England V Republic of Ireland - Thursday, 12th November 2020 - Friendly

[Stuttgart88]

When this fixture was announced I rolled my eyes. Other than getting the squad together for a bit it was a hiding to nothing. England are miles better than us even with their stars missing. There was a reason I wasn’t excited (until Tuesday :) ) and that was because I thought it was a daft fixture that'd teach us nothing.

We missed key players and played others who palpably aren’t ready for this level yet so we’ve got to be patient with them. A new GK just for the experience might have been useful. And sometimes when a team is in a rut with no obvious solutions a change in GK sometimes works. But in defence of SK he had 3 keepers none of whom is starting. At least when Mick picked teenage Shay he was playing regularly and was clearly ready for senior football.

David Kelly tweeted last night that we were playing a team that’s close now to winnining things whereas our ambition is to be trying to beat teams like Finland. That's about it really.

As for “the system isn’t working”. Maybe it isn’t but last night showed no evidence of anything. We’ll know more next week. I’d say it’s more down to who is picked than anything else and last night SK had few options. Even when he does have options I’d say only maybe 4 players are considered key players at their clubs. Coleman, Stevens, Doc and Browne. The rest are replaceable or bit parts. It’s got nothing to do with the philosophy. You can’t be competitive with a team more than half full of fluff.

If the play is too slow then is that because of the system or because Hourihane makes Glenn Whelan look like Jack Grealish? I’d criticise SK for persisting with CH because it’s clear now he doesn’t influence games at all. If he sat in a 3/4 full bath he wouldn't even influence the water level.

Teams press us high because we have no centre forward who can hurt teams. Teams sense no danger so they don’t allow for any danger. So you can ask the team to mix it up a bit with some direct football but with the XI out there last night it'd have just come back as quick as we hit it forward. You need a final third threat to keep teams honest and we had none.

We need an advanced playmaker. That’s easy to see imho. Our best play to date has always been when Dids dropped deeper.

If Duffy doesn’t do what Duffy is supposed to do (beat lumps like Maguire in the air) then maybe Doherty should be CB.

Coleman is missed, for several reasons. His quality, his pro-activity on the ball and his leadership.

Bear in mind that Scotland have still barely won a game under Clarke. They only beat a complete Czech second 23 squad 2-1. Yet they are rightly heralding what seems to be a project slowly coming together nicely.

Wales were also comfortably beaten 3-0 by England last month. Both teams also under strength. England are just too good for non tier 1 teams and that’s been evident for a few years now.

And we really were inches from beating Slovakia who did the biz last night. We did well in Finland and well enough at home to Wales. Kenny is ten weeks into the job for all intents and purposes.

So for me:

Is SK right to keep trying to play more football on the ground? Probably, but last night was no evidence of anything. The gulf in class was too big
Are there any players we now know are better than others? Yes. Hourihane can't cut it against any standard of international team imho. Coleman has to start when fit. Molumby adds something
Are we setting the team up right? Probably not. We need a playmaker. We need a solid 9. 3 at the back looks a good shout

[barney]

as I wrote:
"Ireland at Italia 90 was an absolute snoozefest."

You're absolutely right. It was a terrible World Cup. Awful ****e altogether but it had a lot of icons (Schillachi, Baggio, Maradona, Mattheus, Milla, Lineker, Gazza etc.) and England and Ireland did well so it'll always be remembered fondly here. The fact it was our first WC and we did so well will always elevate it above where it should be. Mexico in 1986 was a much, much better WC.

On Ireland, I'm not sure where I stand on Kenny. I think he's got to be given a campaign and if we are competitive, I'd keep him. I understand the point about how weak we are compared to England but we should be doing better. A well drilled side doesn't get dicked 3-0, and it was an easy 3-0, by anyone.

I think Kenny is being too ambitious. I agree with his footballing principles but we don't have the players to play the game he wants. And it's very, very hard to change our football culture from the top down which is almost what he's trying to do. It needs to come from the bottom up and, a lot of what I see at underage, still encourages hoofball and winning football over playing the game properly. Winning at younger age groups can be done by selecting the powerful lads and playing risk-free football. That's how I was brought up 30 years ago and, while it's gotten better, it's still a problem. As long as we teach kids to play football like that, we'll struggle to play the game Kenny wants.

[Stuttgart88]

Interesting to see hear that most people are now seeing that we do need to change and adapt except against the minnows/smaller teams - its encouraging. Those who think that they are better fans for wanting some nice pleasing brand of football
and willing to throw away campaigns for this dream are actually the selfish and less patriotic ones.
Selfish & less patriotic? Wow, Steve Bannon is now commenting on football I see.

Let me make myself clear: I'm not saying change or adaptation isn't needed. I'm saying things like "mixing it up" don't help. If you pick active/proactive players (Molumby over Hourihane for example) what you get out the other end will be better. If Coleman starts you'll immediately get more impetus. If you have a 9 that can hold the ball and keep defenders busy and a guy who can use the ball well in their half the whole thing changes.

And your post number 349 is more self congratulatory claptrap and even deluded. "I saw it early". "That's why I hoped for a 1 win". Jeez, didn't we all? Get real.

[pineapple stu]

A well drilled side doesn't get dicked 3-0, and it was an easy 3-0, by anyone.
A well-drilled side absolutely does get beaten 3-0. I thought Dundalk were exceptionally well-drilled against Arsenal for example, and lost 3-0. England have beaten similar or better teams by bigger margins in recent years - 5-0 at home v the Czech Republic in Euro qualifying for example, as well as 12-1 v Montenegro, 10-0 v Bulgaria and 9-3 v Kosovo over both games in the same campaign.

[paul_oshea]

When this fixture was announced I rolled my eyes. Other than getting the squad together for a bit it was a hiding to nothing. England are miles better than us even with their stars missing. There was a reason I wasn’t excited (until Tuesday :) ) and that was because I thought it was a daft fixture that'd teach us nothing.

