Glenn Whelan

Brady and Hendrick both sulk on the pitch and that is an awful thing to see, their body language at times the other day was embarrassing. I would drop both for Georgia, we cannot be carrying players with that attitude out there.

Gary McKay wrote: No player should be undroppable. Back in the day the mantra was "you're only as good as your last game".   Now they sulk and phone their agent.

The only undroppable player we have at the minute is McClean, based on his performances.

pre Madonna wrote: Brady and Hendrick both sulk on the pitch and that is an awful thing to see, their body language at times the other day was embarrassing. I would drop both for Georgia, we cannot be carrying players with that attitude out there.

Sundays game was the last in a long season which camd off the back of a major tournament as well and "body language" of the players can be mistaken in a game like that. I would say , bar 5 or so players it looked like a lot of them weren't trying and their "body language" was wrong . It's just a bloody cliche picked up off the telly .

willmcc83 wrote: Gary McKay wrote: willmcc83 wrote: Gary McKay wrote: willmcc83 wrote: Would agree with a lot of what has been said here. A lot of people who criticise Whelan don't just not understand his role - they don't understand the game..   It goes a lot further than 'the Sky Sports generation' - your talking about a group of people who never played the game, never attend games in person, only tend to watch football played at the very highest level on TV and base their understanding of the game on Pro Evolution and FIFA 17.. Bullsh*t.   Same as the hype over Makelele and the 'Makelele role'.   Roy Keane as a defensive midfield anchor could play the Makelele role with his eyes closed and could still play football. Likewise Viera, Seedorf etc. Makelele couldn't. Whelan cant.   Have to pick you up on this. People talk sh*te about the Ireland team that have a limited knowledge of football. That's a fact, it's not bullsh*t..   Glen Whelan has his limitations - that is not in doubt but what is ridiculous is for people to challenge why he was picked on Sunday and to then claim he had a poor game. Not many said he had a poor game. He was one of our better performers but most played poorly against very poor opposition who sh*t themselves when we went at them.             I agree he was one of our better performers and the fact some people criticised his performance on Sunday makes you question what game they were watching. I was at the game so didn't see it on TV so can only assume his performance may not have come across as well on the TV and / or Dunphy criticised his selection and performance and his critics are just making lazy assumptions.   Anyone with a knowledge of football could see the manager would want to protect a back four that consisted of a right back and a centre back who are inexperienced at international level and another centre back just recently returned from injury.   Personally, I would have liked to have seen Hoolahan start instead of Hendrick but all in all wouldn't have complained about the team selection

Agree that the back 4 need to be protected, but why Glenn Whelan?
There are others who can do the job, and not slow everything down in the manner Whelan does. We've got on very well in big games against top opposition with the back 4 being protected by a player other than Whelan.

When I saw he was starting I just thought "how negative". It didnt auger well.
He's slow and cumbersome, what Chris Waddle would call a "plodder".

He did his job well, no arguments, but that does not mean the team as a unit could not perform better with different personnell and formation.

Indeed, we have a large body of evidence to suggest it performs better without him.

Now you can defend him if you want, but engaging in snobbery and accusing those who dont agree with you of being clueless and not knowing the game, well that's just cheap and doesnt help your argument.

Edited by rolo - 14 Jun 2017 at 12:40pm

lassassinblanc wrote: Brady is living off his goal against Italy

[/QUOTE]

Agree that the back 4 need to be protected, but why Glenn Whelan?
There are others who can do the job, and not slow everything down in the manner Whelan does. We've got on very well in big games against top opposition with the back 4 being protected by a player other than Whelan.

When I saw he was starting I just thought "how negative". It didnt auger well.
He's slow and cumbersome, what Chris Waddle would call a "plodder".

He did his job well, no arguments, but that does not mean the team as a unit could not perform better with different personnell and formation.

Indeed, we have a large body of evidence to suggest it performs better without him.

Now you can defend him if you want, but engaging in snobbery and accusing those who dont agree with you of being clueless and not knowing the game, well that's just cheap and doesnt help your argument.[/QUOTE]

Here's the same aul mantra I've been spouting for nearly ten years.

Some posters can't seem to work out the defensive values that he brings. Even at Stoke, where umpteen replacements​ have been bought, Glenn has kept his place.
Whatever about his club situation this coming season, until somebody better/less injury prone comes along he still merits his place with Ireland.

Whelan steps out of the side and the finger of blame will be pointed at somebody else....