A heroically resolute Irish defensive performance salvaged a draw in Moscow and moved Ireland a step closer to a second successive qualification play-off spot. Slovakia’s defeat at home to Armenia further strengthened the Irish position last night and with two group games to go this team’s destiny is in its own hands.
http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=2523" rel="attachment wp-att-2523]
Having started with the positives in the review of the draw against Slovakia on Friday night it’s only right to start with the negatives in this assessment of the national team (which overuses parenthesis throughout). There will be much talk of spirit and desire later but look past the excellent attitude and the stalemate in Moscow was a typically uninventive Irish performance. There wasn’t a single clear cut chance for the visitors all night and the best moments came from promising moves snuffed out by wasteful passes or solid Russian defending. Seven clean sheets in a row is a terrific achievement, and regardless of the competitiveness of some of those games it is indeed a terrific achievement, but Ireland have now gone three games without scoring and have created fewer chances in each successive game in that run.Much of the lack of creativity stems from a difficulty in retaining possession. While Doyle and Keane battled bravely last night and though both Duff and McGeady enjoyed moments of rare possession in the Russian half, Ireland simply aren’t very good at keeping the ball. The formation might not help sometimes, and the tactics aren’t particularly conducive to a neat passing game, but ultimately nearly everything is a corollary of the absence of talented central midfielders.
The Centre of Midfield
There were various calls for the introduction of an extra midfielder last night from the RTÉ panel, from the commentary team and from armchair fans across the globe, but Trapattoni had nobody on the bench to turn to. Even at his young age the debate around James McCarthy is tired, and unfortunately opinions are already entrenched for many. The reality is that he is a promising player who will likely play an important role for Ireland in the future but he needs to prove (or even show) himself in an Irish shirt first. There is plenty of rhetoric about Trapattoni’s conservatism but there is a litany of players who have forced their way into the Irish team (many of whom featured last night) on the back of consistent performances in the international arena. The one overriding factor in the Italian’s tenure as Irish manager is that the players operate in a clearly defined (and understood) system. Sacrificing that unity and understanding to introduce an extra, but crucially unfamiliar, body in midfield was a risk too far.
Whelan and Andrews are the established first choice midfield pairing and both have had their moments and matches of influence but more often than not they toil through games laboriously. They are ostensibly holding midfielders but they lack the presence of Lee Carsley, or the passing ability and energy of Matt Holland. Those are hardly lofty comparisons to expect the Irish midfield to live up to but the current pairing fall some way short of such average predecessors. The current partnership could be tolerated if they provided a robustness that is expected of more defensive midfielders but they’re neither combative nor clever in their defensive work and frequently allow players to get between them and the back four. This isn’t a function of the formation or the system – it’s simply a reflection of poor positional play.
Aspirations to pay more progressive formations or styles of football depend on a solid midfield base and the need for surgery in that area is glaring.
A look at the alternatives is not particularly inspiring. Keith Fahey was an unfortunate absentee from these two games and he has contributed effectively from the bench already in this campaign. His goal in Armenia was vital on the night (and snatched an excellent result in retrospect) but of more long-term interest was his mature display when introduced from the bench at home to Macedonia. The Irish midfield of Whelan and Gibson was completely overrun in the second-half by their Macedonian counterparts but Fahey played a shielding role to great effect to protect his back four and used the ball carefully and positively a number of times. It won’t feature too highly in the annals of great Irish midfield performances (if anyone could be bothered to pen an authoritative retrospective on Irish soccer) but, such is the limit of our riches, that fleeting spark glistens like a hard-won blood diamond. He hasn’t had many opportunities in the Irish team, but did start the game away to Slovakia (in a wide role), as well as a number of friendlies. Establishing himself as a central midfielder at Birmingham would help but being fit for the next run of internationals is more important.
