nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread too point uh

RuggieBear

\0/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Buer

sydthebeat wrote: »

I played keeper up to senior level. Rule number one...If you don't get the ball, get the man.

Absolutely. If Buffon had been in sticks he'd have taken both.

It was brutal goalkeeping.

sydthebeat

I played keeper up to senior level. Rule number one...If you don't get the ball, get the man.

awec

Buer wrote: »

If he didn't go for that header he'd have been an awful blouse, absolute bread and butter header for a player in the LSL let alone at international level.

I don't think he had a clue where the keeper was either i.e. for all he knew he stayed on his line.

Well the scenario of the keeper wiping me out would have been on my mind if I was in that situation! But I am unbelievably good looking and it could be my natural tendency to protect my good looks that would make me wary.

swiwi_

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe I'm just old and cynical but I find the quality of football as a spectacle abysmal these days. It drives me nuts watching 90 minutes of blatant cheating, incompetent refereeing with no recourse to the hundreds of cameras in use and the complete lack of respect of the players for the officials. That, and the anodine commentary vindictating the cheating just sickens me.

Occasionally you get an underdog playing their hearts out or a side who don't simply floor the rules as a matter of course (the USA for example) and it's hard not to want them to win. If quality football is synonymous with preening theatrics and ten thousand little passes around the circle, then bring on the Icelanders and the Faroese, please.

Wondered what you called people from there...I would have said Faroe Islanders, but Faroese might just do nicely.

NB: personally I like football as it is. Justfies my smugness and moral superiority as a rugby fan

Buer

awec wrote: »

Also going up for a header when the ball is coming over your shoulder with an onrushing keeper who you can't actually see is pretty brave.

If he didn't go for that header he'd have been an awful blouse, absolute bread and butter header for a player in the LSL let alone at international level.

I don't think he had a clue where the keeper was either i.e. for all he knew he stayed on his line.

awec

Also going up for a header when the ball is coming over your shoulder with an onrushing keeper who you can't actually see is pretty brave.

sydthebeat

molloyjh wrote: »

Some of the comments about Brady after the game were hilarious. Showing a replay of the goal one of the comments was "bravery of a lion". There was nobody touching him, nobody attempting to challenge him, nobody else really going for the ball. All he had to do was head it straight in front of him. Now it was well taken and the cross was a good one, but "bravery of a lion"!? What kind of smoke blowing nonsense is that!?

Bravery probably comes from the fact it was a midfielder making that run in the 84th minute....actually it was probably the only midfield box run made by ireland on the night.
Look, we all get a bit hyperbolic after a great win for our international teams, especially one where we do actually realise that we are punching well above our weight. I completely agree that Italy were totally disinterested last night, bonucchi spend the whole evening trying not to get a card.
However, we did what we had to do, in the manner we had to do it. If we had have stood off the Italians we would have brought trouble on ourselves.
I do really fear what a fresh France, at home, will do to us though. It could be worse than Spain four years ago.

[Deleted User]

molloyjh wrote: »

Some of the comments about Brady after the game were hilarious. Showing a replay of the goal one of the comments was "bravery of a lion". There was nobody touching him, nobody attempting to challenge him, nobody else really going for the ball. All he had to do was head it straight in front of him. Now it was well taken and the cross was a good one, but "bravery of a lion"!? What kind of smoke blowing nonsense is that!?

molloyjh

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe I'm just old and cynical but I find the quality of football as a spectacle abysmal these days. It drives me nuts watching 90 minutes of blatant cheating, incompetent refereeing with no recourse to the hundreds of cameras in use and the complete lack of respect of the players for the officials. That, and the anodine commentary vindictating the cheating just sickens me.

Occasionally you get an underdog playing their hearts out or a side who don't simply floor the rules as a matter of course (the USA for example) and it's hard not to want them to win. If quality football is synonymous with preening theatrics and ten thousand little passes around the circle, then bring on the Icelanders and the Faroese, please.

Some of the comments about Brady after the game were hilarious. Showing a replay of the goal one of the comments was "bravery of a lion". There was nobody touching him, nobody attempting to challenge him, nobody else really going for the ball. All he had to do was head it straight in front of him. Now it was well taken and the cross was a good one, but "bravery of a lion"!? What kind of smoke blowing nonsense is that!?

wp_rathead

pickarooney wrote: »

Undefeated Portugal trough while repeat losers bow out... seems fair.

pro12 goes by Number of Matches won before points/goal difference - that's Just my thinking that seems weird how a team that hasn't won has got through

rsh118

"He had every right to go down there." No one phrase in English infuriates me as much as this one.

pickarooney

Buer wrote: »

In fairness to molloy, he's right. The expanded tournament has not worked. There have been some dire games involving weak nations. Yes, they've added some colour and fun to the tournament overall but the football has suffered.

Look at the teams that have qualified from the 3rd place spots.....