We missed key players and played others who palpably aren’t ready for this level yet so we’ve got to be patient with them. A new GK just for the experience might have been useful. And sometimes when a team is in a rut with no obvious solutions a change in GK sometimes works. But in defence of SK he had 3 keepers none of whom is starting. At least when Mick picked teenage Shay he was playing regularly and was clearly ready for senior football.

David Kelly tweeted last night that we were playing a team that’s close now to winnining things whereas our ambition is to be trying to beat teams like Finland. That's about it really.

As for “the system isn’t working”. Maybe it isn’t but last night showed no evidence of anything. We’ll know more next week. I’d say it’s more down to who is picked than anything else and last night SK had few options. Even when he does have options I’d say only maybe 4 players are considered key players at their clubs. Coleman, Stevens, Doc and Browne. The rest are replaceable or bit parts. It’s got nothing to do with the philosophy. You can’t be competitive with a team more than half full of fluff.

If the play is too slow then is that because of the system or because Hourihane makes Glenn Whelan look like Jack Grealish? I’d criticise SK for persisting with CH because it’s clear now he doesn’t influence games at all. If he sat in a 3/4 full bath he wouldn't even influence the water level.

Teams press us high because we have no centre forward who can hurt teams. Teams sense no danger so they don’t allow for any danger. So you can ask the team to mix it up a bit with some direct football but with the XI out there last night it'd have just come back as quick as we hit it forward. You need a final third threat to keep teams honest and we had none.

We need an advanced playmaker. That’s easy to see imho. Our best play to date has always been when Dids dropped deeper.

If Duffy doesn’t do what Duffy is supposed to do (beat lumps like Maguire in the air) then maybe Doherty should be CB.

Coleman is missed, for several reasons. His quality, his pro-activity on the ball and his leadership.

Bear in mind that Scotland have still barely won a game under Clarke. They only beat a complete Czech second 23 squad 2-1. Yet they are rightly heralding what seems to be a project slowly coming together nicely.

Wales were also comfortably beaten 3-0 by England last month. Both teams also under strength. England are just too good for non tier 1 teams and that’s been evident for a few years now.

And we really were inches from beating Slovakia who did the biz last night. We did well in Finland and well enough at home to Wales. Kenny is ten weeks into the job for all intents and purposes.

So for me:

Is SK right to keep trying to play more football on the ground? Probably, but last night was no evidence of anything. The gulf in class was too big
Are there any players we now know are better than others? Yes. Hourihane can't cut it against any standard of international team imho. Coleman has to start when fit. Molumby adds something
Are we setting the team up right? Probably not. We need a playmaker. We need a solid 9. 3 at the back looks a good shout

This is a well constructed post, a bit obtuse to fool some, but I wont go through it all, who exactly isn't ready of the starters? ANd by ready i'm sure you mean ready for international football , but because of age? WHo exactly can improve on the starting 11 in terms of maturity and experience? These players mainly from what i can see were all above 25 starting, idah aside? They are either not good enough or not capable of playing a game Kenny wants.

This isnt a changing of the old guard, so why is there a reference to Micks first time in charge? We haven't retired 3-4 players with massive international experience since SK took over.

Last night didnt show anything? Yes it did, it was 13 players or so who tried to play for the first 15 minutes, then realised they weren't capable of matching their opponents and their heads dropped after, i feel, the first goal. It showed that with a few players missing we can't play a style and be competitive against Tier 1 nations, even with our best players we wouldn't be able to compete with the passing ability of Tier 1 nations playing a game our players don't fully appear to believe in, or at the very least are still unsure of it.

We need an advanced playmaker? Byrne as much as i would like to see him given a chance isnt going to make a difference against a team like England. We don;t have one, so what do we do? Come on here and defend the way we play everytime and caveat that well if we had a playmaker it would be fine? Square pegs and round holes was a phrase you used on here frequently. Well we dont even have the square pegs to put the into round holes! You make do with what you have, and you adapt and change accordingly. If someone takes my Bishop in chess, do i start using my Rook as a bishop?

IT doesnt matter how many weeks hes been in charge, its all about games, and judging on what hes done in those games. We have scored 2 goals in 500 minutes or so? We've passed the ball about, had better possession, and wrongly I thought we had improved over the few games defensively, everything else so far has been more negative than positive.

Theres a very defeatist attitude going on now, and a one suggesting we aren't realistic, when was this ever the case with previous managers, there is an agenda at large here that when anything is challenged its dismissed and we are being unrealistic.
Adaptabililty is key here, all managers down through the years have shown staunch resilience to anything other than the system they believed in. Kenny is sadly showing this too, even with 2 or 3 of our key players we would have been passed off the field, the only way we would have gotten a result here was to adapt our system, which kenny fails to do. The death of him if he continues in this vein will be 4-3-3 and a refusal to move from that and how we setup and reduce space between the lines.

[Stuttgart88]

They beat Wales 3-0 last month too. Both teams understrength. Friendly match, no crowds...no great surprise that these games are played without intensity.

[paul_oshea]

Selfish & less patriotic? Wow, Steve Bannon is now commenting on football I see.

Let me make myself clear: I'm not saying change or adaptation isn't needed. I'm saying things like "mixing it up" don't help. If you pick active/proactive players (Molumby over Hourihane for example) what you get out the other end will be better. If Coleman starts you'll immediately get more impetus. If you have a 9 that can hold the ball and keep defenders busy and a guy who can use the ball well in their half the whole thing changes.

And your post number 349 is more self congratulatory claptrap and even deluded. "I saw it early". "That's why I hoped for a 1 win". Jeez, didn't we all? Get real.

Call it what you will but identifying things early and being right, whilst others downright ignored, dismissed or showed hostility to those beliefs/opinions its going to be called out. Its never a reason to gloat though, I agree if that's what you were getting at. :)

[paul_oshea]

A well-drilled side absolutely does get beaten 3-0. I thought Dundalk were exceptionally well-drilled against Arsenal for example, and lost 3-0. England have beaten similar or better teams by bigger margins in recent years - 5-0 at home v the Czech Republic in Euro qualifying for example, as well as 12-1 v Montenegro, 10-0 v Bulgaria and 9-3 v Kosovo over both games in the same campaign.

