Republic of Ireland V Portugal - Thurs, 11th November 2021 - 2022 World Cup Qualifier

[mypost]

Typical mypost stuff (we can't qualify for the World Cup).

> I don't think any change in style is worth losing home and away to Luxembourg
> Losing 1-0 at home to Luxembourg in a performance where we had what - one shot on target? - absolutely is worse than losing 5-1 against Denmark (when we had to chase the game) or 6-1 at home to Germany (which spelled the beginning of the end for Trap)
> I've already said I've not dismissed the Portugal draw - I've tried to put it in context. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this given you've ignored me on that already.
> The Andorra story isn't that they were ahead for 7 minutes. It's that after 55 minutes, they were deservedly ahead. That is, for 55 minutes we had played so abjectly against a team of part-timers that we had barely mustered a chance of note and were losing.

They were ahead for 7 minutes, who cares? We were deservedly leading in Faro for 45 minutes, but we lost. Nobody cared. The story was about who won the game. We beat Andorra comfortably enough in the end, and even winning the game people were still nit picking over 7 minutes of the 90.

I didn't expect to beat Luxembourg at home. I knew from their NL group that they have been improving, they're not the cannon fodder they used to be, and they showed that when they came here. Basically I don't expect us to beat anyone bar the pub teams lodged to the bottom of every single group. Our stock has fallen to that extent, and we need a massive rebuild in players and tactics. That means sacrificing at least one, possibly more campaigns. It has to be done and it is been done. If it means losing to Luxembourg at home, so be it.

Every team has to go through transition. We had put it off for so many years that we now have no choice but to grow up and accept the reality that we don't have the resources capable of qualifying for tournaments that we used to have. We have to look towards Finland and Macedonia as an example to measure ourselves against, and how they've slowly progressed up the ladder to be competitive, but the Kenny Out crowd either can't or won't do that.

The simple mathematics will explain clearly that losing 5 and 6 at home is worse, far worse, than 1-0 at home. So insisting that it's not is ridiculous.

Hopefully we'll have 1 defeat in 10 games after Luxembourg, but nobody beyond these borders will care a jot if it's not. We can't qualify for the World Cup. That renders this game meaningless. Sorry you don't realise that yet, but that can't be helped.

[third policeman]

4 to go with Cullen that you had already put forward... Actually.

Fair do’s, that did occur to me after I posted, but as I pointed two of those players were established in the squad before Kenny took over. One is a goalkeeper, and the other a Premiership player who in all likelihood would have been selected in any case. Apart from Cullen, I still don’t think any are integral to playing in a new style.

[pineapple stu]

No, it's how I react to constant tedious whingeing.
It's not constant tedious whingeing Stutts. It's an attempt to look at things objectively without revisionism, and trying to back my views up where I can. Just because I don't share SkStu's chest-thumping pride at Thursday's performance (which I don't begrudge either; I just don't agree with it) doesn't mean I'm being negative.


I think most have recognised that he' s got away with some mistakes that would have changed the narrative.
I think a lot haven't actually. And isn't that the same one-eyed-ness, just from the other angle?

[elatedscum]

One is a goalkeeper, and the other a Premiership player who in all likelihood would have been selected in any case. Apart from Cullen, I still don’t think any are integral to playing in a new style.

Mick was picking a 33 year old Richard Keogh ahead of John Egan (26 years old) till Keogh’s car crash...

It’s mad to assume Omobamidele would be playing under McCarthy/O’Neill/Trap

[Olé Olé]

Fair do’s, that did occur to me after I posted, but as I pointed two of those players were established in the squad before Kenny took over. One is a goalkeeper, and the other a Premiership player who in all likelihood would have been selected in any case. Apart from Cullen, I still don’t think any are integral to playing in a new style.
That wasn't the exam question. The exam question was about players who have been instrumental to a change in style. Doherty and Robinson were in the squad but were not starters. It is very, very clear that they are integral to Kenny's change in style and they were not always starters under Mick and MON (in Doherty's case).