We drew our first game in a decent showing, we're ripped assunder by a far better team in our second match and won our deciding fixture against a team that rested most of their team.
Northern Ireland lost 2 of their 3 games and got through after sticking 11 men behind the ball to try and lose by as few goals as possible in their last game.
Portugal went through without winning a game.

I'm delighted we're through and will gladly take it but those sort of results shouldn't be rewarded with progress to the next round.

The tournament should revert to 4 groups of 4 involving the 16 best teams where nearly every game is between quality sides.

Maybe I'm just old and cynical but I find the quality of football as a spectacle abysmal these days. It drives me nuts watching 90 minutes of blatant cheating, incompetent refereeing with no recourse to the hundreds of cameras in use and the complete lack of respect of the players for the officials. That, and the anodine commentary vindictating the cheating just sickens me.

Occasionally you get an underdog playing their hearts out or a side who don't simply floor the rules as a matter of course (the USA for example) and it's hard not to want them to win. If quality football is synonymous with preening theatrics and ten thousand little passes around the circle, then bring on the Icelanders and the Faroese, please.

Buer

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Odd in all this discussion of poor results and poor teams going through ... we drew all four games in Italia 90 and managed to get to the quarter finals before losing, scoring a majestic 2 goals in the process, penalties aside. It's not really a new thing.

Indeed and, whilst we were all going absolutely crazy at the time, history now has adjusted somewhat to reflect that we were a completely painful team to watch and we wasted the talent we had in that squad. We were bloody hard to break down though and managed a second place finish (on a coin toss, in fairness)

Dunphy was vilified in 1990 but opinions have softened hugely in relation to his comments at the time. He was absolutely correct in his criticism.

Dave_The_Sheep

Odd in all this discussion of poor results and poor teams going through ... we drew all four games in Italia 90 and managed to get to the quarter finals before losing, scoring a majestic 2 goals in the process, penalties aside. It's not really a new thing.

Buer

awec wrote: »

Ireland have never qualified for the last 16 before. Its pretty historic.

Technically, nobody has ever qualified for the last 16 of the knock outs before.

We played far better and got better results in 1988 but didn't qualify as only the top 2 went directly through to the semi finals. Only a late Dutch goal knocked us out in the final pool game. I'd rate that tournament performance as far more impressive. We had England (WC quarter finalists two years beforehand), Holland (eventual winners) and the USSR (runners up) in our pool and came 8 minutes from qualifying for the semi finals.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Ireland have never qualified for the last 16 before. Its pretty historic.

Technically we qualified for the last 8 in 1988!

But yes, we've never qualified for this round in Europe, but the competition has also never been this weak or in this structure.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't doubt that is true. I'm only personally put off by the claims that the win was so historic when it really wasn't in my opinion. It was historic when Robbie Keane scored in 2002. It was historic when we beat Italy in 1994 and England in 1988. What would be historic is if we beat France, I would go mad for that. Someone on the telly said that was one of the most historic days in Irish history, and I could only laugh.

Ireland have never qualified for the last 16 before. Its pretty historic.

irishbucsfan

pickarooney wrote: »

But Ireland are basically the Namibia of soccer.

I don't doubt that is true. I'm only personally put off by the claims that the win was so historic when it really wasn't in my opinion. It was historic when Robbie Keane scored in 2002. It was historic when we beat Italy in 1994 and England in 1988. What would be historic is if we beat France, I would go mad for that. Someone on the telly said that was one of the most historic days in Irish history, and I could only laugh.

Buer

In fairness to molloy, he's right. The expanded tournament has not worked. There have been some dire games involving weak nations. Yes, they've added some colour and fun to the tournament overall but the football has suffered.

Look at the teams that have qualified from the 3rd place spots.....

We drew our first game in a decent showing, we're ripped assunder by a far better team in our second match and won our deciding fixture against a team that rested most of their team.
Northern Ireland lost 2 of their 3 games and got through after sticking 11 men behind the ball to try and lose by as few goals as possible in their last game.
Portugal went through without winning a game.

I'm delighted we're through and will gladly take it but those sort of results shouldn't be rewarded with progress to the next round.

The tournament should revert to 4 groups of 4 involving the 16 best teams where nearly every game is between quality sides.

Synode

pickarooney wrote: »

But Ireland are basically the Namibia of soccer.

This. Ireland are a poor side in the grand scheme of things. We just don't have enough players who are comfortable on the ball, can beat people and can cross properly. We're punching well above our weight in International football

pickarooney

molloyjh wrote: »

I have to say if the Irish rugby team had such difficulty breaking down a completely disinterested NZ rugby team during a RWC the way that our soccer team struggled with that Italian side there'd be a real element of frustration from us fans. I thought Ireland were woeful, and only made look in any way strong by a truly inept and lazy Italian performance. But because this is Irelands first win in the Euros in nearly 30 years it seems critical analysis like that is frowned upon.