Apples and oranges, come on stu. Two very poor mistakes against Arsenal cost them going in 0-0 at half time, and players and different ends of the stratosphere. You cant compare these two things.

So we contend ourselves by skimming through the list of Englands recent results and picking out teams that they hammered?

[pineapple stu]

Apples and oranges, come on stu. Two very poor mistakes against Arsenal cost them going in 0-0 at half time, and players and different ends of the stratosphere. You cant compare these two things.

So we contend ourselves by skimming through the list of Englands recent results and picking out teams that they hammered?
The point made was that well-drilled teams don't lose 3-0. I'm making the point that they absolutely can do.

There's also no point overanalysing last night's result and jumping to conclusions such as "sack the manager" or "let's go back to hoofball". Better teams than us have lost by bigger margins against England. We don't have to be happy with it, but we do have to take the result in its context.

That's all.

[paul_oshea]

I think Kenny is being too ambitious. I agree with his footballing principles but we don't have the players to play the game he wants. And it's very, very hard to change our football culture from the top down which is almost what he's trying to do. It needs to come from the bottom up and, a lot of what I see at underage, still encourages hoofball and winning football over playing the game properly. Winning at younger age groups can be done by selecting the powerful lads and playing risk-free football. That's how I was brought up 30 years ago and, while it's gotten better, it's still a problem. As long as we teach kids to play football like that, we'll struggle to play the game Kenny wants.

I am sure the world over plays football like that, parents are parent, kids are kids, coaches are coaches. That's not to say when you get an elite group together you don't put emphasis and ensure that the game is played the way you want it to right the way through to the top. I believe we have the players to play a decent brand of football to a point, but then when that point is reached, you adapt and you do something different. Every sport, and every good manager or coach or player have a sport knows his/her/teams weaknesses, and their opponent(s) strengths, the edge in coaching/managing is the ability to get the best out of that and gain advantage over your competitor even if you have more weaknesses than they do - you play to your strengths, you adapt to get the best from your strengths and the most from your opponents weaknesses.

[Stuttgart88]

This is a well constructed post, a bit obtuse to fool some, but I wont go through it all, who exactly isn't ready of the starters? ANd by ready i'm sure you mean ready for international football , but because of age? WHo exactly can improve on the starting 11 in terms of maturity and experience? These players mainly from what i can see were all above 25 starting, idah aside? They are either not good enough or not capable of playing a game Kenny wants.

This isnt a changing of the old guard, so why is there a reference to Micks first time in charge? We haven't retired 3-4 players with massive international experience since SK took over.

Last night didnt show anything? Yes it did, it was 13 players or so who tried to play for the first 15 minutes, then realised they weren't capable of matching their opponents and their heads dropped after, i feel, the first goal. It showed that with a few players missing we can't play a style and be competitive against Tier 1 nations, even with our best players we wouldn't be able to compete with the passing ability of Tier 1 nations playing a game our players don't fully appear to believe in, or at the very least are still unsure of it.

We need an advanced playmaker? Byrne as much as i would like to see him given a chance isnt going to make a difference against a team like England. We don;t have one, so what do we do? Come on here and defend the way we play everytime and caveat that well if we had a playmaker it would be fine? Square pegs and round holes was a phrase you used on here frequently. Well we dont even have the square pegs to put the into round holes! You make do with what you have, and you adapt and change accordingly. If someone takes my Bishop in chess, do i start using my Rook as a bishop?

IT doesnt matter how many weeks hes been in charge, its all about games, and judging on what hes done in those games. We have scored 2 goals in 500 minutes or so? We've passed the ball about, had better possession, and wrongly I thought we had improved over the few games defensively, everything else so far has been more negative than positive.

Theres a very defeatist attitude going on now, and a one suggesting we aren't realistic, when was this ever the case with previous managers, there is an agenda at large here that when anything is challenged its dismissed and we are being unrealistic.
Adaptabililty is key here, all managers down through the years have shown staunch resilience to anything other than the system they believed in. Kenny is sadly showing this too, even with 2 or 3 of our key players we would have been passed off the field, the only way we would have gotten a result here was to adapt our system, which kenny fails to do. The death of him if he continues in this vein will be 4-3-3 and a refusal to move from that and how we setup and reduce space between the lines.So, how exactly would you adapt? All well and good calling for adaptation. I've actually told you clearly I am up for adaptation, and spelt out exactly what adaptation I'd like to see. More than you've done. The only part where you really make sense is in saying "how we set up and reduce space between the lines". That's where I think having a playmaker and a 9 will help, as well as having "busier" full backs and centre-mids. But how would you set up and reduce space between the lines? And in once sense we actually need to increase space between lines, the opposition lines. On the radio this morning the Scots were saying that because they had an effective busy forward that kept Serbia's back 4 deeper, which created room. That's exactly what I was trying to say about having someone to keep teams honest.

I wrote absolutely nothing obtuse and am not trying to fool anyone. What on earth are you on about? The word fool does spring to mind here, but as a noun not a verb.

Who isn't ready? Idah, bless him. On a hiding to nothing. I've said the adaptation we need requires a good 9 who does what a good 9 does. I'm not writing Idah off or even being critical of him. He is young & developing. But he's not ready for international football right now I feel, and I think that affects everything. For reasons I very clearly stated. I'm not asking you to agree, but it's my opinion. I don't think Hourihane can cut it as an international footballer, not without his teammates getting a good grip on the game.

I never said anything about a changing of the guard. I referenced Mick in context of Shay Given. No other context. Read again please. I simply said at least when Mick brought in a young keeper he brought in a keeper already doing well at club level.

You say "a team as good as England". Stu pointed out how they've wiped the floor with teams like us. Yet you still think some mysterious adaptation will elevate us up to a level where we can compete? England have changed over the last 10-15 years. With very few exceptions they tend to brush aside non-Tier 1 teams now.