What relevance does the point that Bazunu is a keeper carry to the discussion? The point is that Bazunu is also crucial to the change in style. It's obvious. Look what having him there does to our centre halves in terms of how and where they look for and receive the ball. Same for the wing backs.

And the point with Omobamidele has been responded to.

Mick's last game he played Randolph, Doherty (Coleman was injured), Egan, Duffy, Stevens, Browne, Hourihane, Hendrick, Whelan, McClean and McGoldrick. Doherty, Egan, Duffy, Hendrick and one of McClean and Stevens are the likely starters tonight from that team.

[Olé Olé]

In fairness, I do concede that some of those players from Mick's last game have retired and those that haven't are still in the squad, with the exception of Randolph. I think their replacements being far less experienced at international and club level is my net point on that. It's not the overall point I'm making though.

[third policeman]

That wasn't the exam question. The exam question was about players who have been instrumental to a change in style. Doherty and Robinson were in the squad but were not starters. It is very, very clear that they are integral to Kenny's change in style and they were not always starters under Mick and MON (in Doherty's case).

What relevance does the point that Bazunu is a keeper carry to the discussion? The point is that Bazunu is also crucial to the change in style. It's obvious. Look what having him there does to our centre halves in terms of how and where they look for and receive the ball. Same for the wing backs.

And the point with Omobamidele has been responded to.

Mick's last game he played Randolph, Doherty (Coleman was injured), Egan, Duffy, Stevens, Browne, Hourihane, Hendrick, Whelan, McClean and McGoldrick. Doherty, Egan, Duffy, Hendrick and one of McClean and Stevens are the likely starters tonight from that team.

The claim was that his brief was to bring in new players to change the style. I’d still contend that the only genuinely new player who has decisively influenced the way we play is Cullen. Doherty had played under both the previous managers, and Robinson had played under Mick. Robinson has not played in all Kenny’s games for various reasons, and has only been integral in the last three.Doherty has played in the absence of Coleman or when Coleman has had to play in a CB role. Bazunu is playing a different style, but is he integral to it?

The link between new players and new style is actually pretty tenuous. Some of the players who have adapted best to the new style and performed well were part of the old dispensation - Hendricks, Robinson, Doherty, Coleman, Egan even Duffy and Hourihane. Ogbene has had his moments, McGrath looks promising, Omobamidele’s opportunity came due to injuries, but Cullen has been integral. He’s the absolute pivot of the new passing style.

If there is a lesson from s, it’s that we could probably always have played a more technical and attractive style of football!

[third policeman]

PS - But it might have involved losing a load of games in the process and that certainly wasn’t Mick’s brief.

[passinginterest]

You keep disregarding the impact of the keeper on the change of style. I think it's an absolutely essential change and they style doesn't work if it's still Randolph in goal.

[third policeman]

You keep disregarding the impact of the keeper on the change of style. I think it's an absolutely essential change and they style doesn't work if it's still Randolph in goal.

Randolph was dropped because he’s dropped down the pecking order at West Ham and is effective semi-retirement. It was always likely that he would be replaced by one of the younger keepers. Kelleher is probably better with his feet than Bazunu but he was injured. The change in style is a given, but in the main this is not down to the impact of the new players that Kenny has capped.

[ifk101]

How many of the players that he has brought in have been integral to the new style of play.

Haven’t read all you have had to say on this as I know it's just nonsense ;-) but is it not a negative to have players that are integral to a style of play – because that equates to dependency? Ideally you want options for each position and not to build a style of play that is dependent on certain players. And the absence of integral players is actually a plus in the for Kenny column – he has broadened the pick of players to give us options for each position.

But take Norway for example (which echoes back to us when Duff and Keane were in their prime). There is a dependency there on two creative players: Haaland and Ødegaard, and the team is built around them. They have made Norway competitive, but if they are missing from the team, the team falls flat – see Saturday’s game against Latvia when Haaland was unavailable.

