Martin O'Neill...

zizu Kilbane wrote: Sham157 wrote: FAO Zizu:   Absolutely

Trap junior wrote: So to sum up:  Hoofing under Trapattoni: Didn't get results Hoofing under MON: Gets results

Edited by coyne - 16 Jun 2017 at 1:22am

Bob Hoskins wrote: David Brent over at Celtic has said he'd like to manage Ireland at some point in his career, does anyone think we'd be hoofing the ball with him as manager? No. So what's with this 'it's the only way we know how to play' bollixology

I still reckon we play better with the ball on the ground. We had an excellent Euros playing that way bar one game against Belgium where we played hooofball and got hammered. Was it the diamond we used and it was pretty effective? Anyway if we play like that more often and are consistent we would be winning games against the likes of the other three in our group at home anyway and if its not working we can resort to what we did in the last 15 mins of last weeks game.

Bob Hoskins wrote: David Brent over at Celtic has said he'd like to manage Ireland at some point in his career, does anyone think we'd be hoofing the ball with him as manager? No. So what's with this 'it's the only way we know how to play' bollixology

Brent mused: ''yes one day I'd like to manage The Eire''

FAO Zizu:   Absolutely

pre Madonna wrote: Yes, England just won it. Players also don't stop developing until 21. From what I saw they were bigger than their opponents in most games, did you see the difference between England and Scotland in the tunnel. This has bugger all to do with what was being discussed, but footballers now are, on average, bigger than twenty years ago and that is most definitely the case in England. Nobody mentioned technique in academies or anything else their Terence. You seem determined to drag this thread off topic, either by discussing Nordie politics or Spurs academy or whatever.

In what is a wide-ranging thread, I chose to comment on one aspect, namely the standard/quality of player open to Martin O'Neill.

Several posters "blame" the English academies, from where the majority of ROI players come at one stage or another, for not producing technically proficient players, merely hulking great kids.

Imo, that is just a lazy stereotype. Or do you really think top foreign managers at clubs like Chelsea, City, MU, Liverpool and Spurs etc are completely happy to see the best kids recruited from all around the world at huge expense, turned into muscle-bound cloggers and hoofers?

Or that their German/French/Dutch etc U-20's counterparts are all puny?

Bizarre, truly bizarre.

Instead, the real problem imo is that no matter how much top-quality coaching and development a player gets in his late teens or early 20's, if he's not given the chance to test his skills in proper, competitive adult matches when he's 21, 22, 23 etc, then he will never get those years back and become by 27 or 28 the top player he lookd like being at 18.

Meanwhile, not only do the best ROI kids suffer under that syndrome, but because the Academies are recruiting from all over the world now, the slightly less-than-best ROI kids don't even get their chance in the top academies, but have to try to make it via Football League clubs.

But I really don't think you can blame the Academies for not employing some form of Positive Discrimination in favour of ROI kids, can you?

[Meanwhile, it was not I who introduced the topic of Michael, or Brendan, taking over from Martin; nor I who picked up on the scarf in the MO'N "bumps" picture; nor I who first made the comment:

Territorial wrote: pre Madonna wrote: Gary McKay wrote: pre Madonna wrote: It isn't the manager, it is the whole system. That is why we produce so few technically proficient players, you can't expect a manager of an international team, who sees them once every few months, to turn them into something they are not.  Jack Charlton had McGrath, Lawrenson, Beglin, Brady, Whelan, Sheedy, Sheridan, Houghton etc and still played long ball.   English academies are producing one type of player only. It's been said so many times that if Xavi, Iniesta and Messi were English you would never have heard of them.   He was obsessed with one way of playing and the results backed him up. That is an entirely separate debate and for elsewhere. The latter is very true and it isn't just true of England, although it certainly is true there. Size and strength has never been more important in football. England have just won the U-20 World Cup. Since the Academy system has become established at big clubs with foreign managers like Chelsea and Man City, the standards (inc. technical) are extremely high - and not just the foreign lads, but the locals, too. But one of the problems - arguably the biggest - for English clubs is that the best youngsters at 19 or 20 do not get a chance to play in the first team over the next, crucial 3 or 4 years. Instead, the demand for instant, perpetual success means that their clubs instead sign established 26 or 27 year olds from wherever, use them for two or three seasons, then replace them with more 26 or 27 year olds. Meanwhile, the youngsters themselves have little incentive to move on, when they're picking up £20k or even £30k per week, before they've even made their first team debut. However, on the rare occasion when a team/manager is prepared to trust the youngsters, English football can produce players of the highest technical ability eg Man U under Ferguson, Spurs under Pochettino

Lets hoof it from minute 1.  Lets get 200 long balls launched onto Johnny Walters head.  None of yer poncy passing sh*te.