You say there's a defeatist attitude and claims we're not realistic? You were the one "hoping for a 1-0 win" with half our squad absent, a woefully out of sorts CB, 3 goalkeepers not getting a game at their clubs and a teenage striker with one club goal this season. OK. I'll have some of your reality please.

I won't comment further on your observation that we had "13 or so" players who did well for the first 15 minutes.

[Stuttgart88]

Call it what you will but identifying things early and being right, whilst others downright ignored, dismissed or showed hostility to those beliefs/opinions its going to be called out. Its never a reason to gloat though, I agree if that's what you were getting at. :)
I actually think you've got mental health problems.

[Stuttgart88]

A well-drilled side absolutely does get beaten 3-0. I thought Dundalk were exceptionally well-drilled against Arsenal for example, and lost 3-0. England have beaten similar or better teams by bigger margins in recent years - 5-0 at home v the Czech Republic in Euro qualifying for example, as well as 12-1 v Montenegro, 10-0 v Bulgaria and 9-3 v Kosovo over both games in the same campaign.Dundalk should have adapted into a team that can score 4 goals against Arsenal.

[paul_oshea]

Dundalk should have adapted into a team that can score 4 goals against Arsenal.

Ah that old chestnut, cant make a valid point so try and ridicule to do oneupmanship :D

[Olé Olé]

And yet he was the one who looked most likely to create something.

I've no problem with him making the team on last night's showing.

Agreed. Horgan could hve had two assists in the first 15 minutes if we had better players with attacking instincts inside him.

I find it baffling how some people will reach and over extend themselves to find a stick to beat Kenny with. He's picking former LOI players he's familiar with? Christie and Hourihane have no LOI experience and are not better options than O'Shea and Molumby but they got the nod.

My biggest issue with Kenny is that the narrative he feeds the media about our players being better than we think and need a chance to play football often manifests itself in our team. By all means try to create confidence and a positive mood and tell the media you are happy with the quality of Cyrus Christie because he performs okay for good championship clubs. It's a whole different thing to trust Christie against Grealish and Sancho. O'Shea was the man for that as far as I'm concerned. And Hourihane plays or has played for Villa but give me Molumby all day.

[Stuttgart88]

Ah that old chestnut, can't make a valid point so try and ridicule to do oneupmanship :DNo, you just haven't yet said how you'd adapt. All I've heard you say is adaptation will make things better. What adaptation?

I've made plenty of points in very good faith. I believe they're valid but that's open to discussion of course.

Well ok, it was slightly juvenile dig but until you spell out exactly how you'd adapt and stop bleating on about how you're so perceptive by seeing us being pretty poor in Bulgaria, then you're open to ridicule.

[paul_oshea]

The O'Shea thing must have been on experience, that Christie was more experienced internationally

I agree though criticise Kenny for what hes doing and how the team is playing and selection where it merits it, but Horgan has done alright, he seems to be a 1 half player so we should use him accordingly. What other options had we? I agree mcclean would have given us that bite that we missed but kenny believed in his system to start with, McClean and horgan both started in LOI so what? Actually as I wrote this and thought about the performance my minds changed a little - we needed a McClean last night not a horgan. :D

[barney]

I am sure the world over plays football like that, parents are parent, kids are kids, coaches are coaches. That's not to say when you get an elite group together you don't put emphasis and ensure that the game is played the way you want it to right the way through to the top. I believe we have the players to play a decent brand of football to a point, but then when that point is reached, you adapt and you do something different. Every sport, and every good manager or coach or player have a sport knows his/her/teams weaknesses, and their opponent(s) strengths, the edge in coaching/managing is the ability to get the best out of that and gain advantage over your competitor even if you have more weaknesses than they do - you play to your strengths, you adapt to get the best from your strengths and the most from your opponents weaknesses.

I don't believe they do. You see kids playing football in Spain. It's about technique, first touch, passing, space. We don't teach that here in a lot of places. I hear a lot of "Get rid of it" if a kid gets the ball in defence and is under pressure. Let him make a mistake. I see a lot of parents and coaches advocating getting the ball back to front as quickly as possible and I see a lot of kids praised because they can kick it the furthest and kick it the hardest. None of that promotes a culture that will allow us to play the type of football Kenny wants.

I actually think the GAA hurts us a lot in this respect. Not in terms of taking players or some of the other stuff you hear. I mean in terms of how they coach kids to play their games. They tell kids to get the ball/sliotar and get it forward as quick as possible. The further you can kick/hit it the better. And they are right to do that because that's the best way to play their games. But then the next night kids come to football training and they're being taught to look for space. That sometimes you have to go sideways or backwards with the ball. And at 8, 9, 10 years of age, it's very hard to reconcile those approaches.

[paul_oshea]

So, how exactly would you adapt? All well and good calling for adaptation. I've actually told you clearly I am up for adaptation, and spelt out exactly what adaptation I'd like to see. More than you've done. The only part where you really make sense is in saying "how we set up and reduce space between the lines". That's where I think having a playmaker and a 9 will help, as well as having "busier" full backs and centre-mids. But how would you set up and reduce space between the lines? And in once sense we actually need to increase space between lines, the opposition lines. On the radio this morning the Scots were saying that because they had an effective busy forward that kept Serbia's back 4 deeper, which created room. That's exactly what I was trying to say about having someone to keep teams honest.

I wrote absolutely nothing obtuse and am not trying to fool anyone. What on earth are you on about? The word fool does spring to mind here, but as a noun not a verb.

Who isn't ready? Idah, bless him. On a hiding to nothing. I've said the adaptation we need requires a good 9 who does what a good 9 does. I'm not writing Idah off or even being critical of him. He is young & developing. But he's not ready for international football right now I feel, and I think that affects everything. For reasons I very clearly stated. I'm not asking you to agree, but it's my opinion. I don't think Hourihane can cut it as an international footballer, not without his teammates getting a good grip on the game.

I never said anything about a changing of the guard. I referenced Mick in context of Shay Given. No other context. Read again please. I simply said at least when Mick brought in a young keeper he brought in a keeper already doing well at club level.