[third policeman]

The claim was that Kenny had brought in new players in order to change the style of play. I pointed out that the new players are not integral to the new style with the possible exception of Cullen. So I think we are probably on the same page.

[Olé Olé]

The claim was that Kenny had brought in new players in order to change the style of play. I pointed out that the new players are not integral to the new style with the possible exception of Cullen. So I think we are probably on the same page.
"I pointed out"- you think you're stating fact, do you? You've clearly ignored Bazunu who most people feel is integral. You've also ignored the fact that the existing players have adjusted to the style of play in a really clear way- that is fact, no matter what you say. And what of the lads that are being used more and more as part of the style of play? Callum Robinson is case in point. McGrath and Omobamidele and Ogbene are clearly used to great effect in the new style of play, to a lesser extent than Cullen and Bazunu, granted. But when there are only 11 players on the pitch almost all players are integral.

Why are you persisting with this point? It feels like posters are being baited.

[Olé Olé]

Randolph was dropped because he’s dropped down the pecking order at West Ham and is effective semi-retirement. It was always likely that he would be replaced by one of the younger keepers. Kelleher is probably better with his feet than Bazunu but he was injured. The change in style is a given, but in the main this is not down to the impact of the new players that Kenny has capped.
Firstly, Do you really think that Mick McCarthy would have dropped Randolph? Secondly, Do you really think that he would have played the youngest of the 3? And if he wanted to replace Bazunu with Travers, Kenny could have. He has clearly pledged to stick with Bazunu on the basis that he thinks that Bazunu is best with his feet. So, regardless of the opinion that you state as if fact, it appears as though Kenny has stuck with Bazunu on the basis that he feels he is the best man for the job and that is his selection.

[third policeman]

Firstly, Do you really think that Mick McCarthy would have dropped Randolph? Secondly, Do you really think that he would have played the youngest of the 3? And if he wanted to replace Bazunu with Travers, Kenny could have. He has clearly pledged to stick with Bazunu on the basis that he thinks that Bazunu is best with his feet. So, regardless of the opinion that you state as if fact, it appears as though Kenny has stuck with Bazunu on the basis that he feels he is the best man for the job and that is his selection..


I’m genuinely not trying to wind up anyone or pick an argument for the sake of it. Nor am I criticising Kenny. I just think that his blooding new players, and promoting a new style are two different things. Some of the new players have not necessarily adapted to the style, and some of the older players have flourished with the license to be more expressive. I’m happy to admit that Bazunu is a better fit for the new style, but I am not certain that’s the only or main reason why he was selected. Can we agree to differ on this and move on? I respect your opinion, just don’t agree with it necessarily.

[elatedscum]

.


I’m genuinely not trying to wind up anyone or pick an argument for the sake of it. Nor am I criticising Kenny. I just think that his blooding new players, and promoting a new style are two different things. Some of the new players have not necessarily adapted to the style, and some of the older players have flourished with the license to be more expressive. I’m happy to admit that Bazunu is a better fit for the new style, but I am not certain that’s the only or main reason why he was selected. Can we agree to differ on this and move on? I respect your opinion, just don’t agree with it necessarily.

FWIW- This is the team I think McCarthy would have played fir the most recent qualifiers if he were in charge:

Randolph

Coleman
Duffy
Egan
Stevens

Hendrick
Hourihane
Browne

Robinson
McClean

Hogan

[Supreme feet]

FWIW- This is the team I think McCarthy would have played fir the most recent qualifiers if he were in charge:

Randolph

Coleman
Duffy
Egan
Stevens

Hendrick
Hourihane
Browne

Robinson
McClean

Hogan

I reckon that team might struggle against (3-4-2-1): Bazunu; Omobamidele, DOS, Collins; Doherty, Cullen, McGrath, Manning; Ogbene, Knight; Idah/Parrott.

