Post tournament Irish optimism is being overdone

Dots1982

A couple of points on the amount of optimism for the world cup campaign:

- Ireland's goals conceded in the tournament almost exclusively came from bad individual errors (free headers, mistimed tackles, stupid ogs) from numerous different players (Mccarthy, Clark, O'shea, Duffy). That shouldn't happen. I would say we have the highest number of goals conceded from individual mistakes in the entire tournament.
- Ireland cannot score more than one goal in any 90 minute game, this makes it extremely difficult to win football matches.
- We don't keep the ball in midfield, we run around a lot but our midfield is not making a big contribution to games.
- we are well drilled tactically but a good manager should sus us out. Pin our fullbacks back in their own half and we have very little going forward.
- We had the largest player on the field in shane duffy but from attacking free kick situations did we get his head on it enough? This can surely be worked on.

Maybe there isn't that much optimism but from listening to second captains, OTB and reading some posts on here it does seem like a lot of people are ignoring the negatives from this campaign.

fryup

we struggled to win one match against the italy B team

(but then again at least we didn't lose to a supermarket chain)

Captain Havoc

I think people already recognise that and we are overjoyed that the team performed so well despite these limitations. Can we not just enjoy it?

Dots1982

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I think people already recognise that and we are overjoyed that the team performed so well despite these limitations. Can we not just enjoy it?

I think its good to have the feelgood factor back but it feels all a bit fickle. After Belgium it was like we were complete garbage and then we beat an Italian team that doesn't really care and the lads are heroes. I think we should dwell on the belgium defeat and why it happened a little bit more.

MrKingsley

It was the one game of the tournament where we didnt go out with a positive mentality and actively try and score the first goal. Were not good enough to contain a team like belgium.

I would much rather judge our progress on the other three games as we played with the intention of winning the games. Plus those teams are an awful lot closer to us than belgium in the rankings

The_Kew_Tour

If we are negative how **** are Sweden?

I think we are getting little carried away but we did get to last 16 and had we had few extra days off before France who knows

Grassroots football and league needs to improve though no doubt about it

patmac

Well if we had played like England last night, as well as calling for O'Neill's and Delaney's head there would be huge outcry. I thought we did as well as can be expected and that's all you can ask.

StupidLikeAFox

People also forget that we were third in our qualifying group and we were third in our group in the euros - any other euros would have been a failure

Dots1982

MrKingsley wrote: »

It was the one game of the tournament where we didnt go out with a positive mentality and actively try and score the first goal. Were not good enough to contain a team like belgium.

I would much rather judge our progress on the other three games as we played with the intention of winning the games. Plus those teams are an awful lot closer to us than belgium in the rankings

Wouldn't really agree with that, we played to score a goal as I saw it, we always have under o'neill. The first goal we conceded came from a break from our attack. The reason they destroyed us , as I see it, is they introduced width to the game and hazard and de bruyne played high up and attacked our full backs and could take their men on the inside rather than just on the outside. Just like france did when Coman came on and payet played down the same wing and overloaded that side and killed our full backs.

Shanotheslayer

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

People also forget that we were third in our qualifying group and we were third in our group in the euros - any other euros would have been a failure

Irrelevant. The format has changed. Sure if that's the case might as well go back to when there was 8 teams and say " wouldn't have qualified" etc.

MrKingsley

Dots1982 wrote: »

Wouldn't really agree with that, we played to score a goal as I saw it, we always have under o'neill. The first goal we conceded came from a break from our attack. The reason they destroyed us , as I see it, is they introduced width to the game and hazard and de bruyne played high up and attacked our full backs and could take their men on the inside rather than just on the outside. Just like france did when Coman came on and payet played down the same wing and overloaded that side and killed our full backs.

We played to contain belgium for as long as possible. We sat around our box for the majority of the first half. Then all of a sudden we went gung ho at the beginning of the second at got caught on the break.

