Republic of Ireland Team Talk/News/Rumours 2020/2021 - see Mod Note in OP [18/11/20]

Brock Turnpike · 14-10-2020 12:37PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Can you give a source on that? I don’t think it’s true, and I can’t find anything that backs it up. Players have certainly been called cap-tied after just one Nations League game anyway, like Areola with France.

He won't be able to give a source on it because it's not true.

Arthur Daley · 14-10-2020 12:42PM

Ok I stand corrected. I thought Rice played in a Nations League match for Ireland

TheCitizen · 14-10-2020 12:53PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Can you give a source on that? I don’t think it’s true, and I can’t find anything that backs it up. Players have certainly been called cap-tied after just one Nations League game anyway, like Areola with France.

Obafemi is cap tied after a brief appearance in a NL game v Denmark.

Although for some reason UEFA are changing the guidelines again that you can still switch to play for someone else unless you play 3 competitive games for a country. I don't who or why they came up with that.

BonnieSituation · 14-10-2020 12:57PM

TheCitizen wrote: »

Obafemi is cap tied after a brief appearance in a NL game v Denmark.

Although for some reason UEFA are changing the guidelines again that you can still switch to play for someone else unless you play 3 competitive games for a country. I don't who or why they came up with that.

Bigger teams can then get to swoop in even after they have been tied t the smaller team.

So to go back to the Rice situation, even capping him in a competitive intl would have allowed him to use his change to England under this new rule.

It's preposterous tbh and makes a ****e of international football, more than it has been.

I never noted any changes to the "one association change" rule though, the likes of which scuppered Johansen (outside of the passport issue).

~Rebel~ · 14-10-2020 01:05PM

TheCitizen wrote: »

Obafemi is cap tied after a brief appearance in a NL game v Denmark.

Although for some reason UEFA are changing the guidelines again that you can still switch to play for someone else unless you play 3 competitive games for a country. I don't who or why they came up with that.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Bigger teams can then get to swoop in even after they have been tied t the smaller team.

So to go back to the Rice situation, even capping him in a competitive intl would have allowed him to use his change to England under this new rule.

It's preposterous tbh and makes a ****e of international football, more than it has been.

I never noted any changes to the "one association change" rule though, the likes of which scuppered Johansen (outside of the passport issue).

I quite like that rule actually, and it's more likely to help smaller teams than hurt them.

It's not easy to avail of, specifically so that it can't be taken advantage of easily.

It only applies to players that were capped young, and only received 1 or 2 caps, and who then were not selected for the national team for 3+ years.

So really, it's fantastic for African nations in particular - you see players playing in France, or Spain, or England that impress at 18 and get a cap for 10 minutes in a game... and then don't quite develop and aren't called up again. And that's it, their international career is dead for a decision in their teens where they got caught up in the excitement. This allows them to play for a smaller country that they're also culturally/emotionally/genetically tied to.

johnnyryan89 · 14-10-2020 01:12PM

Kingp35 wrote: »

Can you name me any set of friendlies that offered a playoff spot for the World Cup?

Do I care, no, not really. You have your opinion and I have mine that they are still glorified friendlies that Uefa are trying to dress up, notice how the weaker teams now aren't offered spots to qualify. Doubt any of us will be changing our minds anytime soon, so rather than derail the thread I'll leave it at that.

johnnyryan89 · 14-10-2020 01:17PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I quite like that rule actually, and it's more likely to help smaller teams than hurt them.

It's not easy to avail of, specifically so that it can't be taken advantage of easily.

It only applies to players that were capped young, and only received 1 or 2 caps, and who then were not selected for the national team for 3+ years.

So really, it's fantastic for African nations in particular - you see players playing in France, or Spain, or England that impress at 18 and get a cap for 10 minutes in a game... and then don't quite develop and aren't called up again. And that's it, their international career is dead for a decision in their teens where they got caught up in the excitement. This allows them to play for a smaller country that they're also culturally/emotionally/genetically tied to.

I haven't read the rules in detail but have seen some people say that some players can now be tied to a country through playing U21s games when they reach the age of 21.

So if we qualify for the U21s next March then Smallbone becomes tied to us as he'll be 21 in February.

henke · 14-10-2020 01:22PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I quite like that rule actually, and it's more likely to help smaller teams than hurt them.

It's not easy to avail of, specifically so that it can't be taken advantage of easily.

It only applies to players that were capped young, and only received 1 or 2 caps, and who then were not selected for the national team for 3+ years.

So really, it's fantastic for African nations in particular - you see players playing in France, or Spain, or England that impress at 18 and get a cap for 10 minutes in a game... and then don't quite develop and aren't called up again. And that's it, their international career is dead for a decision in their teens where they got caught up in the excitement. This allows them to play for a smaller country that they're also culturally/emotionally/genetically tied to.