Remember when Kenny's U21 team beat Mick's senior team 2-1 in a training match?

[TonyD]

I reckon that team might struggle against (3-4-2-1): Bazunu; Omobamidele, DOS, Collins; Doherty, Cullen, McGrath, Manning; Ogbene, Knight; Idah/Parrott.

Remember when Kenny's U21 team beat Mick's senior team 2-1 in a training match?

Wasn’t aware of that ! I think it’s a fairly safe bet that Ogbene, McGrath and probably Omobamidele wouldn’t have seen any game time under McCarthy, the former two probably wouldn’t have even got in the squad.

(Side note - why is it always “Mick” but “Kenny”. ? Not having a go at you btw, everyone seems do it)

[John83]

(Side note - why is it always “Mick” but “Kenny”. ? Not having a go at you btw, everyone seems do it)
Probably a hold-over from remembering him as a player first.

[Supreme feet]

Wasn’t aware of that ! I think it’s a fairly safe bet that Ogbene, McGrath and probably Omobamidele wouldn’t have seen any game time under McCarthy, the former two probably wouldn’t have even got in the squad.

(Side note - why is it always “Mick” but “Kenny”. ? Not having a go at you btw, everyone seems do it)

I don't know actually! Maybe because there have been so many Stephens, or variations thereof, in Irish football's recent history. Staunton, Carr, Reid, Hunt, McPhail, Ward, Finnan, Ireland, Elliott, Quinn, Kelly.

Not quite as many Micks.

[paul_oshea]

You keep disregarding the impact of the keeper on the change of style. I think it's an absolutely essential change and they style doesn't work if it's still Randolph in goal.

Its more than paramount to how things have gone since late summer, its none of this mopey dopey 6 chess moves across the back, and its 1-2 then a chip over taking out the first block. It's clearly been something they've worked on the last 6 months. I said it reminded me of the power Cluxton gave to Dublin with his precise kickouts and the more I see it the more true that is. Its completely changed the dyamic, the ability to attack and change our play. We were so so blunt and one dimensional.

[sadloserkid]

Micky Evans is sitting somewhere feeling very hurt right now.

[paul_oshea]

Wasn’t aware of that ! I think it’s a fairly safe bet that Ogbene, McGrath and probably Omobamidele wouldn’t have seen any game time under McCarthy, the former two probably wouldn’t have even got in the squad.

(Side note - why is it always “Mick” but “Kenny”. ? Not having a go at you btw, everyone seems do it)

Kenny is easier say and type, than Mccarthy or Stephen.

[third policeman]

Wasn’t aware of that ! I think it’s a fairly safe bet that Ogbene, McGrath and probably Omobamidele wouldn’t have seen any game time under McCarthy, the former two probably wouldn’t have even got in the squad.

(Side note - why is it always “Mick” but “Kenny”. ? Not having a go at you btw, everyone seems do it)

I’m not de fending Mick or criticising Kenny, but there is some wild surmising taking place here. Mick’s selections were ultra-conservative because he was competing for a place at the Euros and got us to a play-off. Kenny’s selection for that play-off was also conservative. Mick during his first tenure blooded a lot of young players and was criticised for it at the time by some, but he was appointed as a caretaker for one tournament. He was never going to start a rebuilding exercise, and to be honest if he had the results would probably have matched Kenny’s less than stella World Cup campaign. Kenny had a different mandate and is making progress, but you can’t speculate about what Mick would have done under completely different circumstances.

[Supreme feet]

Mick... was appointed as a caretaker for one tournament. He was never going to start a rebuilding exercise, and to be honest if he had the results would probably have matched Kenny’s less than stella World Cup campaign.

Under Mick, we took three points from four games with the top two seeds; never led for one minute of those games, only started playing once we went behind and the opposition stood off; and were outclassed and flattered by a 2-0 defeat in Switzerland.

Under Kenny (sorry TonyD) we took two points from those equivalent games, but were competitive in all four, and led in the two away games.

