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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brine3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barney

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barney

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixer82

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Ah that old chestnut, can't make a valid point so try and ridicule to do oneupmanship :D

---

No, 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barney

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.