Yeah it might help some nations and us but I would change it to protect smaller nations losing out to bigger ones as well so that if a player accepts between 1 and 3 caps and is called up a 4th time he is obligated to accept the call and if he doesn't there is some sort of penalty or will not be permitted to switch to a higher ranked nation. eg if a player plays 3 competitive games for Ireland he cannot turn down the 4th and switch to England. If he is not good enough to earn the 4th within a certain window of time then he can switch nation, in this case most likely a lower ranked one. Just thinking out loud they could have a caveat like that to protect smaller nations.

~Rebel~ · 14-10-2020 01:32PM

henke wrote: »

Yeah it might help some nations and us but I would change it to protect smaller nations losing out to bigger ones as well so that if a player accepts between 1 and 3 caps and is called up a 4th time he is obligated to accept the call and if he doesn't there is some sort of penalty or will not be permitted to switch to a higher ranked nation. eg if a player plays 3 competitive games for Ireland he cannot turn down the 4th and switch to England. If he is not good enough to earn the 4th within a certain window of time then he can switch nation, in this case most likely a lower ranked one. Just thinking out loud they could have a caveat like that to protect smaller nations.

I'd leave it as it is to be honest - your amendment is more open to abuse than the current rule, and i'll always favour a human over an organisation. If they capped a kid who was promising, but then ignored him when his development stalled, it's too easy for them to force him into a 5 minute cap 3 years later to lock him in just in case.

It's a big decision for a kid with duel citizenship to make in the first place - once they make the plunge there are only really 2 likely ways in which they're going to leave with this rule. 1) They get capped initially, and then ignored for 3 years. 2) They get capped, and in those first 2 caps, have a "I've made a huge mistake" moment big enough to miss 3 years of international football. That's a hefty enough price in fairness if you're going to force your move that soon.

Again, international football shouldn't be about being as sneaky as possible to hold people hostage. Within reason (which i think this rule firmly falls under) it should respect the individual over the organisation. This rule is a nice balance. I mean, any young player if the organisation so desired, would have been tied forever to Ireland just from the 3 matches this week! It's a low bar.

johnnyryan89 · 14-10-2020 01:36PM

henke wrote: »

Yeah it might help some nations and us but I would change it to protect smaller nations losing out to bigger ones as well so that if a player accepts between 1 and 3 caps and is called up a 4th time he is obligated to accept the call and if he doesn't there is some sort of penalty or will not be permitted to switch to a higher ranked nation. eg if a player plays 3 competitive games for Ireland he cannot turn down the 4th and switch to England. If he is not good enough to earn the 4th within a certain window of time then he can switch nation, in this case most likely a lower ranked one. Just thinking out loud they could have a caveat like that to protect smaller nations.

They'll have to wait three years since their last cap before they can change. So had these rules been in place for Rice he wouldn't have been allowed play for England until summer 2021. Given the talent coming through England now some players will be taking a risk waiting three years to switch.

henke · 14-10-2020 01:55PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I'd leave it as it is to be honest - your amendment is more open to abuse than the current rule, and i'll always favour a human over an organisation. If they capped a kid who was promising, but then ignored him when his development stalled, it's too easy for them to force him into a 5 minute cap 3 years later to lock him in just in case.

It's a big decision for a kid with duel citizenship to make in the first place - once they make the plunge there are only really 2 likely ways in which they're going to leave with this rule. 1) They get capped initially, and then ignored for 3 years. 2) They get capped, and in those first 2 caps, have a "I've made a huge mistake" moment big enough to miss 3 years of international football. That's a hefty enough price in fairness if you're going to force your move that soon.

Again, international football shouldn't be about being as sneaky as possible to hold people hostage. Within reason (which i think this rule firmly falls under) it should respect the individual over the organisation. This rule is a nice balance. I mean, any young player if the organisation so desired, would have been tied forever to Ireland just from the 3 matches this week! It's a low bar.

Yeah, fair enough points I was thinking out loud quickly how to protect smaller nations been protected but yeah there is more to consider. Ultimately I think these lads should sit out any senior football until they know and at least Grealish did do that. Rice should have done the same or someone older should have had a firm word with him if you take this call up that is it so maybe sit it out for now Declan. Anyway, wont get too concerned on it for now I don't think we have anyone who is imminently about to jump ship.

~Rebel~ · 14-10-2020 02:10PM

henke wrote: »

Yeah, fair enough points I was thinking out loud quickly how to protect smaller nations been protected but yeah there is more to consider. Ultimately I think these lads should sit out any senior football until they know and at least Grealish did do that. Rice should have done the same or someone older should have had a firm word with him if you take this call up that is it so maybe sit it out for now Declan. Anyway, wont get too concerned on it for now I don't think we have anyone who is imminently about to jump ship.

Yeah, like I think that aspect of it will remain the same, with players only taking the plunge when they're ready and sure. Even with this rule offering a way out, that 3 year penalty is a heavy price to pay for a player in demand, so really think its much more likely to be used by players in the international wilderness that are surplus to requirements.

johnnyryan89 · 14-10-2020 02:47PM

https://twitter.com/FAIreland/status/1316388893428715520

Tchaikovsky · 14-10-2020 02:51PM

For the love of God, give us a goal lads.