My point is though that should be be comparing ourselves and measuring our progress to hazard, de bruyne, lukaku, mertens etc? or more so the swedish, italian and french teams that we are clearly closer to, individually and collectively (barring a handful across the three countries)

Dots1982

MrKingsley wrote: »

Dots1982 wrote: »

Wouldn't really agree with that, we played to score a goal as I saw it, we always have under o'neill. The first goal we conceded came from a break from our attack. The reason they destroyed us , as I see it, is they introduced width to the game and hazard and de bruyne played high up and attacked our full backs and could take their men on the inside rather than just on the outside. Just like france did when Coman came on and payet played down the same wing and overloaded that side and killed our full backs.

We played to contain belgium for as long as possible. We sat around our box for the majority of the first half. Then all of a sudden we went gung ho at the beginning of the second at got caught on the break.

My point is though that should be be comparing ourselves and measuring our progress to hazard, de bruyne, lukaku, mertens etc? or more so the swedish, italian and french teams that we are clearly closer to, individually and collectively (barring a handful across the three countries)

Ah yeah true enough, before the tournament i thought we didn't stand a chance versus Belgium but after the first games, people were getting carried away thinking just because we slightly outplayed Sweden we could compete with the Belgians.

Nalz

Dots1982 wrote: »

Ah yeah true enough, before the tournament i thought we didn't stand a chance versus Belgium but after the first games, people were getting carried away thinking just because we slightly outplayed Sweden we could compete with the Belgians.

It was a fair assessment with reason given it was (a) a tournament game (b) Belgium have this so called name for being a bunch of individuals and (c) an Italian team who some thought were average bet them 2-0.

Regardless of how bad Frances back 4 are and the 7 changes Italy made againsts us, we changed how we played and gave it our all in both games. This should be appluaded and proud should be taken from it. The approach and effort cannot be denied.

Going forward however, there is a lot of work to do

deadybai

I've watched the Irish team all my life and this was the best the team has played over 5 games IMO.

Look at our qualifying group? Very difficult to qualify. Yet we pulled it off by beating a much fancied Bosnia team, which we were by far the better team over two legs.

And look at our euros group .definitely the hardest group to qualify from when your not a big team. And we qualified .

We done all this by playing good football and getting the best out of our players.

The only negative I would take from the Euros is that we should have beaten Sweden. The Belgium game came at a bad time after they lost to Italy.

Green Fella

Wait and see the mood if we fail to qualify from the World Cup, which many people seem to assume we will top despite being 4th seeds! The cold reality is we went out in the last 16 like 2012, and just about defeated an Italian reserve side who by all accounts treated it like a training session. We had 1 good 90 minutes performance against questionable opposition who werent bothered. I dont see how that translates to us being better than Serbia, Wales and Austria.

Dearg81

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

People also forget that we were third in our qualifying group and we were third in our group in the euros - any other euros would have been a failure

3rd behind 2 quarter finalists and one of them are world champions. It was the toughest group in qualifying.

The_Kew_Tour

We have played 5 of the 8 teams who have qualified for Quarters in this Euro Campaign

Germany, Italy, Belgium, Poland and France

Muahahaha

The team exceeded my expectations and at times showed we can actually play ball. Lots of room for improvement for sure but we did put up a good showing with limited and ageing players.

I wouldn't be too confident about our WC group, Wales, Serbia and Austria all have the beating of us on their day. Playing three games away before Xmas might leave us in a bad situation early on.

Kimbot

Green Fella wrote: »

Wait and see the mood if we fail to qualify from the World Cup, which many people seem to assume we will top despite being 4th seeds! The cold reality is we went out in the last 16 like 2012, and just about defeated an Italian reserve side who by all accounts treated it like a training session. We had 1 good 90 minutes performance against questionable opposition who werent bothered. I dont see how that translates to us being better than Serbia, Wales and Austria.

In 2012 we didnt make it to the last 16

SantryRed

jonnycivic wrote: »

In 2012 we didnt make it to the last 16

Yes we did. By virtue of qualifying we were in the last 16.

Green Fella

jonnycivic wrote: »

In 2012 we didnt make it to the last 16

We did

NoCrackHaving

Muahahaha wrote: »

The team exceeded my expectations and at times showed we can actually play ball. Lots of room for improvement for sure but we did put up a good showing with limited and ageing players.