You say "a team as good as England". Stu pointed out how they've wiped the floor with teams like us. Yet you still think some mysterious adaptation will elevate us up to a level where we can compete? England have changed over the last 10-15 years. With very few exceptions they tend to brush aside non-Tier 1 teams now.

You say there's a defeatist attitude and claims we're not realistic? You were the one "hoping for a 1-0 win" with half our squad absent, a woefully out of sorts CB, 3 goalkeepers not getting a game at their clubs and a teenage striker with one club goal this season. OK. I'll have some of your reality please.

I won't comment further on your observation that we had "13 or so" players who did well for the first 15 minutes.

The 13 was fairly obvious no? We had 13 or so players over 90 minutes that we could comment on, 11 of those obviously at any one time, and for only the first 15 mins did we look half decent. Didn't think I'd need to explain or you would get that nitty gritty :)

Why even bother reference Mick and the Shay thing at all, I don't understand it? OR are you comparing kelleher to Given? We were discussing the system, the team and the players from last night. That's what I mean by obtuse, obfuscating by bringing in unnecessary references or peripheral points.

I think we agree overall on the players, but palpably ready I am still failing to understand what you wrote? The suggestion to me at least was that we were playing a young and inexperienced side, something I disagree completely with.

England have changed over the last 10-15 years, i thought they peaked in 2018 and haven't looked the same, but again that's not relevant really, we still drew with them in 2013 and 2015 when they were still blowing away Montenegro 4-1, a much stronger montenegro than the one we see now :)

I was hoping for a 1-0 yes, because I thought we had improved defensively and the general consensus was we were solid defensively, the "stats" backed that up with few goals conceded. I did mention back at the start of his reign about how poor we looked on the counter and the space being left between our midfield and defenders, but I thought since then we had improved substantially even though there was a slight doubt it was more to do with the opposition, however I was wrong. I don't mind admitting I was wrong, when I am, I am happy to admit it especially when the team proves me so! THere was many excuses for that first Bulgaria game, but i felt last night watching many parallels just a much better opposition to exploit it.

On that point i think thats about the space, I mentioned against bulgaria and less so in the finland game that we had massive space between defenders and midfielders that a fast counter attacking team would exploit. England didnt even need to do that as they ran around the middle pulling us apart with their intricate passing. Kennys system here is like releasing real rabbit on a Greyhound track, its a field day for the dog, cos they can get between the lines much easier. Against top tier teams we need to compact the midfield, two lines, and when we get the ball we can still pass it about, have a 1, a big man to hold the ball up when we get it and bring others into play. Scotland played that last night with Dykes up top alone when I was watching, what looked like a 3-5-1-1/3-4-1-2 or something to that effect. They utilised a big powerful unit to get the ball hold it up and bring others into play. He seemed to get a lot of praise for it by the pundits after the game.

Stutts a nice, gently reminder no need for name calling or stooping to personal insults. You are better than that :)

[nigel-harps1954]

I don't believe they do. You see kids playing football in Spain. It's about technique, first touch, passing, space. We don't teach that here in a lot of places. I hear a lot of "Get rid of it" if a kid gets the ball in defence and is under pressure. Let him make a mistake. I see a lot of parents and coaches advocating getting the ball back to front as quickly as possible and I see a lot of kids praised because they can kick it the furthest and kick it the hardest. None of that promotes a culture that will allow us to play the type of football Kenny wants.

I actually think the GAA hurts us a lot in this respect. Not in terms of taking players or some of the other stuff you hear. I mean in terms of how they coach kids to play their games. They tell kids to get the ball/sliotar and get it forward as quick as possible. The further you can kick/hit it the better. And they are right to do that because that's the best way to play their games. But then the next night kids come to football training and they're being taught to look for space. That sometimes you have to go sideways or backwards with the ball. And at 8, 9, 10 years of age, it's very hard to reconcile those approaches.

You're watching underage football in the wrong places so. There's quite a high level of underage football in Ireland now.

[paul_oshea]

I don't believe they do. You see kids playing football in Spain. It's about technique, first touch, passing, space. We don't teach that here in a lot of places. I hear a lot of "Get rid of it" if a kid gets the ball in defence and is under pressure. Let him make a mistake. I see a lot of parents and coaches advocating getting the ball back to front as quickly as possible and I see a lot of kids praised because they can kick it the furthest and kick it the hardest. None of that promotes a culture that will allow us to play the type of football Kenny wants.

I actually think the GAA hurts us a lot in this respect. Not in terms of taking players or some of the other stuff you hear. I mean in terms of how they coach kids to play their games. They tell kids to get the ball/sliotar and get it forward as quick as possible. The further you can kick/hit it the better. And they are right to do that because that's the best way to play their games. But then the next night kids come to football training and they're being taught to look for space. That sometimes you have to go sideways or backwards with the ball. And at 8, 9, 10 years of age, it's very hard to reconcile those approaches.

Fair enough, I can't comment on home really as I don't see it, but I've seen plenty of underage here in the Uk and the lower level stuff is definitely just as bad as when I was playing as a kid, even though the coaching sessions seem much better. And the GAA has adapted to a possession at all costs game, fist passing all the time, so it sounds like the inverse of what the problem in football is i.e. TDT not from the bottom up.

[pineapple stu]

England have changed over the last 10-15 years, i thought they peaked in 2019 and haven't looked the same, but again that's not relevant really, we still drew with them in 2013 and 2015 when they were still blowing away Montenegro 4-1, a much stronger montenegro than the one we see now :)
England peaked last year and haven't looked the same since?

That's a bit of a bizarre comment given they didn't play in the first 8 months of the year, and covid games are different for lots of reasons (no fans, different prep, players probably not at the same tempo at club level, etc)

They did beat the top-ranked team in the world last month (Belgium), having lost to them twice in the 2018 World Cup for example, but presumably that's not quite "the same"?

Also, England played Montenegro six times in the 2010s. There was the 12-1 "aggregate" hammering last year, but there were 3 qualifying draws in 2010, 2011 and 2013 (and the fourth was a 4-1 win). Montenegro are higher-ranked now than at any time since 2013.