Beyond the possibility of Fahey the options continue to look thin on the ground and less than convincing. Darron Gibson has the international experience to play a perfunctory role in the current system but his limited involvements at club level are reflected in his failure to impose himself on numerous games. McCarthy may progress into a central midfield option but needs to learn a tactical discipline and has to make himself available for more matches to earn opportunities. There are one or two candidates outside the squad who might be able to make a difference – Owen Garvan is enjoying regular first team football in the Championship and has a respect for possession that is badly missed in the current Irish midfield. Chris McCann is a promising player who may be able to force his way into the squad if he can stay clear of injuries. The latter also applies to David Meyler who is perhaps the most suitable candidate from those outside the current squad. He has a workrate that will earn Trapattoni’s respect and though his first team appearances have been restricted, he has provided an attacking impetus to Sunderland when featuring.
The Wingers
It’s a feature of the Irish setup that the wingers are very much an isolated unit, distinct from the rest of the midfield. While the Irish formation is regularly referred to as a conventional 4-4-2 there is no real cohesion between the midfield as a quartet and it might better be described as a 4-2-2-2 with both wingers given a license in attack not afforded to (or not availed of by*) their central colleagues. They are the creative fulcrum of the team, particularly in the absence of any inspiration from Whelan and Andrews, and continue to be the source of most chances created and taken.
There is even an abundance of options for the starting positions. McGeady and Duff are justifiably in pole position and continue to impress at club and international level. Stephen Hunt is the first choice replacement now, ahead of a fading Liam Lawrence, but with Keith Fahey capable of moving wider and McCarthy another possibility in an emergency, there is a plethora of options available to Trapattoni.
The limitations in other areas make life difficult for the Irish wingers. This is most keenly felt from an attacking perspective where McGeady and Duff are regularly faced with a full-back supported by a winger and a central midfielder who can shift across to provide assistance in the knowledge there is little threat inside. There have been hints that Ireland want to be more inventive with the use of the wingers – and even in the rigid formation in Moscow, McGeady was a central presence to pick up loose balls from kick-outs. This is obviously both unsophisticated and fairly trivial in the context of the overall match but it does hint at the damage Trapattoni believes McGeady can cause when he’s allowed to roam off the wing. This was much more in evidence in the home game against Andorra where the wingers interchanged regularly and found themselves in regular support of the strikers but to date it’s only on rare occasions that the wide players have drifted inside in the bigger games.
It’s not just offensively where Duff and McGeady are exposed by the (understandable) lack of trust in others. They are allocated a defensive responsibility far greater and far more important than would normally be expected of wingers. This was taken to extreme last night where Stephen Ward abandoned all pretences at playing left back and relied on McGeady to cover the entire left flank on its own. That wasn’t the prescribed formula (hopefully) but Ireland do play with narrow full-backs who rely on the wingers covering the wider defensive areas. With the aerial ability (and natural instincts) of John O’Shea on the right hand side of the defence this is normally an effective barrier but both Ward and Kilbane have found it difficult to get their coverage right from a narrow starting position. Again this isn’t a problem that’s insurmountable but if the full backs are tucking in then they need to at least keep the defensive line intact and have to recognise the danger caused by long balls to the corners that the wingers can’t possibly cover.
It’s also vital in this system that the central midfielders are not lazy in their screening job. While Ward was strangely gazing off into space absentmindedly last night, McGeady or Duff weren’t helped by the static defending by Whelan and Andrews. It’s one thing being outnumbered in midfield but the response can’t be to sit too deep in front of the back four and rely on the wingers pressing the ball. This was the undoing of the Irish defence more than once in the home game against Russia, and Arshavin and Semshov in particular were too often ignored last night and left for McGeady, Duff and Hunt to challenge. Even Macedonia’s more limited 3-man midfield caused problems in Dublin with the wingers repeatedly required to track players inside, leaving gaps out wide, ripe for exploitation.