The_Kew_Tour · 14-10-2020 05:56PM

Cant blame Randolph, cause man has saved us many a time.

Better team again but lacked the cutting edge. Kenny has got one part right but he seriously needs change things up formation wise.

ShamoBuc · 14-10-2020 05:59PM

Positives again can be taken from the performance. A real pity we didn't take a chance and score a deserved goal.

Pawwed Rig · 14-10-2020 06:01PM

noodler wrote: »

Got a serious run of games for Southampton last season tbf. Score a few and created a few more.

26 appearances 2 goals in league with 1 more in the cup. Not good enough for a centre forward. Ings is sleeping well at night with that kind of form. Rarely hit double figures in a season. Last time was 15/16

Utopia Parkway · 14-10-2020 06:05PM

On the plus side Ireland have probably been slightly the better side in all three games in general play. Plenty of possession. Not chasing after the ball for 90 minutes.

On the debit side not being able to score any goals is going to hard to overcome for any manager.

yourdeadwright · 14-10-2020 06:07PM

Awful again against. A team lower ranked than us but I'm sure people think it's another "positive performance"

yourdeadwright · 14-10-2020 06:07PM

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Positives again can be taken from the performance. A real pity we didn't take a chance and score a deserved goal.

What positives

Andrew00 · 14-10-2020 06:10PM

Most of the teams we play would kill to have the pool of players we have.. Majority are seasoned premier league players

speedboatchase · 14-10-2020 06:10PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

What positives

5/5 moral victories under Kenny

pgj2015 · 14-10-2020 06:15PM

Andrew00 wrote: »

Most of the teams we play would kill to have the pool of players we have.. Majority are seasoned premier league players

They can have them.

yourdeadwright · 14-10-2020 06:17PM

Stevie Wonder can see 4 3 3 isn't going to get us goals,
We need 2 up top and we need a formation that allows that

DM_7 · 14-10-2020 06:21PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Awful again against. A team lower ranked than us but I'm sure people think it's another "positive performance"

speedboatchase wrote: »

5/5 moral victories under Kenny

Mod: note to all, this is a discussion thread. Dismissive and flippant posts like above do not add to discussion so lets avoid more like that. (I appreciate recent history led to above posts)

Please keep posts about the topic and keep it respectful towards members of the forum.

That includes respect for posters who are unhappy with things.

ShamoBuc · 14-10-2020 06:21PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

What positives

Some people will look at that game and compile a list of negatives.
Others will look and see some positives.
That's just the way it is. I'm certainly not going to try to change anybody's opinion on either as it is normally a futile experience.

That said, I thought we played well in parts, looked the better team for alot of the game and did create chances that we simply did not take. Some days they go in, others they don't.

Anyway, when Kenny actually gets a run of games with a full squad, I think he will make a good team out of these players. I'm confident that they will pass and play better football that many of the more recent managers styles did not allow. Ireland under those managers really produced some turgid performances that sometimes looked like a far off distant relative to football.

Rome wasn't built in a day. He will need to be given time. I will judge him at a later time as a success or a failure. I certainly wouldn't be all doom and gloom and be looking for a replacement, that would be ridiculous in the extreme in my opinion.

weldoninhio · 14-10-2020 06:46PM

sugarman wrote: »

Players being bled in for one.

O'Shea had an excellent debut and looked very composed and assured at all times, had a better game than Duffy IMO.

Molumby looks to be our long term replacement for Whelan/McCarthy. Another very good performance.

Connolly likewise, another good performance and was sorely missed from the other 2 games. Doesnt yet look like he will be the goal scorer we're looking for, but he does look like he will at least be a good Shane Long replacement running and hassling players all day long.

Idah and Knight got on too, not really on long enough to judge but they were eager and looking to do well when they did.

Had it been Mick, we'd probably have seen Richard Keogh back in the squad along with Glenn Whelan, Alan Judge and Scott Hogan.

Molumby isn’t the same type of player as McCarthy/Whelan. He’s a box to box player. Making up stuff isn’t a positive.

Mantis Toboggan · 14-10-2020 06:51PM

It's been a very poor start for Kenny, two huge must win games now in November.

secman · 14-10-2020 06:58PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

What positives

I didnt feel like killing myself watching pure dross hoofball, constantly giving the ball away cheaply..utterly depressing football. Thats a huge positive for me..i think the goals will come..

DeanAustin · 14-10-2020 07:01PM

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

It's been a very poor start for Kenny, two huge must win games now in November.

Calling it a very poor start is harsh given everything he's dealing with. Been slightly disappointing for me with some encouraging signs.

He's, what, 5 games in? I'd give him quite a few more before I'd even start to form a solid opinion.

Republic of Ireland Team Talk/News/Rumours 2020/2021 - see Mod Note in OP [18/11/20]

Comments