Martin O'Neill...

Or does longball football work at tiring defences out and then capitalising on mistakes in the last 20 minutes?

There is ever another way of looking at things.

But when have we ever scored so many late goals?

Jack was the king of longball football, but I can't think of too many late goals. We did need a 90th minute equaliser against Belgium in a 2-2 draw in Brussels, but usually late goals under Jack were the icing on the cake in 2 or 3 nil victories.


What seems to be happening under O'Neill is that the longball gameplan often doesn't work and the opposition find themselves taking the lead. With about 20 minutes to go they drop further and further back in order to defend their lead, and that's when we throw the kitchen sink at them.

It's great that the players never give up, but it does suggest that we need to try something different to stop this from happening.

pre Madonna wrote: I think the problem, certainly against Austria, is how we approach and start the game. I don't think we started the last game to play as direct, the problem was that Arter and Hendrick had little interest in looking for the ball so when any of the back 4 or Randolph was given the ball it was humped away. That isn't what I would call long ball, more wasteful than anything else and it stemmed from inviting pressure onto ourselves. When Murphy came on the tactic was clearer for the deeper players to look up and find either him or Walters. The hoofs were replaced with more accurate long balls forward and we got a foothold up the pitch and started creating chances. There is nothing wrong with being direct, it is when we dilly dally on the ball, uncomfortably knock it about the back and it ends up being launched into the stand by a frustrated defender that is the problem. It isn't as if we are blessed with ball-playing defenders anyway!

If going direct is so effective why not launch it from minute 1?  (I think we did this anyway last week).
And this brings up the question of why the country was outraged when Trapattoni did it but now thinks its the correct tactic? Trap was sl*gged off for playing 4-4-2 and direct.  Now people are calling for its return! Unreal. At least Trap played long balls to two up front as opposed to a lone striker who to be fair did brilliantly with little help from anyone else.
To be fair to O'Neill his teams are usually well motivated and the late goals reflect a fighting spirit but that was never my criticism of MON.  Look back at any of y posts from 2013 and I always said he's a good motivator but offers little else.  We get by on spirit and nothing else.
Should I be happy with that?  No because his remit was to change things from the Trap era.

His remit was to:
Play a passing game:  failed
Play ''our best players'' :  half failed
Improve the tactics :  failed

His tactics show that he still is experimenting and hoping to stumble upon a working formula. At first it was McCarthy as a number 10 and it continued on.  He chops and changes every game. Sometimes it works but mostly it doesnt.  He throws players together who never played together before into vital qualifiers.  Qualifiers and major finals are no time to gamble on new partnerships. You would hope to have tested any new players or partnerships in 1 oe 2 friendly games before putting them into a big game.  Putting Duffy with Long was a bad mistake. Long played ok but that was a stupid gamble to take.  It paid off for MON against Italy and then backfired badly against France when Duffy was found out to be a poor player with no cop on.  The players should know their roles. With MON the players seem a bit lost similar to when Stan chopped and changed line up every game hoping to find the winning formula. 

MON didn't set us up to play long ball against Austria in my opinion. He wanted the same performance that the team produced against Uruguay.The Team couldn't do that in the tension of a vital qualifier. If we were intentionally playing long ball in the first 70 minutes why would he play Jonathan Walters on his own upfront? We played it long in the first 70 minutes because the players couldn't pass the ball to each other and had no other choice. It wasn't planned.

planning wrote: All results matter. 16 from 40 is not a resurgence, it's barely mediocre, which has us as fourth seeds for this campaign.

rolo wrote: I'd rather a manager who changes partnerships when things arent working in a tournament, than one who stubbornly sticks with the same players.

Like a clearly under performing Randolph and in form Westwood?

Not to mention taking a huge gamble with Kevin Long.