Under Mick, we took ten points from the games against Gibraltar and Georgia. We were absolutely dire in every single game. We could very easily, but for Randolph's heroics and poor finishing, have had four points. Very fine lines.

Under Kenny, we took seven points from the equivalent games. The home games were inexcusable, and a lot of our future rests on how much Kenny and the lads have learned from them.

We were 'competitive' in the group under McCarthy because of the existence of Gibraltar - a small town in Andalucía which somehow has UEFA status - and because Denmark somehow drew in Georgia. Without that result, we'd have been eliminated before the last game.

I don't think the end product was that much better under Mick, considering the putrid, eye-cancer hoofball we were playing to achieve those results.

[pineapple stu]

I think while there's definitely some merit in a lot of what you're saying there, it's a stretch to say we were competitive in either game against Serbia this year. I can't remember the last team to batter us so badly home and away and we were steeped with those two results.

I just don't think you can flag Randolph's heroics against Gibraltar and Georgia and overlook how much better than us Serbia were.

[third policeman]

As I said this was not a defence of Mick or a criticism of Kenny, I was questioning the surmising around who would or would not being playing now if Mick was in charge. He was given a very clear mandate for one campaign and that largely determined his approach to selection and tactics. It wasn’t pretty but it did get us to a play off. He may have been lucky, but his pragmatic approach was governed by the circumstances. It was always implicit that the rebuilding would be left to Kenny at the end of Mick’s campaign. I just think it’s unfair to lambast a manager who in his first stint got us to the World Cup and gave Irish fans some decent football and some great memories.

[Supreme feet]

Hanging on for dear life against Serbia, with their hundreds of millions of euros worth of talent, is a bit different from doing so against Gibraltar and Georgia.

Football is so often about the big moments going for and against you. We had the rub for a good few years, with Kazakhstan away, Georgia home under Trap, and several times under O'Neill, Macedonia at home, Armenia at home. Red cards, own goals, dodgy penalties, last-minute winners, etc. We got a bit of that luck against Serbia, I admit.

But under competent management, we shouldn't be getting dragged into dogfights against those teams; looking timid in possession, not showing for the ball, resorting to long, hopeful punts - getting dragged into the type of game that could go either way, and depending on a lucky break. We should be able to pass, move, pull them out of position, grind them down, get our goals, and pull away.

The last few games have shown signs, for the first time in so many years, that we're capable of learning from our past failures, growing a pair, and asserting ourselves.

[elatedscum]

I’m not defending Mick or criticising Kenny, but there is some wild surmising taking place here. Mick’s selections were ultra-conservative because he was competing for a place at the Euros and got us to a play-off. Kenny’s selection for that play-off was also conservative.

FWIW O'Neill actually got us to that playoff by finishing last in the nation's league. Every single team that was in section B was guaranteed a playoff place in the end. So if we had come last in Mick's group we would have still gotten to the playoffs.

You can look at which players he preferred though. You take out Keogh and replace with Egan (over Clark probably and Kevin Long obviously). You take out Whelan and replace with Browne (his 4th choice midfielder). You take out Brady/O'Dowda and replace with Robinson cause he liked Robinson too. You take out McGoldrick and replace with Hogan because of the lads he used (S Long, Collins, Maguire, Hogan, Connolly - he's the one in form)

I know there's plenty of chaos that happens in a campaign and he'd stumble on stuff through necessity (like every good manager does and like Kenny did with Bazunu) but that'd be the most likely team if he had, for whatever reason, continued after March 2020...

[pineapple stu]

Hanging on for dear life against Serbia, with their hundreds of millions of euros worth of talent, is a bit different from doing so against Gibraltar and Georgia.
Absolutely.

But I think if you're going to be balanced about it - and this is the only quibble I'd have with your post - then I don't think you can really say we were competitive in all four against the top two teams. And Mick even got more points out of the games.