I wouldn't be too confident about our WC group, Wales, Serbia and Austria all have the beating of us on their day. Playing three games away before Xmas might leave us in a bad situation early on.

It's a fast aging team that needs a rapid injection of new blood which sadly isn't currently there. As I've written in other threads a complete root and branch reform of Irish football needs to be undertaken with an aim of having some handy young players beginning to come through in 6 - 8 years time. In the short to medium term I suspect the performances in 2018 and 2020 will continue to decline as the current crop of players ages and retires with no one to replace them.

This isn't a criticism of the team's performance, just a recognition that apart from a few players like Duffy and Brady by the time 2018 rolls around the majority of the current squad will be in their 30s or pushing it.

Zebra3

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Irrelevant. The format has changed. Sure if that's the case might as well go back to when there was 8 teams and say " wouldn't have qualified" etc.

Pretty relevant as third won't be good enough in the next qualifiers.

Shanotheslayer

Zebra3 wrote: »

Pretty relevant as third won't be good enough in the next qualifiers.

Are you referring to the World Cup Qualifiers? When there's also completely different opposition. Or are you saying the next EUROS is going back to the old way?

briany

All I know is that it was nice to see Ireland get on the ball a bit and play some positive football. Defensive naiveté definitely had a large negative impact on Ireland's campaign, but this can be improved. It's not the first time I've seen Irish defensive partnerships that subsequently became tighter as they played together. It's just a pity it couldn't have happened before the tournament. I think people forget that with the Belgium and France games, Ireland had defended well in the first half against both, not conceding a goal, but in the second half each team turned up the heat, showed their quality, and the defensive composure melted a bit in the face of that.

Ireland, for the longest time have not really had a midfield, just an extra layer of defence. Well now the team has apparently capable players in McCarthy, Hendrick, Brady, McClean and Hoolahan, with Arter possibly to come in later as well. This is very refreshing. This is a welcome change. This is where my positive feeling would really come from. Randolph has come in to replace the aging Given as well.

I think the tournament as a whole, not just the finals, has given Ireland an opportunity to say to the world that they're not quite the mugs they came across as at the last Euros. I think we might have said the same things after 2002 as well, in vain, so I'm not saying that there will definitely be a strong showing in the campaign to come, but am I cautiously optimistic. Yeah, sure. Why not?

Dots1982

briany wrote: »

All I know is that it was nice to see Ireland get on the ball a bit and play some positive football. Defensive naivet definitely had a large negative impact on Ireland's campaign, but this can be improved. It's not the first time I've seen Irish defensive partnerships that subsequently became tighter as they played together. It's just a pity it couldn't have happened before the tournament. I think people forget that with the Belgium and France games, Ireland had defended well in the first half against both, not conceding a goal, but in the second half each team turned up the heat, showed their quality, and the defensive composure melted a bit in the face of that.

Ireland, for the longest time have not really had a midfield, just an extra layer of defence. Well now the team has apparently capable players in McCarthy, Hendrick, Brady, McClean and Hoolahan, with Arter possibly to come in later as well. This is very refreshing. This is a welcome change. This is where my positive feeling would really come from. Randolph has come in to replace the aging Given as well.

I think the tournament as a whole, not just the finals, has given Ireland an opportunity to say to the world that they're not quite the mugs they came across as at the last Euros. I think we might have said the same things after 2002 as well, in vain, so I'm not saying that there will definitely be a strong showing in the campaign to come, but am I cautiously optimistic. Yeah, sure. Why not?

Would agree with most of this but not sure if we defended well in the first halves of the france and belgium game, I can remember a few incidents where we completely lucked out of not conceding a goal in both games' first halves...particularly bad finishing by Payet and Hazard in particular.

I think things are coming together and there is potential but if anyone thinks we are anything even close to the finished article they should give themselves a smack.

Strong Life in Dublin

Dots1982 wrote: »

I think its good to have the feelgood factor back but it feels all a bit fickle. After Belgium it was like we were complete garbage and then we beat an Italian team that doesn't really care and the lads are heroes. I think we should dwell on the belgium defeat and why it happened a little bit more.

