

I still take an extreme interest in the Irish team and go to as many games as possible. I dont rate them as highly as you because I am able to see the facts and reality. We are not in the same league as England, yes we could match them in a one off game, but they are still a better team.

You claimed that Paul Scholes coming in for Andy Reid would not improve the team. This is one of the most stupid statements I have seen on this board.

Pigman II

The last qualifying campaign was probably the first time we were top seeds in any group, can anyone confirm this? England are always a seed higher than us in every qualifying campaign so it is obvious they will have a better qualifying record. I mean, look at England's group for the WCQ's, Wales, N.Ireland, Poland, Austria and Azerbaijan. We have France and Switzerland.

England's Wc2002 qual group featured Germany, their Wc98 group featured Italy. so this idea that they always get plum draws by the perpetual motion of their status is self-defeating.

Incorrect, the seedings are based on performances in qualifiers and competitive tournaments over the last 10 years. Enlgand are top seed because they have been succesful in qualifying for tournaments in the last 10 years. We are third seeds because we have not.

Seeding isn't even based on ten years results anymore, just four years. Your seeding is based on your success percentage in the previous two qualifying groups (playoffs don't count). Ireland had a record of 12-4-2 (78%) and it scraped us a 1st seed at the Euro2004 qualfiers. A lot of good it did us .

England have had a great team since the 1800's therefore were never a 4th or 5th seed team. Ireland have had to work their way up the hard way.

Working their way up has nothing to do with it. Seeding is almost completly irrelvant IMHO compared to quality. Consider that Ireland were 4th seeds for our Euro88 qual group and we came first. Comparibly we were 1st seed for our Euro2004 group and came 3rd. Remember all teams start on '0' points before a ball is kicked.

No. Keane's record before Kerr came in was 14 goals in 40 appearances, since Kerr came in he has scored 6 in 12 which is a goal in every other game. You could say all you want about Heskey but every decent forward in the world would score a lot more goals playing with him rather than Morrison. I don't understand what you mean when you say he's not bothered to link up with Morrison. What evidence do you have?

That's just massaging of statistics. Consider that Robbie had a record of 7 goals in his first 25 which by your stat means he got 7 in his last 15 for McCarthy - which (unless you feel like splitting hairs) is as good as he's done under Kerr.

on the Robbie Keane issue, does anyone have stats on his goals, as in how many are in friendlies Vs in competitive games

2000q - 5 goals
2002q - 2 goals
2002f - 3 goals
2004q - 2 goals
================
total = 12 => 8 in friendlies

You don't seem to get where I'm coming from. England have always been in the top 2 seeds. They will never drop below that unless they come an average of 3rd in every group for 10 years. That is unlikely to happen because there is rarely more than one decent team (excluding themselves) in their group.
Ireland started off as more or less bottom seeds so they had to play top opposition in every group and the only way they can become top seeds is by coming 1st in nearly every group for 10 years. That again is unlikely to happen (it would also be unlikely that England would do so) because there will always be a team of the calabre of France, Spain, Italy plus another team like Russia, Switzerland, Poland. England literally got a headstart because of their history.

By that logic Scotland & Wales should be getting a similar leg up every qualifying draw too? Alternatively Holland would be struggling between 3rd and 4th seeds every year because they barely kicked a ball in anger until the 1970's?

IMHO, history has nothing to do with it. The reason England will never drop below 2nd seeds is because they'll never accumulate results bad enough to warrent it. Simple as that, and that's irregardless of whoever they draw.

Also the fact that Ireland have at least once reached 1st seed status shows that seeding is not some vicious circle that only the best teams can enjoy due to their tradition and keep because they are perpetually dropped into easy groups against weak opposition..

Jivin Turkey

Originally posted by eirebhoy

I mentioned this a couple of months back. Over the last 2 seasons or so there has been a few on fieild scruffles between two English players. Danny Mills probably had one or two, Francis Jeffers, Gary Neville, Ashley Cole. This just wouldn't happen with two Irish players with the exception of Roy. I could imagine Wayne Rooney and Ashley Cole going at it at club level, I certainly couldn't imagine John O'Shea and Robbie Keane doing so. We have such a small selection of players that they're close together and most of them are friends. This can only be a good thing.

Ok only 2 of those players you mentioned are in the current England squad. And they may have had spats at club level but they play for arch rivals, it was in the name of the championship, nothing personal. There is a thing called professionalism that they both are. Both players are experienced enough to leave their differences (well your alleged differences) at the door. And you could imagine Rooney and Cole going at it at club level. Well if you imagine it then it must be true.

Big Ears

Question for ya Mr. Jivin Turkey , do u think England have a good / realistic chance of winning Euro 2004 ?

Jivin Turkey

Yes I think they have a chance, but I think their chances are fairly reflected in their odds in the bookies (8/1) 5th favourites, marginally behind Spain and Portugal (7/1) and then clearly adrift of Italy (5/1) and France (3/1). Their midfield quartet could match any in the world, if only they stopped worrying how to play them.