[Supreme feet]

I just think it’s unfair to lambast a manager who in his first stint got us to the World Cup and gave Irish fans some decent football and some great memories.

You can recognise that Staunton was a great servant to Irish football, and still think he was a clueless manager. That Brian Kerr was a great underage manager, but made huge mistakes as senior boss. Or that Trap got us the results we needed for a while, but suffered from a lack of a Plan B, and it was horribly sad and vindictive of him, to alienate Andy Reid, who ended up playing his last meaningful game for us at the age of 25. Or that MON did really well in 2015-16, but didn't have the flexibility or progressive thinking to take us further.

[elatedscum]

I think while there's definitely some merit in a lot of what you're saying there, it's a stretch to say we were competitive in either game against Serbia this year. I can't remember the last team to batter us so badly home and away and we were steeped with those two results.

I just don't think you can flag Randolph's heroics against Gibraltar and Georgia and overlook how much better than us Serbia were.

Refereeing decisions went against us in plenty of those games against Portugal and Serbia. If the stone wall penalty against Connolly was given against Serbia at 1-1 just before they made it 2-1, it would have been a very different game and i certainly would have backed us to get at least a point from there...

As for the home game against Serbia, they were hanging on for dear life in the last 9 minutes once we scored. i think we had 3 or 4 chances in that time. The Duffy header, the shot from Omobamidele and the 2 resulting corners, few other bits...

[Razors left peg]

How the hell does the narrative that Mick got us to a playoff still exist? We were there on default even though we finished last in Nations League group under O'Neill. We finished 3rd in the last group under Mick which is what we have not ultimately done under Kenny.

The difference is that we improved throughout this group and seem to be on a upward trajectory, where as in the last group we finished atrociously. The away game in Georgia was the single most infuriating game I've watched since the Kerr home game against Israel (where I wanted to strangle the Israel keeper). We were wasting time 20 minutes into the game, and it was probably the most cowardly performance Ive seen of an Irish team.

On a different note, when Travers was picked against Serbia it was because both Randolph and Kelleher were injured. There was a debate on here at the time where some of us suggested that Bazunu would be the better choice because he was playing more regular football. When Travers was poor against Serbia he was dropped and Bazunu has taken his chances with both hands. Kenny could have gone back to Randolph when he was fit but he was brave to stick with the younger player because of how he wanted to play out from the back instead of sticking the "the more experienced player" which all of our previous managers in the last 15 years would have done. I also feel that theres still a narrative on here that some still resent it because they think that Kelleher is a better keeper. He might be, but hes not showed it yet and in my opinion at his age he should be trying to get some football somewhere. Bazunu in the meantime has become integral to this team and how we play football, even if he is only a keeper as I think I seen someone suggest above. He has also endeared himself to the fans with some of his saves and how he conducts himself. (I loved his interview on RTE before the Portugal game). Yes he may still be a little mistake prone, but at 19 hes a phenomenal talent.

[pineapple stu]

Refereeing decisions went against us in plenty of those games against Portugal and Serbia. If the stone wall penalty against Connolly was given against Serbia at 1-1 just before they made it 2-1, it would have been a very different game and i certainly would have backed us to get at least a point from there...

As for the home game against Serbia, they were hanging on for dear life in the last 9 minutes once we scored. i think we had 3 or 4 chances in that time. The Duffy header, the shot from Omobamidele and the 2 resulting corners, few other bits...
I think you can probably pick a moment in most games that turns them - you don't mention how incredibly fortunate our home goal was for example, or how disinterested Portugal were in Dublin - but the overall impression of the two games v Serbia has to be one of being outplayed by a far superior technical side who had gears to spare in Belgrade.