Trap junior wrote: pre Madonna wrote: I think the problem, certainly against Austria, is how we approach and start the game. I don't think we started the last game to play as direct, the problem was that Arter and Hendrick had little interest in looking for the ball so when any of the back 4 or Randolph was given the ball it was humped away. That isn't what I would call long ball, more wasteful than anything else and it stemmed from inviting pressure onto ourselves. When Murphy came on the tactic was clearer for the deeper players to look up and find either him or Walters. The hoofs were replaced with more accurate long balls forward and we got a foothold up the pitch and started creating chances. There is nothing wrong with being direct, it is when we dilly dally on the ball, uncomfortably knock it about the back and it ends up being launched into the stand by a frustrated defender that is the problem. It isn't as if we are blessed with ball-playing defenders anyway! If going direct is so effective why not launch it from minute 1?  (I think we did this anyway last week). And this brings up the question of why the country was outraged when Trapattoni did it but now thinks its the correct tactic? Trap was sl*gged off for playing 4-4-2 and direct.  Now people are calling for its return! Unreal. At least Trap played long balls to two up front as opposed to a lone striker who to be fair did brilliantly with little help from anyone else. To be fair to O'Neill his teams are usually well motivated and the late goals reflect a fighting spirit but that was never my criticism of MON.  Look back at any of y posts from 2013 and I always said he's a good motivator but offers little else.  We get by on spirit and nothing else. Should I be happy with that?  No because his remit was to change things from the Trap era. His remit was to: Play a passing game:  failed Play ''our best players'' :  half failed Improve the tactics :  failed His tactics show that he still is experimenting and hoping to stumble upon a working formula. At first it was McCarthy as a number 10 and it continued on.  He chops and changes every game. Sometimes it works but mostly it doesnt.  He throws players together who never played together before into vital qualifiers.  Qualifiers and major finals are no time to gamble on new partnerships. You would hope to have tested any new players or partnerships in 1 oe 2 friendly games before putting them into a big game.  Putting Duffy with Long was a bad mistake. Long played ok but that was a stupid gamble to take.  It paid off for MON against Italy and then backfired badly against France when Duffy was found out to be a poor player with no cop on.  The players should know their roles. With MON the players seem a bit lost similar to when Stan chopped and changed line up every game hoping to find the winning formula.

planning wrote: TonyNotJack wrote: MON didn't set us up to play long ball against Austria in my opinion. He wanted the same performance that the team produced against Uruguay.The Team couldn't do that in the tension of a vital qualifier. If we were intentionally playing long ball in the first 70 minutes why would he play Jonathan Walters on his own upfront? We played it long in the first 70 minutes because the players couldn't pass the ball to each other and had no other choice. It wasn't planned. I really don't like how late MON names the team.How he loves throwing in a surprise last minute inclusion and how the players don't know if they are in the team until the last minute. It would be a lot better if everyone knew they were playing from when the squad met up and all the tactics and positions were worked on down to a fine detail in training on the week of the games but that's not MON's way, sadly. He says it's to stop his players going on Twitter to rant about why they're not playing. i.e. a bunch of McCleans. This idea that they couldn't pass the ball in a qualifier is bunkum. They were told not to do it, and they didn't. The pre game chat was all about fighting wars and kick and rush, put em under pressure claptrap. Not a great advert for decent football.

horsebox wrote: kearney304 wrote: horsebox wrote: rolo wrote: I'd rather a manager who changes partnerships when things arent working in a tournament, than one who stubbornly sticks with the same players. Like a clearly under performing Randolph and in form Westwood? Not to mention taking a huge gamble with Kevin Long. Mr. Horse - Was Randolph at fault for Austria goal? Did he make any mistake? Howler as you all predicted? Make a great save? Yes he did.  Team = justified. Long was excellent - no issue there. Obviously impressed in few games / training etc.  I never said he did make a mistake, nor did I predict he would make a howler, the point I am making is that Westwood is a better keeper than Randolph, which goes against the point Rolo made. And the poll put on the side showed that all the fans wanted Westwood to start in goal instead of Randolph. I don't think anyone bar you, thought Long had an excellent game. He did ok. Again, the point is that O'Neill played 2 inexperienced players together in a crucial game, this in my opinion was a mistake.