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Pigman II
England's Wc2002 qual group featured Germany, their Wc98 group featured Italy. so this idea that they always get plum draws by the perpetual motion of their status is self-defeating.

I didn't say they get plum draws but they are usually a seed above us with the exception of the last qualifiers which should be forgot about ASAP.

WC2002 Q's - we had Holland and Portugal in our group and we got 24 points. England had Germany and got 17 points but played two games less, even then if they won those two game they would have only got 23 points. So we qualified from a better group with more points.

EU2000 Q's - We had Yugoslavia and Croatia and got 16 points. England had Sweden and Poland and got 13 points. They only won 3 matches (Poland once and Luxembourg twice). Thats nearly as bad as our last campaign.

So, over the last 4 years of qualifying we are pretty equal. As I said earlier, I take back my comment that we are better than England but there's nothing to prove either way. Better individual players, yes. Better team, we don't know.

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
Congratulations you dont support an English team. And you definately deserve a medal for visiting all the above mentioned sites.

Less of the sarcasm. I was making the point that Ireland are by far and away my number 1 team. Most of the members of foot.ie would be the same. But, an awful lot of the members of boards would have (as an example) more of an interest in up and coming players at their club rather than their country. If their was a thread for "Liverpool's best 11" on boards probably every Liverpool fan that saw it would reply. If the same people saw the same thread for "Ireland's best 11" probably not even half of them would reply (Liverpool was just an example).

It is no coincedence that members of foot.ie are more optimistic than the members boards.ie of drawing against the French in Paris. It also wouldn't be a coincedence that the an average Joe Soap would probably be more optimistic than a Scottish football fananatic of Scotland qualifying for the WC.

Jivin Turkey

Originally posted by eirebhoy

But, an awful lot of the members of boards would have (as an example) more of an interest in up and coming players at their club rather than their country. If their was a thread for "Liverpool's best 11" on boards probably every Liverpool fan that saw it would reply. If the same people saw the same thread for "Ireland's best 11" probably not even half of them would reply (Liverpool was just an example).

It is no coincedence that members of foot.ie are more optimistic than the members boards.ie of drawing against the French in Paris. It also wouldn't be a coincedence that the an average Joe Soap would probably be more optimistic than a Scottish football fananatic of Scotland qualifying for the WC.

Thats absolute garbage. There was a 4 page thread on the Dutch game, a 2 or 3 pager for the Jamaica game, the same for the Nigeria game, and a 9 or 10 pager for the Romania game. All discussing Ireland and how they should play. Just because many members here dont go around saying we are a better team than Ireland or a better team than France doesnt mean we dont have an interest in Ireland.

I think that if Ireland play to full capacity they are more than capable of getting a draw in Paris. Just because I dont conform to the idiotic notion that "oh Zidane and Pires......they'll be a good bit older then, Miller will be jsut as good" or "Paul Scholes wouldnt improve the Irish team" doesnt mean I dont support Ireland any less.

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
Thats absolute garbage. There was a 4 page thread on the Dutch game, a 2 or 3 pager for the Jamaica game, the same for the Nigeria game, and a 9 or 10 pager for the Romania game. All discussing Ireland and how they should play. Just because many members here dont go around saying we are a better team than Ireland or a better team than France doesnt mean we dont have an interest in Ireland.

I think that if Ireland play to full capacity they are more than capable of getting a draw in Paris. Just because I dont conform to the idiotic notion that "oh Zidane and Pires......they'll be a good bit older then, Miller will be jsut as good" or "Paul Scholes wouldnt improve the Irish team" doesnt mean I dont support Ireland any less.

I was using the Irish threads as an example. All this came from me saying I wouldn't win this kind of a debate on boards. There is a really high percentage of people on the soccer forum that would take more of an interest in their club than than their country. A person that replies to every thread about their club but only a few that catches their interest about Ireland, IMO, support their club over country. Most people would still watch Ireland in a competitive match if their club was playing but thats just because Ireland play 5 matches a year and are obviously of more importance than a mid season league match. The opposite to that would be If their club was playing in the CL final and Ireland were playing at the same time in a qualifier (thats the difference in importance so you can't judge people for wanting to watch a more important match, if you understand what I mean, I can't anyway).

The best example I gave is people who take more of an interest in up and coming players at their club over the up and coming Irish players. BTW - There was a poll for Club-v-Country a while back and over 40% voted club. Ask me why I'm typing this useless couple of paragraph's and I honestly couldn't answer you (it was about boards in general though, none of it was directed at you).

(BTW - there's no need to argue with anything I said above because I'll probably agree with you)

Also, I never said Pires and Zidane will be getting a bit too old for the Paris match, I said it for the Dublin match in October 2005. I also never said anything about Miller being just as good. I'm happy with Reid in the team and I wouldn't swap him for Scholes (at club level I obviously would though, Scholes is twice the player for United). I don't know if you've ever seen Reid play behind the front two but, IMO, thats his best position. He played there just once for Ireland, against Canada, and he got man of the match. Keane scored 2 and Duff scored a wonder goal and played a stormer but Reid still got MOM, that just shows how good he is. If he got the position behind the front two permanantly and put in performances even close to that match, Scholes would not improve the team by replacing him.