[Supreme feet]

My final word on this (It's Friday night, after all):

The best we can hope for, ever, in Irish international football is to tick all these four boxes:

- Being involved in close, tight, one-score games against the top seeds. Sometimes we're just beaten by a better team, but we need to make it hard for them. Sometimes we'll catch them on a bad day and surprise them. But lets not get thrashed.
- Avoiding close, tight games against the lower seeds, and making a comfortable, enjoyable day/night out of it, and a handy two-goal margin of victory or more. Macedonia/Malta/Estonia/Cyprus at home under Mick 1.0, Cyprus and Faroes at home under Kerr, Estonia away under Trap, etc.
- Playing a style of football that doesn't make you want to vomit blood.
- Having some kind of hope for the future, in terms of the squad's age profile - and not dreading what's coming next.

We ticked one of those boxes under Mick. We've ticked 3.5 of the boxes under Kenny.

[samhaydenjr]

You can recognise that Staunton was a great servant to Irish football, and still think he was a clueless manager. That Brian Kerr was a great underage manager, but made huge mistakes as senior boss. Or that Trap got us the results we needed for a while, but suffered from a lack of a Plan B, and it was horribly sad and vindictive of him, to alienate Andy Reid, who ended up playing his last meaningful game for us at the age of 25. Or that MON did really well in 2015-16, but didn't have the flexibility or progressive thinking to take us further.

OK, this attitude towards Stan's campaign has become a bit of a bugbear for me, and I wanted to make a comparison between him and Kenny (yes, yes I know - Stan had a better squad)
Stan's record against the big teams in his group: two home draws, two narrow away defeats
Kenny's record against the big teams in his group: two home draws, two narrow away defeats
Stan's record against the minnows and mediocre in his group: one embarrassing defeat, one frustrating draw, seven points
Kenny's record against the minnows and mediocre in his group: one embarrassing defeat, one frustrating draw, seven points
Stan's record against the middling teams in his group: two home wins, two away draws (both of which we led going into the last two minutes)
Kenny's record against the middling teams in his group: well, there were none, but in the Nations League we only picked up two points against Wales and Finland and failed to score (yes, yes, I know... new players, new system etc)
Now, during Stan's reign I was living in London and only got to see the second half of the Slovakia away game, but I thought we played very well in that and should have won but for our inability to close out the game (a trait that has plagued Irish teams for decades). So maybe I missed something about the campaign but based on this comparison of records, I don't see why Stan is considered a laughingstock who should have been fired after two games while Kenny is a revolutionary manager who will lead us all the way to the final of Euro 2024

[Olé Olé]

Did you see the squad that Staunton had? This is the side that played against Cyprus and lost 5-2;

Kenny, Finnan, O'Shea, Andrew O'Brien (Lee 71), Dunne, Kilbane, McGeady (Alan O'Brien 80), Ireland (Douglas 83), Morrison, Keane, Duff.

I'm reading through that team almost weeping. Your comparison of records is too crude.

[Supreme feet]

So maybe I missed something about the campaign but based on this comparison of records, I don't see why Stan is considered a laughingstock who should have been fired after two games while Kenny is a revolutionary manager who will lead us all the way to the final of Euro 2024

Because Staunton was very obviously incompetent in his team selections and tactics. And, as has been noted, he had prime Given, Dunne, Finnan, O'Shea, Andy Reid, Ireland, Duff, Robbie Keane and Doyle to work with. Actual Champions League level players.

I wrote about it in detail here (shameless self-promotion):

http://anditscomethroughhere.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-staunton-years.html

[Olé Olé]

Also, it is completely disingenuous to set out that people are coming close to stating that "Kenny is a revolutionary manager who will lead us all the way to the final of Euro 2024." It completely and utterly weakens your point. I think this forum has been very balanced with regards to Kenny and the progress. Our improvement over the last 18 months or so has seen a lot of posters on either side - pro and anti Kenny- coming closer together in their views. Whilst there have always been posters in the middle, Since the last two rounds of fixtures, I feel like the diverging groups have converged much more in their views and I reckon there's a lot of balance on this forum on the matter of Kenny.

But, hey, if you want to use hyperbole to make your points then drive it on.