[paul_oshea]

Sorry I meant to say 2018, I do having watched a few of their games, but then again Southgate has made lots of changes and played several new players and introduced new players to the squad, but I have felt they havent looked as good as 2018

Montenegro were still a relatively "new" footballing country, so I'd imagine starting off at bottom seeds like they were with us, would have played a big part in that. THey were definitely stronger back then than now.

[pineapple stu]

So you think they peaked in 2018 and haven't been the same since, but in 2019 they scored 38 goals in 10 games?

Sorry - not buying it.

What does Montenegro's age as a footballing country have to do with it? Bottom line is they held England to three draws at the start of the decade, so it's not correct to suggest, as you did, that it was our 2013/2015 draws were at a time when England were still beating Montenegro 4-1. They did that on one occasion and didn't win any of the other games. England have improved since 2013/2015 and we have disimproved. Our two draws are irrelevant now.

[jbyrne]

Sorry I meant to say 2018, I do having watched a few of their games, but then again Southgate has made lots of changes and played several new players and introduced new players to the squad, but I have felt they havent looked as good as 2018


IMO England are much better now than the team that got 4th in the last WC. Their current stength in depth is frightening

[Diggs246]

They could easily win the Euros, they never left 2 gear last night

[paul_oshea]

What does Montenegro's age as a footballing country have to do with it? Bottom line is they held England to three draws at the start of the decade, so it's not correct to suggest, as you did, that it was our 2013/2015 draws were at a time when England were still beating Montenegro 4-1. They did that on one occasion and didn't win any of the other games. England have improved since 2013/2015 and we have disimproved. Our two draws are irrelevant now.

It has everything, their rankings would have been poor as they were a new footballing country, they had to build up points and their seeding, which they did as a good team in their formative years, back then their seeding/ranking was lower than where it should have been, but now its higher than where they really are in ability. The montenegro from early 2010s isnt the same as now, yet they got beaten 4-1 by England. THey team is much worse now and they got tanked 5-1 and 7-0, a much worse side than when england beat them 4-1 back in 2013, but we still drew with England. THe point is England were still hammering(by more now yes) them, the year we still managed to draw with England.

If the Euros go ahead with crowds, England wont win it dont worry about that.

[geysir]

I have only watched the first half so far. I liked Kenny's co commentary, his positivity about the way we could play our game and the gap to overcome. Hendrick and Molumby should start the next game. I think we have to totally forget about half crocked McCarthyArter (we'll never find that recipe again).

O'Neill had us set up perfect at home to Germany and also in the away fixture where the game was kept within reach of a result, sometimes we will have to set up like that when playing top teams. Kenny had us set up to play against a similar level team or one within range.
What matters are the next two games and if players are too downhearted after losing to England, they can go to the back of the queue.

For the second goal, I see Shane nearly got his considerable boot to the ball, his reaction was faster than Randolph's.

[tetsujin1979]

That's a very fair point, i could produce a handful of pieces to back up the same which Kenny said himself back in the day when asked about Ireland squads and his players. It just goes to show Managers should really say nothing about their players as the subjective being objective is never the case.

In Byrnes case given the opposition and the general lack of scoring, and his ability to both shoot from distance and setup scoring chances it does seem shortsighted.

Could you? Then you probably should.

Still waiting on this "handful". To make it fair, a handful is defined as a minimum of five.
I expect you to do better than the minimum

[pineapple stu]

It has everything, their rankings would have been poor as they were a new footballing country, they had to build up points and their seeding, which they did as a good team in their formative years, back then their seeding/ranking was lower than where it should have been, but now its higher than where they really are in ability. The montenegro from early 2010s isnt the same as now, yet they got beaten 4-1 by England. THey team is much worse now and they got tanked 5-1 and 7-0, a much worse side than when england beat them 4-1 back in 2013, but we still drew with England. THe point is England were still hammering(by more now yes) them, the year we still managed to draw with England.
Their seeding is irrelevant though. They were bottom seeds in the 2010 campaign (when they drew home and away with us), but were up to a top 50 side by the time of 2012, when they drew home and away with England. They were second seeds when they drew 0-0 with England again in 2014 (and when they lost 4-1), and they were ranked in the world's top 50 again last year when they lost 12-1 on aggregate. They had a had campaign, sure, and they're slightly lower-ranked than in the early 2010s, but not by enough to explain going from 4-1 over four games to 12-1 over two games. And not by enough for you to make a deal out of drawing twice with England while ignoring Montenegro drawing three times with then.

[paul_oshea]

Foot.ie needs a "I don't agree, but I appreciate your post " button :)

[Stuttgart88]

The 13 was fairly obvious no? We had 13 or so players over 90 minutes that we could comment on, 11 of those obviously at any one time, and for only the first 15 mins did we look half decent. Didn't think I'd need to explain or you would get that nitty gritty :)

Why even bother reference Mick and the Shay thing at all, I don't understand it? OR are you comparing kelleher to Given? We were discussing the system, the team and the players from last night. That's what I mean by obtuse, obfuscating by bringing in unnecessary references or peripheral points.

I think we agree overall on the players, but palpably ready I am still failing to understand what you wrote? The suggestion to me at least was that we were playing a young and inexperienced side, something I disagree completely with.

England have changed over the last 10-15 years, i thought they peaked in 2018 and haven't looked the same, but again that's not relevant really, we still drew with them in 2013 and 2015 when they were still blowing away Montenegro 4-1, a much stronger montenegro than the one we see now :)

I was hoping for a 1-0 yes, because I thought we had improved defensively and the general consensus was we were solid defensively, the "stats" backed that up with few goals conceded. I did mention back at the start of his reign about how poor we looked on the counter and the space being left between our midfield and defenders, but I thought since then we had improved substantially even though there was a slight doubt it was more to do with the opposition, however I was wrong. I don't mind admitting I was wrong, when I am, I am happy to admit it especially when the team proves me so! THere was many excuses for that first Bulgaria game, but i felt last night watching many parallels just a much better opposition to exploit it.