Pigman II

I didn't say they get plum draws but they are usually a seed above us with the exception of the last qualifiers which should be forgot about ASAP.

No you said by the fact England get a high seeding they therefore always get inferior opposition to what we get. Hense making it easier for them to qualify and hense making it easier for them to retain their high seeding - hense a plum draw.

WC2002 Q's - we had Holland and Portugal in our group and we got 24 points. England had Germany and got 17 points but played two games less, even then if they won those two game they would have only got 23 points. So we qualified from a better group with more points.

You can't compare the 23pt/24pt thing. For one thing the teams that came 4th/5th in their group were Greece/Albania where as we only had Cyprus/Estonia to dispatch. Which are you gonna tell me are a tougher pairing? You seem to think of tough groups purely in terms of who the 1st/2nd/3rd seeds are but as our WC94 campaign showed we basically only qualified because the smaller teams did us a favour.

EU2000 Q's - We had Yugoslavia and Croatia and got 16 points. England had Sweden and Poland and got 13 points. They only won 3 matches (Poland once and Luxembourg twice). Thats nearly as bad as our last campaign.

Once again not a valid comparison. Both Ireland and England came 2nd and it doesn't matter how many points they got.
This isn't an election where you have to get X amount of points/votes to qualify. All it states is you have to come 1st/2nd by whatever means necessary. The only difference I could see between us is England were able to win a play-off where as Ireland (as is usually their style in cup-style situations) died on their feet vs Turkey - which by my logic makes England the better team that time round.

So, over the last 4 years of qualifying we are pretty equal. As I said earlier, I take back my comment that we are better than England but there's nothing to prove either way. Better individual players, yes. Better team, we don't know.

Two Qualifications (with a 1st place + a 2nd place) > One Qualification (with a 2nd place + 3rd place). Therefore not pretty equal.

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Pigman II
Two Qualifications (with a 1st place + a 2nd place) > One Qualification (with a 2nd place + 3rd place). Therefore not pretty equal.

Well, we did better than them on points in 2 out of the 3 campaigns. I know points mean nothing if you don't qualify but that is 100% down to luck.

Pigman II

Originally posted by eirebhoy
Well, we did better than them on points in 2 out of the 3 campaigns. I know points mean nothing if you don't qualify but that is 100% down to luck.

There's absolutely zero luck to it. If you take results vs the two nearest rivals in the respective groups then Ireland have a record of (W3-D4-L5) over the past three campaigns where as England have a record of (W6-D4-L2) over the same period. THAT is the difference. England can consistantly beat their rivals in the crunch games whereas we cannot.

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Pigman II
There's absolutely zero luck to it.

Are you serious? In the EU2000 Qualifiers, England got 13 points and came 2nd in their group, Croatia got 15 points and came 3rd in their group. It is all down to how the other teams in your group do against each other and you haven't got any control over what happens when those teams play each other. Since you have zero control over what happens in those matches it is 100% down to luck.

BTW, all that we (Ireland) need to do if we want to be a top team is get our act together with our away form. We haven't won a competitive qualifying match against a decent team away from home since 1987. We also have only lost 1 competitive match in Lansdowne Road since Mick took over 8 years ago and that was actually his last match in charge against Switzerland.

Jivin Turkey

In international football though like us none of the half decent teams lose at home. And hence our lack of wins against decent teams away from home.

Pigman II

Originally posted by eirebhoy
Are you serious? In the EU2000 Qualifiers, England got 13 points and came 2nd in their group, Croatia got 15 points and came 3rd in their group. It is all down to how the other teams in your group do against each other and you haven't got any control over what happens when those teams play each other. Since you have zero control over what happens in those matches it is 100% down to luck.

With regard to luck - what I'm saying is that if you do the business IN YOUR OWN MATCHES then luck has zero to do with it. Alternatively, if you're the sort of team that is banking your progress on the misguided hope that your opponents will knock sufficent points off each just your own benefit then your days are already numbered.

WRT to Englands group, no one did them any favours in the other matches like you suggest. It was England themselves who had to beat+draw with Poland in order to take 2nd and if anything it was England did Poland the favours by dropping 4pts against Bulgaria hense letting the Poles back into the chase.

Originally posted by eirebhoy
BTW, all that we (Ireland) need to do if we want to be a top team is get our act together with our away form. We haven't won a competitive qualifying match against a decent team away from home since 1987. We also have only lost 1 competitive match in Lansdowne Road since Mick took over 8 years ago and that was actually his last match in charge against Switzerland.

Half right. With regard to top-end opposition the truth is you more or less don't have to win a single away game to qualify. The key is NOT TO LOSE away. Basic formula is win all your home games, draw all your away games and clean up (home & away) against the also-rans and you will (without fail) qualify every single time.