Belgium are ranked what, 2nd in the world? I know ranking doesn't mean everything, but the Belgium game was never gonna be easy.

We know Ireland are not great, but most people are just happy that they put on a pretty good performance this Euro

briany

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

We know Ireland are not great, but most people are just happy that they put on a pretty good performance this Euro

All I wanted to see was some indication that the team had kicked on since 2012 and I think we all got that. After 10 years of wilderness and a humiliation, my expectations were pretty modest.

The question is now can the players who showed up in both the physical and mental sense at these Euros, can they take that momentum into the qualifiers to come? James McCarthy may have showed a bit of what he can do, as did McClean, but can they do it on a rainy night in Georgia, to paraphrase the saying. This group of players have shown potential but that's all it is at the moment.

Scotland back in 2014, they were saying, "Oh, we've kicked on. We're playing a bit of proper football now. We're going to take second in this group, easy." One unexpected result to Georgia completely deflated this notion and the team quickly became unraveled. A group of players who are average by international standards can achieve more than what they're worth on paper if given the right coaching, the right belief and so on, but the same group of players' mindset can quickly go to pot if things don't go right for them as well. This is why I would only be cautiously optimistic for Ireland's chances. Opening game away to Serbia is crucial. If it's the same old story of a 1-1 draw, it would be hard to see the team qualifying by any route.

Idbatterim

a fit walters would give us a boost. I believe a fit Walters and another two day break against the French would have given us a much better chance... I am happy with Wales as first seeds, Northern Ireland were actually better than them in that game. I expect the belgians to do them, two of their goals came from poor keeping...

Dots1982

Idbatterim wrote: »

a fit walters would give us a boost. I believe a fit Walters and another two day break against the French would have given us a much better chance... I am happy with Wales as first seeds, Northern Ireland were actually better than them in that game. I expect the belgians to do them, two of their goals came from poor keeping...

Only thing is Wales' midfield: Allen, Ledley and Ramsey would be an upgrade on ours, naturally Bale would be their main danger as well. Think Martin O'neill is comfortably a more capable manager than Coleman though.

Zebra3

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Are you referring to the World Cup Qualifiers? When there's also completely different opposition. Or are you saying the next EUROS is going back to the old way?

The next qualifiers = the WC qualifiers.

Next Euros has the same joke number of teams as this year.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I'd be worried about our World Cup group, we could easily finish 4th in it. It's going to be a right war from the get go, no easy games.

JakeBell

I certainly don't think our assistant manager is going to be overly excited by our performance. The truth is we could right now be looking forward to a quarter final against Iceland and favourites to make it to the semi finals.

Laois_Man

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I'd be worried about our World Cup group, we could easily finish 4th in it. It's going to be a right war from the get go, no easy games.

You would think Moldova should be easy - but they did get a draw in Moscow in Euro 2016 qualification - and the rest are all games to worry about. But it suits us cos the others will all drop plenty of points too.

We have a good few youngsters who are potentially stars of the future. But there always is, and as always, most have yet to make a breakthrough at club level and most probably never will.

SantryRed

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I'd be worried about our World Cup group, we could easily finish 4th in it. It's going to be a right war from the get go, no easy games.

Beats having Germany/Italy in our group. Look at some of the groups and we've been very lucky. We have the same chance in coming 1st as we do 4th!

Shanotheslayer

Zebra3 wrote: »

The next qualifiers = the WC qualifiers.

Next Euros has the same joke number of teams as this year.

So comparing two completely different competitions with different teams/structure. Makes sense.....

Laois_Man

SantryRed wrote: »

We have the same chance in coming 1st as we do 4th!

I wouldn't quite agree with that - Wales and Austria certainly have better players than us. It doesn't necessarily mean that it will show in the results, but it does give them a better chance obviously.

PeterTheEighth

Dots1982 wrote: »

Maybe there isn't that much optimism but from listening to second captains, OTB and reading some posts on here it does seem like a lot of people are ignoring the negatives from this campaign.

I think you're missing the main point. Most of this is driven by the media, and for the media to attract listeners/viewers/readers then the story has to be either a BIG success or a BIG failure.