And yet no assessment of this area would be fair without praising the workrate that the wingers do put in and saluting the respite they often offer the team when they get on the ball. They are asked to cover huge amount of ground and they do it all night. They are as willing to sprint back in cover as they are to launch a counter-attack moments later when the ball breaks in Ireland’s favour. They are adept at winning free-kicks, they engage defenders repeatedly and never hide from taking on possession. It’s a position we are blessed in.
The Defence
Despite a succession of injuries and suspensions, the performance of the Irish defence has been nothing short of astonishing in recent matches. Dunne, O’Shea, St. Ledger and Kilbane (the first choice quartet) have all been absent at one time or another in the last three competitive games, in fact three were missing in Moscow. And still Ireland emerged with a clean sheet despite a number of scares.
The Russians fired in 24 shots on the Irish goal but that suggests Ireland enjoyed a greater degree of fortune than was actually the case. There were moments of desperation obviously, and Ward in particular was haphazard for long spells, but the number of blocks, tackles, clearances and headers was what earned Ireland the draw more than luck. Richard Dunne more than compensated for his error against Slovakia on Friday with an inspirational performance from centre back, repelling everything that came his way and never shirking a challenge amid flying boots and rough tarmac. The performance was all the more iconic with his bloodied face and hand-drawn number five, but such trappings were not required to elevate this performance to legendary status.
O’Dea alongside was a colossus and for all the concern about his apparent lack of ability he has now featured in three of the last four competitive games and has kept clean sheets each time. He is suited to a deep defensive line which Ireland employed last night, and obviously benefited from the leadership of Dunne alongside, but with St Ledger and O’Shea absent, Ireland now have four credible options for what has historically been a problem position. He lacks pace and can be naïve in his positioning but his commitment has never been in question and last night was another example of a top class performance against quality opposition.
St Ledger’s absence was keenly felt in Skopje and despite not even featuring in the first few Trapattoni squads he has progressed into a vital player for Ireland. His defending is more calm and assured than courageous and high profile but considering Ireland were toying with the idea of Alex Bruce as a centre back not too long ago he has been an unexpectedly effective performer. Adding John O’Shea to Dunne and St Ledger ensures Ireland have a wealth of experience and aerial ability and boast an impressive defensive record apart from the capitulation at home to Russia. It might seem churlish to gloss over that aberration but in truth Ireland were undone all over the pitch that night and the defence weren’t solely culpable for the three goals conceded.
Left back remains a problem position where the almost omnipresent Kevin Kilbane is likely to earn a recall despite some indifferent displays in this campaign. Stephen Ward has shown some promise but his defending was reckless in the Luzhniki Stadium and though he recovered reasonably from a nightmarish first half he saved up one error for late on when he was too casual in tracking Shirkov for a glorious late chance for Russia. Ciaran Clark hasn’t covered himself in glory in his limited showings at left back but will be worth another look when the opportunity presents itself – providing the player presents himself in Dublin of course.
Otherwise it’s a stable back four of Dunne, St Ledger, O’Shea and Kilbane, ably supported by the constantly impressive Given in goals. O’Dea and Kelly are more than capable replacements with Foley and Delaney waiting further down the pecking order. They benefit from a protective mindset and the conservative gameplan but this was the one area probably most in need of an overhaul when Trapattoni took over and they have developed into a very solid unit that Ireland can feel comfortable building a base upon. With goals at a premium for this team it’s imperative that the defence are sound and Ireland have achieved that and more.
Attackers
The September 2011 games were certainly disappointing from an attacking perspective but a bit of context is required to evaluate the striking options objectively. Prior to the game at home to Slovakia, Ireland had scored in every group game they played in. It was hardly evident from the stalemate on Friday night (and possibly only serves to undermine the statistic) but the only other country to have scored in every game prior to Friday night was Slovakia. Despite the two scoreless draws – one a disappointment, the other a creditable achievement – Ireland have outscored both Russia and Slovakia in this qualifying campaign.