On that point i think thats about the space, I mentioned against bulgaria and less so in the finland game that we had massive space between defenders and midfielders that a fast counter attacking team would exploit. England didnt even need to do that as they ran around the middle pulling us apart with their intricate passing. Kennys system here is like releasing real rabbit on a Greyhound track, its a field day for the dog, cos they can get between the lines much easier. Against top tier teams we need to compact the midfield, two lines, and when we get the ball we can still pass it about, have a 1, a big man to hold the ball up when we get it and bring others into play. Scotland played that last night with Dykes up top alone when I was watching, what looked like a 3-5-1-1/3-4-1-2 or something to that effect. They utilised a big powerful unit to get the ball hold it up and bring others into play. He seemed to get a lot of praise for it by the pundits after the game.

Stutts a nice, gently reminder no need for name calling or stooping to personal insults. You are better than that :)Why bother referencing Mick? I simply said toying with the idea of changing keeper was feasible, but unlike Mick when he brought in a teenage keeper, none of our other younger keepers is getting game time. It was a clear, simple point in a 100% transparent context. I don't see what was obscure about it all.

My point about the "not ready" needs to be taken in context of the full sentence I wrote, which was "we were missing key players and playing others who aren't ready". If I'd added "or not up to it at this level" I'm sure we'd have agreed. I'm torn on O'Dowda. He's not really young but I think it was elatedscum who said there's a really good footballer trying to get out, which is what I think. I'd say he's not ready, certainly not ready to have an impact against a good team already weakened. But I can see why you thought I was referring to several young players not ready.Point accepted.

In 2011 and even 2015 we still had ageing but experienced players on the pitch, of a much higher quality than we were able to put out last night. England are much better now than then. Young, quick, mobile and a goal threat from many players. A much more contemporary approach to the game too under Southgate.

I thought expecting anything at all last night with so many key players absent was fanciful. I think expecting to garner anything useful from the game was fanciful.

The point about Dykes upfront is the point I'm trying to make. A good solid 9 is key to making SK's ideas work, imho. Without one it's an uphill battle to make it work. Equally, without one it's hard to revert to our old way of playing either. So talk of "mixing it up" is misguided imho, as I'd expect the same result. Of course if mixing it up means replacing passive players like Hourihane with proactive players like Molumby, then yes, I'd say mix it up.

And as for the name calling, sure. When you stop insulting others' intelligence here and stop setting yourself up as some visionary that the rest of us poor wretches can't keep up with, yes, I'll be less personal. Agreed?

[paul_oshea]

Their seeding is irrelevant though. They were bottom seeds in the 2010 campaign (when they drew home and away with us), but were up to a top 50 side by the time of 2012, when they drew home and away with England. They were second seeds when they drew 0-0 with England again in 2014 (and when they lost 4-1), and they were ranked in the world's top 50 again last year when they lost 12-1 on aggregate. They had a had campaign, sure, and they're slightly lower-ranked than in the early 2010s, but not by enough to explain going from 4-1 over four games to 12-1 over two games. And not by enough for you to make a deal out of drawing twice with England while ignoring Montenegro drawing three times with then.

One of us is confused, I'm going with you :P YOu first mentioned higher ranked. WHy is it irrelevant now? I only mentioned it because I disagreed that the team now was not nearly as good as the team early years, and that seeding/ranking wouldn't show the real ability of the team. iT's very relevant in demonstrating where Montenegro really were and are now in actually judging how good they were. Anyway moving on.

[pineapple stu]

Seeding is irrelevant as that caught up slower than their world ranking, which I referred to.

They were fifth seeds while touching top 20 in the world. So I'm using the ranking as the more accurate measure of their quality.

[geysir]

They could easily win the Euros, they never left 2 gear last night
Should England top their group in the Euros, they then meet the runner up from the group of death in the last 16 (Dublin venue).

[pineapple stu]

Oh God. I think I have a ticket for that...

[geysir]

Oh God. I think I have a ticket for that...

England V France, Germany or Portugal, that could be a game of the tournament, with a happy ending.

[Bielsa´s irish]

I watched the game, at 1 am since iam teaching and doing my journalist work at home and the Argentina vs Paraguay had full coverage since 5 pm yesterday down here. It was broadcasted by Germán Sosa and comments made by former Real Madrid and Argentina right back Enrique "Quique" Wolff.
They said it was a match that Ireland started in a positive way and the english were on the wrong foot, but after the goal it all went down,, Wolff noticed that England were easy and comfortable and the irish didnt make them hard to play, no hurry no pressure no rush,
The team went down after that first goal which I agreed, then second half Wolff noticed that Ireland couldnt create counters attacks since they were all behind the ball, like protecting the defeat, so whenever Ireland gained possession couldnt creat danger at all because they were far and away from the english keeper.
And that is a tactic flaw, from S.K we couldnt create enough, and when we did we couldnt score, plus the team is morally down

[Bielsa´s irish]

The most worrying and appaling part of our performance yesterday was our lack of desire to hit a little bit, scratch the shin guards and calves, put a block, a trip, squeeze them, annoy them, take the game by the scruff of the neck, lacked attitude, a pinch of rebellion to the coach on the pitch, lack of urgency in 0-1 down, and just to protect the symbolism of the tricolor flag as a nation and the Irish soccer team as a symbol of the passion of its people for football. Yesterday's match was disrespectful to all the previous Irish players who put Ireland on the football worldwide map. McGrath, Ronnie, Moran, Lawro, Giles, Frank, Roy, Galvin, Beglin, Liam, Coyne, Phelan, Staunton, Sheedy, Irwin, Aldo, Robbie, Niall, Townsend, Houghton, Hughton, Given, Bonner, etc etc......and have earned respect and the feeling of fear-doubt of their rivals when face to face, And these opponents used to say "these Catholic guys are very tough, harsh, rough and proud they are almost invincible, they play with "their hearts in their hands" in all frankness and sincerity

[Razors left peg]

My take on yesterday is that we just need to move on and forget about it. It was stupid to take the game in the 1st place.