It's great for the fans who have been a real credit to the country and I am glad for them, so for those of you that fall into that category don't mind me....

But Ireland are basically the Namibia of soccer.

pickarooney

wp_rathead wrote: »

Tad weird how Albania and Turkey both won a match and are out yet Portugal won 0 and are through to last 16..

Undefeated Portugal trough while repeat losers bow out... seems fair.

swiwi_

molloyjh wrote: »

I have to say if the Irish rugby team had such difficulty breaking down a completely disinterested NZ rugby team during a RWC the way that our soccer team struggled with that Italian side there'd be a real element of frustration from us fans. I thought Ireland were woeful, and only made look in any way strong by a truly inept and lazy Italian performance. But because this is Irelands first win in the Euros in nearly 30 years it seems critical analysis like that is frowned upon.

It's great for the fans who have been a real credit to the country and I am glad for them, so for those of you that fall into that category don't mind me....

molloyjh wrote: »

The pond for the Euros is bleedin' huge. Everyone gets a go. If you ignore the small countries like the Andorras and the Macedonias more countries actually qualify for the competition than don't. And of the ones that qualify more make it to the knock-outs than don't. Sure Ireland scored just 2 goals yet are still somehow through. Portugal didn't win a game and are there. Iceland are through ffs. Iceland! Does that not take the sheen away from the whole thing just a bit?

Maybe if they took away the last 16 round it might be more interesting. As it is most teams just sort of breeze through the pools not really having to do anything at all.

Just about felt so depressed molloy, I went out and shot myself :P

The Irish fans are a complete credit to Ireland, I've had a couple of work-mates spontaneously comment on it, and the Swiss TV was going on about it too.

I'd go with the European Rugby Cup version: 20 teams, 5 pools, top in each pool + the top 3 runners up = quarter finals. Makes the pools much more challenging, and there is no way Europe needs a round of 16.

daveup

being very much a person who religiously watches the 6oclock news on rte1 I did have a look at this question on the leaving cert higher level economics paper and feel a need to scratch my already balding head

Leaving Cert economics, higher-level paper:

Explain how Ireland’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could be affected by any two of the following.

(i) An increase in child benefit payments.

(how can you say if you don't know what the increase is?)

(ii) A foreign-owned company, operating in Ireland, sends back to their home country all the profits they have earned in Ireland.

(how can you say if you don't know what profits are being sent out of country)
(iii) An oil spill off the Irish coast costs the Irish Government significant clean-up costs.
(how can you know if you don't supply the clean-up costs)

daveup

molloyjh wrote: »

The pond for the Euros is bleedin' huge. Everyone gets a go. If you ignore the small countries like the Andorras and the Macedonias more countries actually qualify for the competition than don't. And of the ones that qualify more make it to the knock-outs than don't. Sure Ireland scored just 2 goals yet are still somehow through. Portugal didn't win a game and are there. Iceland are through ffs. Iceland! Does that not take the sheen away from the whole thing just a bit?

Maybe if they took away the last 16 round it might be more interesting. As it is most teams just sort of breeze through the pools not really having to do anything at all.

if i remember iceland knocked out holland at the group stage? now if that ain't impressive what is?

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

You can't compare the Irish football and rugby teams, so you can't really compare the reaction of fans. The football team are much smaller fish in a much bigger pond.

The pond for the Euros is bleedin' huge. Everyone gets a go. If you ignore the small countries like the Andorras and the Macedonias more countries actually qualify for the competition than don't. And of the ones that qualify more make it to the knock-outs than don't. Sure Ireland scored just 2 goals yet are still somehow through. Portugal didn't win a game and are there. Iceland are through ffs. Iceland! Does that not take the sheen away from the whole thing just a bit?

Maybe if they took away the last 16 round it might be more interesting. As it is most teams just sort of breeze through the pools not really having to do anything at all.

[Deleted User]

awec wrote: »

You can't compare the Irish football and rugby teams, so you can't really compare the reaction of fans. The football team are much smaller fish in a much bigger pond.

Being honest neither Irish team are quality sides, even the Italian B team would be of a much higher standard.

I prefer the sweet taste of small mandarins over granny smiths

daveup

gerry thornley, here's a suggestion to finish off the final test (hopefully when we win).

'A flash of light from the heavens had taken Ireland to a place of singular beauty, left the nation residing in a palace of dreams'

A quote from the soccer game reporting tonight that i liked much

awec

You can't compare the Irish football and rugby teams, so you can't really compare the reaction of fans. The football team are much smaller fish in a much bigger pond.

Being honest neither Irish team are quality sides, even the Italian B team would be of a much higher standard.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

100%, against a weakened Italian team who had already qualified. But I don't want to say that publically...

Balls like Bengali Tigers, heh.....