[mypost]

I also feel that theres still a narrative on here that some still resent it because they think that Kelleher is a better keeper. He might be, but hes not showed it yet and in my opinion at his age he should be trying to get some football somewhere.

Kelleher is the better keeper, and when he plays, plays for a better club at a higher level of football. He hasn't made a single error when he's played for Ireland, not one. Unfortunately, he was injured at the wrong time. From playing football.

People constantly say he needs to play somewhere else, but that's no guarantee Kenny will use him. He probably sees his teammate Alisson who has to compete to be No. 1 for his country, or Alexander Arnold play for his club week in week out, he's one of the best right backs in the world, but his own international manager still doesn't want to know. So the answer to Kelleher really has to be more than "play somewhere else".

Randolph is not in the picture. He had his time and did a decent job, but he's just not as good as the two in front of him, and that's the way it is.

[Stuttgart88]

How many times has Kelleher actually played for Ireland? One impressive 45 mins in Hungary, and a day off against Qatar. That's all I can remember.

I think the "hasn't made a single error" line carries a lot of weight above. I wouldn't have made any errors v Qatar either.

[third policeman]

How many times has Kelleher actually played for Ireland? One impressive 45 mins in Hungary, and a day off against Qatar. That's all I can remember.

I think the "hasn't made a single error" line carries a lot of weight above. I wouldn't have made any errors v Qatar either.

I think that argument cuts both ways - hasn’t done enough to establish himself as a better keeper, or hasn’t played enough for us to know wether he is better or worse than Bazunu. The logical means of deciding that would be to give him more opportunities in the March friendliest and the Nation’s League. It’s in our interests to have two goalkeepers who are experienced and ready for international football when required. Time will tell who is the better keeper, but we shouldn’t be rushing to make a choice while they are both pretty much at the beginning of their careers.

[John83]

I think that argument cuts both ways - hasn’t done enough to establish himself as a better keeper, or hasn’t played enough for us to know wether he is better or worse than Bazunu. The logical means of deciding that would be to give him more opportunities in the March friendliest and the Nation’s League. It’s in our interests to have two goalkeepers who are experienced and ready for international football when required. Time will tell who is the better keeper, but we shouldn’t be rushing to make a choice while they are both pretty much at the beginning of their careers.
That's sensible. We shouldn't be caught out if Bazunu is injured for an important match.

[Stuttgart88]

I think that argument cuts both ways - hasn’t done enough to establish himself as a better keeper, or hasn’t played enough for us to know wether he is better or worse than Bazunu. The logical means of deciding that would be to give him more opportunities in the March friendliest and the Nation’s League. It’s in our interests to have two goalkeepers who are experienced and ready for international football when required. Time will tell who is the better keeper, but we shouldn’t be rushing to make a choice while they are both pretty much at the beginning of their careers.
I wasn't actually making an argument though! I think it'd be perfectly wise to play Kelleher more. I have no dog in this fight, so to speak.

[Razors left peg]

Kelleher is the better keeper, and when he plays, plays for a better club at a higher level of football. He hasn't made a single error when he's played for Ireland, not one. Unfortunately, he was injured at the wrong time. From playing football.

People constantly say he needs to play somewhere else, but that's no guarantee Kenny will use him. He probably sees his teammate Alisson who has to compete to be No. 1 for his country, or Alexander Arnold play for his club week in week out, he's one of the best right backs in the world, but his own international manager still doesn't want to know. So the answer to Kelleher really has to be more than "play somewhere else".

Randolph is not in the picture. He had his time and did a decent job, but he's just not as good as the two in front of him, and that's the way it is.

Bazunu has played at International level and shown himself to be an excellent keeper, Kelleher has a handful of games at club level and done well, but theres no evidence to say hes a better keeper.

I think we are lucky to have both, but right now only one of them is playing regularly and he has been brilliant for us.

[tetsujin1979]

Thread locked and archived
phFb4siGejM