The 2 upcoming games are massive now. We simply have to win them for Kennys sake. I still think hes the right man and we are going in the right direction but if we lose both games I think I'll struggle to defend it any more.

We need to make changes. Hourihane needs to be taken out of the team. Ive been banging on about him for a while and he shows no sign of any improvement. Duffy was appalling yesterday and I would consider replacing him too if we are going to continue with playing ball out from the back. He put us under pressure so often yesterday by giving the ball away. The 2nd goal came from him giving away a stupid corner because he wasnt able to control the ball. Having said that our lack of urgency to close down the English player who go the ball on the right wing when it came out from the corner was worrying. I thought Browne and O'Dowda were terrible yesterday too, looked completely out of their depth, and Cyrus Christy show never be in another squad.

I think we've reached the point where Jack Byrne needs to start against Wales. Ive been against it up to now, but I do think we need to find out about him and see if he can give us something different in the 10 role, if it doesnt work then we can stop talking about it. Between injuries and COVID its a good excuse to play him. Id keep Idah up top and Horgan probably did enough yesterday to keep his place. Id have Brady on the left and Molumby in midfield ahead of Hourihane. If Egan is fit Id have Dara O'Shea at right back (Im assuming Coleman is out, I dont know what injury he has). Id seriously consider dropping Duffy but I dont think it will happen, but he needs to sort himself out rapid. The way he is going at the moment I wouldnt be surprised if Celtic try to cancel his loan.

I see that Stutts brought up goal keeper. I think we need to start thinking about giving game time to someone else, but I dont think the right keeper is in the squad. I would have promoted Bazunu to the seniors and left Kelleher with the 21s. It simply down to playing football. Ive seen no Rochdale games so I dont know how hes doing but since no one else is actually playing football he jumps to top of the queue by default.

If he starts the same team against Wales that started yesterday ( except Browne) and we go on to have another poor performance I think the questions about Kenny start to become serious, but I am confident that we will improve massively.

[Bielsa´s irish]

football is a place where people express their thoughts about any issue because the exposure is huge. Im more offended by the way we played yesterday,,,,, than all the politics surrounding the game. I understand that football/soccer and politics are cousins

[John83]

I've moved the meta-discussion of moderation to rubbish.

A level-headed discussion of the kneeling and all that is fine. I'd suggest it'd be better in its own thread, but knock yourselves out.

[paul_oshea]

The more I think about it, Kenny's eagerness and self belief to take the job at this point in time could be his greatest undoing. Had he stuck with the 21s, qualified them and had a good tournament hed have tournament experienced players, then more than ever ready to step up to senior men's football, he'd have been lauded for qualifying them and getting them to play well whilst doing so. Had they performed well at the tournament it was a complete win win for him.

But his over eagerness to get the top job at the wrong time could see him going the way of kerr

[pineapple stu]

I see that Stutts brought up goal keeper. I think we need to start thinking about giving game time to someone else, but I dont think the right keeper is in the squad. I would have promoted Bazunu to the seniors and left Kelleher with the 21s. It simply down to playing football. Ive seen no Rochdale games so I dont know how hes doing but since no one else is actually playing football he jumps to top of the queue by default.
I think that sums up quite nicely where we are. I don't disagree with you on Bazunu in for Kelleher - like you, I've not really seen either play - but the impact it would make on the overall squad is surely negligible. That's not to say it's the wrong thing to do; just that the weaknesses we have at this stage are so large that they're really not easy to overcome.

[Bielsa´s irish]

I think that sums up quite nicely where we are. I don't disagree with you on Bazunu in for Kelleher - like you, I've not really seen either play - but the impact it would make on the overall squad is surely negligible. That's not to say it's the wrong thing to do; just that the weaknesses we have at this stage are so large that they're really not easy to overcome.
the problem with Kelleher is he looks like a delivery boy or a library student too fair looking for a goalie, needs a scar or a tatoo on the neck or something....

Once a grizzled seasoned limpy football coach told me about the best keepers" the goalkeepers the uglier and crazier the better" they are more respected by strikers

[Stuttgart88]

Bazunu has been mixed so far for Rochdale. Some good saves, some soft goals. More of the former to be fair. I like Bohs’ Talbot myself. In all seriousness, I’d be happy with Alan Mannus if he was eligible.

I think there’s going to be a few more tough games / months ahead before we turn a corner. Hopefully the next 2 games go well but with the withdrawals I think it’ll be tough.

[Razors left peg]

I think that sums up quite nicely where we are. I don't disagree with you on Bazunu in for Kelleher - like you, I've not really seen either play - but the impact it would make on the overall squad is surely negligible. That's not to say it's the wrong thing to do; just that the weaknesses we have at this stage are so large that they're really not easy to overcome.
I don't think it is negligible. If we are persistent in playing out from the back then a goal keeper who is better with ball at his feet is vital, Randolph gives me heart attacks. So I think there's something to be gained by having a look at another keeper now

[elatedscum]

the problem with Kelleher is he looks like a delivery boy or a library student too fair looking for a goalie, needs a scar or a tatoo on the neck or something....

Once a grizzled seasoned limpy football coach told me about the best keepers" the goalkeepers the uglier and crazier the better" they are more respected by strikers

Two words: Manuel Neuer

[pineapple stu]

I don't think it is negligible. If we are persistent in playing out from the back then a goal keeper who is better with ball at his feet is vital, Randolph gives me heart attacks. So I think there's something to be gained by having a look at another keeper now

Well there'll be balances in there in that Randolph doesn't seem to have as many howlers in him as Bazunu does. He'll iron those out of course, but for the moment I don't think it would change a huge amount about our strength. No problems looking at various options alright - in a way it's a pity that Kenny was thrown straight into avoiding relegation in the Nations League and couldn't really do what Mick did and dump in a load of players into a few friendlies to see who would sink and who would swim.

[Bielsa´s irish]

Two words: Manuel Neuer

Dont make cry about it. He looks crazy!! was a blatant penalty vs Higuaín he walked all over him like a monster truck.