Robbie Keane will be disappointed with chances he missed in both games against Slovakia, or at least he should be. But with 5 goals in the 8 games so far he is the leading scorer in the group and a strike rate of 62.5% is very impressive in international football. There are few signs of his appetite waning (insert your own joke about erroneous reports that he was overweight here) and he looks likely to remain an important part of the team for the foreseeable future. Marksmen with international records comparable to Keane’s are as rare as witty similes so his continued hunger for goals is vital to the Irish attack.
Keane’s partner in the next round of games is one of the more interesting questions (though not phrased as a question admittedly) up for debate ahead of the Andorra game. On the face of it Shane Long should be in the prime position to start alongside Keane. He was initially picked ahead of Doyle for the Slovakia match and while Doyle battled bravely against Russia his contributions in the last week were really more memorable for an inept display at the Aviva Stadium on Friday. And yet Trapattoni was quick to praise Doyle in his post-match debrief with the Irish media in Dublin. Doyle merited a mention as one of the four “very important players” for Ireland according to Trapattoni, joining the ranks of Keane, McGeady and Duff also singled out by the manager. It’s safe to assume that these are the important attacking players or Dunne and Given can feel a little aggrieved but either way it was possibly a significant comment from Trapattoni that was either a hint at Doyle’s importance, a deliberate boost to his confidence, or both.
The more effervescent Shane Long is a more obviously appealing candidate to partner Keane. He marries Doyle’s impressive enthusiasm for work with a touch of pace and has evolved into a mature finisher of chances. He was dynamic when introduced at home to Russia and his stock has continued to rise since (both at international and club level) but he doesn’t offer the same aerial threat or hold-up play that Doyle can provide. Much may depend on the two players’ respective club form in the interim but Trapattoni pays minimal regard to club records for established players, unless they’re at the extreme end of the scale and are not playing at all.
Despite Long’s current status, Doyle is possibly the more suitable candidate to play against Andorra. They’re unlikely to maintain a high line and will probably find it more difficult to cope with Doyle’s physical presence than Long’s pace. This outlook may be a touch British for some but it’s based on Doyle’s effectiveness in the home game against Andorra and he is effective against players less used to his style. There should be enough guile in the team with Keane’s touch and movement and the two wingers to drag Andorra defenders out of position – something Long offers more than Doyle – so Doyle’s more conventional attacking play is possibly more suitable.
Either way neither Doyle nor Long enjoys a clear-cut advantage over the other and Ireland have even managed to add a fourth dimension to the mix recently in Simon Cox. The West Brom striker has been an impressive addition to the Irish squad in recent months and already looks more useful and usable than Folan who he effectively replaced. He had a couple of shots against Slovakia, neither of which was convincing but it reaffirmed his goal threat, while like his strike partners his work off the ball is hugely impressive in a defensive capacity.
To have three good attacking options all playing well is a huge boost to our chances of converting limited possession into points. Adding the fourth in Cox means we’re even capable of withstanding injuries and retaining a reasonable cutting edge.
Management
There is little controversial in the assessment of players above but it’s the performance of Trapattoni as manager that divides opinion. Some are dismayed by the negative tactics, a few allow that disappointment to morph into disgust, while others will point to his record and argue that is paramount.
The truth, as ever, lies somewhere in between but to act in judgement of the manager requires a degree of balance and consideration of his resources. To begin with he inherited a poor group of players, struggling for form and devoid of any team spirit. Even the most hardened of critics must acknowledge that his work on the last point in particular has been phenomenal. The leadership from the senior players is magnificent and must be the envy of plenty of countries around Europe. The enthusiasm for work that attack-minded players now revel in demonstrates just how strong the collective bind is with this group of players. It’s flippant to dismiss this camaraderie as secondary or unsophisticated. Those who ignore the achievements of Trapattoni in this regard must have little recollection of the utter despair of the months that preceded his appointment. Ireland were frankly a shambles mentally.
