Mexico - 1st June - Travel/Accomm/General chat

This is a debate for a quiet Sunday if ever I saw one

Trump Tower, bringing Pipkin with a bannner   "Trump Out"

Greenforever: if so many of those friendlies were so important, why did Wales do so well with so few friendlies?

I think you could make an argument that there's fault in the need for three friendlies before euro 2012 when two would have been plenty (you definitely can't say they helped anyway, given the performances), the three Oman games, Georgia at home (with the Faroes next we hardly needed it), Latvia, the need for three games in the USA tour when two would have done, two of the four pre-Euro 2016 games (I don't think we learnt anything from the Slovakia game), and at least one of three games between Wales and Austria. That's at least ten, and you can make an argument against more than that. Training matches accomplish as much, if not more, than some of those games.

I really don't think there's a need to play more than five friendlies annually. Three is plenty. Well selected opposition at the right time is all that's required. The Uruguay game alone would have done it. Certainly, friendlies after qualifiers have little or no benefit. Before the season starts, players don't want to get injured and harm their chances of a good start to the season. The same applies to games during the season; why would players risk anything in what they no doubt see as "meaningless" games (do you think they care about rankings)? Club form is much more important than how a player did during thirty minutes of a friendly against Iceland or Mexico reserves; see the McGeady thread for this. And at the end of the season, no doubt they just want to go on holiday; the games rarely have any competitive bite.

There is an argument that way more than four of those friendlies were not merited, anyway. And there's no doubt that loads of them harmed our ranking.


Edited by SuperDave84 - 26 Feb 2017 at 7:57pm

SuperDave84 wrote: Greenforever: if so many of those friendlies were so important, why did Wales do so well with so few friendlies? I think you could make an argument that there's fault in the need for three friendlies before euro 2012 when two would have been plenty (you definitely can't say they helped anyway, given the performances), the three Oman games, Georgia at home (with the Faroes next we hardly needed it), Latvia, the need for three games in the USA tour when two would have done, two of the four pre-Euro 2016 games (I don't think we learnt anything from the Slovakia game), and at least one of three games between Wales and Austria. That's at least ten, and you can make an argument against more than that. Training matches accomplish as much, if not more, than some of those games. I really don't think there's a need to play more than five friendlies annually. Three is plenty. Well selected opposition at the right time is all that's required. The Uruguay game alone would have done it. Certainly, friendlies after qualifiers have little or no benefit. Before the season starts, players don't want to get injured and harm their chances of a good start to the season. The same applies to games during the season; why would players risk anything in what they no doubt see as "meaningless" games (do you think they care about rankings)? Club form is much more important than how a player did during thirty minutes of a friendly against Iceland or Mexico reserves; see the McGeady thread for this. And at the end of the season, no doubt they just want to go on holiday; the games rarely have any competitive bite. There is an argument that way more than four of those friendlies were not merited, anyway. And there's no doubt that loads of them harmed our ranking.

Losing sight of the goal of wc qualification for a paycheque where else would you get it.

The ranking rules have not changed, it's only becoming a bit of thing since wales climbed so high in a quick space of time and made a point about the tactic of skipping friendlies.
Most other organisations and managers are still organising friendlies for the main purpose of team preparation and financial gain. So nothing new in setting up a friendly like this we usually do a US trip in the summers when no tournament is on. So as said, nothing new.

As a squad, who wouldn't like the idea of a few days in New York. Pretty sure O'Neill would be involved in the decision and seen a benefit.

Shedite wrote: f**k sake lads, go and win the game, f**k the rankings

I dont get this attitude.

greenforever wrote: rolo wrote: Shedite wrote: f**k sake lads, go and win the game, f**k the rankings  I dont get this attitude. You can't see the other side of an argument The most important thing is 3 points against Austria and its up to the manager to decide what ate the best preparations. If MON is not up to the job he should be replaced Maybe if MON is that incompetent Kerrzy needs to get the bed sheet back out.

When its mathematical impossible for us to top the group I will then look at rankings.