Of course it wasn’t just a psychological issue. There was no discernible gameplan in the Staunton era. That has changed utterly. Critics will dismiss the reliance on a 4-4-2 (or 4-2-2-2) formation as stubbornness but must first of all assess the progression that formation has facilitated. A team that were embarrassed in the last European Championships qualifying campaign rebounded to finish second in World Cup qualifying and were unfortunate to lose in a play-off. The revisionists who point to subsequent French and Italian performances in South Africa should also be aware of Montenegro’s efforts since. From such a low ebb it’s impossible to argue Ireland have not improved under Trapattoni, but even irrespective of the campaigns that went before it is churlish to argue the efforts to qualify for World Cup 2010 were anything other than a success.
The sticking point for many is the apparent failure to move on since then. Yet Ireland are well placed to qualify (or earn a playoff spot) and are highly likely to finish on more points than the last qualifying group. Surely such measurable progress is praiseworthy?
The conservative tactics, and the rigidity with which they are employed, is another argument levelled against Trapattoni and it’s certainly more rational. The reliance on creativity from wide areas is clearly designed to maximise the return from the most inventive players but it has been weakened severely by its predictability. Teams find it easy to neglect the middle of the park and double up on the wingers. Opposing entre backs have become more aware of Doyle’s combative nature and are winning more free kicks from his enthusiastic naivety. Three men in midfield is likely to completely overpower Ireland’s offering and cause concern for a defence that’s better suited to dealing with two flat strikers and conventional wingers.
Yet it’s far too easy to dismiss a formation as “outdated” or to argue for flexibility when one of the key success factors for this Irish team has been the familiarity of the system. There are few teams in Europe that would have achieved a draw in Moscow with a central midfield of Whelan and Andrews regardless of who played at the back or up front. Both Kelly and O’Dea came into the Irish side at short notice and looked like they were playing with Dunne all their lives. Sure the rearguard effort relied on last ditch interventions but the players introduced to the team had little problem adapting to their roles. They had played them before and will doubtless play them again.
Midfield remains the problem area, and as mentioned above, the need for change is overwhelming, the personnel available distinctly underwhelming. Playing an extra central midfielder at the expense of a striker is a difficult case to argue when it involves dropping a cultured player for someone less urbane. It would be a more compelling case if McCarthy or Fahey had experience in playing in the Irish midfield but for a variety of well-documented reasons in McCarthy’s case this has not yet materialised and Fahey has unfortunately missed a number of important games also. It’s highly unlikely Trapattoni was unaware of the difficulties in midfield in recent games, it’s more probable he glanced at the bench and was reminded of the limited alternatives available.
In fact a more generous assessment of the tactics in Moscow might point to the introduction of Cox for Doyle as an effective change. It didn’t restore parity for Ireland in midfield but it did shift the balance away from the Irish defence for more frequent spells. It is particularly trivial to mention winning throw-ins in the Russian half as a strategic masterstroke but if Trapattoni is open to criticism for his tactics then the minor tweaks that prove resourceful deserve an equal mention. The issue with Ward allowing space behind him was sorted at half-time, belatedly admittedly, and Cox proved troubling enough (and different enough to Doyle) to allow Ireland gain a foothold in Russian territory for a number of spells prior to the final onslaught. They are not particularly astute or challenging adjustments but they warrant mention in light of continued criticism that the formation is rigid and the manager is passive.
None of which suggests Trapattoni is beyond criticism. His squad selection can be odd for those looking in from the outside - Bruce ahead of St Ledger stands out early in his reign, the reluctance to experiment more in friendlies has also been a recurring theme. There may even be a case for arguing that 3 poor midfielders and 1 good striker offers a better overall balance than 2 poor midfielders and 2 good strikers, but that argument is not conclusively convincing. What is indisputable is that the group of players at his disposal are achieving results and group placements better than their ranking suggests and probably better than we have a right to expect. If that can be achieved with a more open style of football then that would be wonderful, for now it’s time to be content that our destiny lies in our control with two winnable games remaining. Offered that at the start of the group and few would turn it down.
- Apologies for the clumsy clause construction.
http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?p=2522]Read the full story here
