Stephen Kenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

We’ve qualified for three tournaments since the 94WC, all by way of playoff. If we say we were third seed ranks throughout this time, qualifying three times during a 30-year span is a law of averages expected return. And for the most part, we have played tepid, uninspiring football. Sure, we had the odd morale victory to give the illusion of being “competitive”. But I can’t help feeling that are current inability to produce creative players is the legacy of our senior team being set up to not lose, rather than set up to win games. Maybe Kenny’s time is up, but we frankly need a Stephen Kenny to replace him. Otherwise, it another 30 odd years of hoping for a favourable qualification draw and another couple of hundred of pages on the potential eligible players thread looking to unearth a short-term fix for a long-term problem.

---

Definitely part of the problem. We don't have a plan for producing players at all though really. We have a jumble of interested and mostly well intentioned parties all playing a slightly different game. We won't be competitive until the national team is a product of a national plan that goes deeper than the senior team's style of play. Maybe I'm overly pessimistic.

My hope was that Kenny could help spearhead some of the necessary progress but that's pretty naive of me as it's up to the FAI to get the work done. 30 years might just do the trick.

Some of the debate is confusing though. Didi Hamman saying academies are overcoaching kids and there aren’t enough street footballers anymore (echoes of Giles / Kerr here), yet most of the better players around these days are academy products, no?

I do remember Crafty telling me he had spoken to a UK scout about Conor Clifford and he said “typical academy player. Lovely technique but can’t win a header in midfield which is why his team is losing”.

Anyone like elatedscum got a view here? Do academies make some great players but sterilise others?

Just put a street through all of our academies! Simples. The great thing is, they are all green field sites......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Some of the debate is confusing though. Didi Hamman saying academies are overcoaching kids and there aren’t enough street footballers anymore (echoes of Giles / Kerr here), yet most of the better players around these days are academy products, no?

I do remember Crafty telling me he had spoken to a UK scout about Conor Clifford and he said “typical academy player. Lovely technique but can’t win a header in midfield which is why his team is losing”.



Anyone like elatedscum got a view here? Do academies make some great players but sterilise others?

---

i think its nonsense for the most part. what didi wants it one star player playing off the cuff completely in a throwback 90s kinda way. football has evolved so much tactically that it rarely happens anymore tbh. we've never had a higher quality of player IMO. academies have done a great job all in all of improving the game. there will obviously be instances where coaches get annoyed at the younger ones who play for themselves instead of the team , which i suppose could be stifling them. the way i see it the "Street footballer" is pretty much dead, whether it be down to how society has changed ( phones xbox ps5 etc) or coaches tactics. i think grealish is a great example of a throwback flair player who carried a weak team then moved to the best team just to be a cog in the wheel. hes no less of a player hes just being asked to do a different job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Some of the debate is confusing though. Didi Hamman saying academies are overcoaching kids and there aren’t enough street footballers anymore (echoes of Giles / Kerr here), yet most of the better players around these days are academy products, no?

I do remember Crafty telling me he had spoken to a UK scout about Conor Clifford and he said “typical academy player. Lovely technique but can’t win a header in midfield which is why his team is losing”.

Anyone like elatedscum got a view here? Do academies make some great players but sterilise others?

---

Academies train the footballer out of kids and make then percentage passing automatons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jd2793

i think its nonsense for the most part. what didi wants it one star player playing off the cuff completely in a throwback 90s kinda way. football has evolved so much tactically that it rarely happens anymore tbh. we've never had a higher quality of player IMO. academies have done a great job all in all of improving the game. there will obviously be instances where coaches get annoyed at the younger ones who play for themselves instead of the team , which i suppose could be stifling them. the way i see it the "Street footballer" is pretty much dead, whether it be down to how society has changed ( phones xbox ps5 etc) or coaches tactics. i think grealish is a great example of a throwback flair player who carried a weak team then moved to the best team just to be a cog in the wheel. hes no less of a player hes just being asked to do a different job.

---

I'd agree with most of that. I think there are still plenty of "street footballers" around but tactics, defending and fitness have all come a long way from the days Maradona could slalom his way through a series of wild lunges from the best defenders in the world who were probably on the **** the night before the game. Domestically speaking you have Forrester, Burke and Byrne but even at LoI level they are up against defenders in very good condition who play within fairly rigid systems and don't dive in. Your point around coaches training the spontaneity out of players is probably very true. Damien Duff's transformation from flair winger at Blackburn to dogged wing back at Chelsea springs to mind and that was late in his career so the impact on academy players is probably fairly profound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weldoninhio

I’d say France, Germany, Belgium, England, Brazil and Argentina would be above the rest of the world.

The very top tier. Portugal would be a rung below them.

---

In fairness, I wouldn't be too confident of Portugal beating Switzerland. The Swiss are a good tournament team and have won their last two qualifying groups, ahead of Italy and Denmark. Definitely not a tier 1 side, but right at the top of the tier 2 / pot 2 sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weldoninhio

Academies train the footballer out of kids and make then percentage passing automatons.

---

This feels right to me but at same time some of the world's best / most creative players are academy products. England's current crop all are. Hansi Flick was saying Musiala is only good because he was developed in England. I suspect academies are developing better technical footballers across the board but probably overcoaching several flair players and some players are standing out among others despite this rather than because of it.

Academies are generally set up at the highest level with a view to producing one player every three or four years who can make the first team at that club and a few others with a sell on value that can go to other Premier League clubs, to the Championship or somewhere like the Bundesliga. So the whole setup is geared around achieving those outcomes, which most of these academies achieve reasonably successfully, but at the cost that the (many) other young players in these academies tend to get swallowed up by this process. Just because the academy is doing what's best for those few standout players doesn't mean it's doing what's best for the others, whose ceiling might be League 1 or the Championship - or even the Premier League later in their careers if they were developed to their full potential.

So the system probably suits a national team like England rather than us. They're always likely to have a standout player or two at each major academy, among the many other weaker English players there also, who are of no relevance to their senior national team. Whereas our lads will only rarely if ever be the standout player, often we'll have players there that the system doesn't really work best for.

For that reason the loan system is crucial to our lads as a finishing school as they're unlikely to ever walk into a top 6 first team straight out of the youth setup. But if players are only going out on loan or permanent moves at 20 or 21 or later in some cases then they've already probably spend too much time in an academy setup that isn't set up to their advantage. Conor Masterson is probably a prime example of this.

So, while I do think we have a good crop of players coming through, we will probably have to wait longer to get the benefit of this with players having to go the long road to get them to the level we need. I think we're already seeing this happen with quite a few of them. Sometimes it won't be the ones we expect that will make it out the other end of this process and the ones that do make it will probably be further on in their careers than we would like them to be (e.g. Cullen and Egan).

So, while the academy system suits the clubs that run it, it's probably not the best from our perspective.

Are our players any worse than the Australian squad? Looking at the clubs they play for, definitely not. It just goes to show what an organised, properly coached team can do. It's what we should be aiming for. Competing against top teams is not an impossible task that Kenny wants everyone to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BOOMSHAKALAKA

Are our players any worse than the Australian squad? Looking at the clubs they play for, definitely not. It just goes to show what an organised, properly coached team can do. It's what we should be aiming for. Competing against top teams is not an impossible task that Kenny wants everyone to believe.

---

Organised, but they play crap football, I suppose the

same we are capable of. Would agree that we need to change coach after watching this World Cup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gastric

Organised, but they play crap football, I suppose the

same we are capable of. Would agree that we need to change coach after watching this World Cup.

---

I didn't think it was crap at all
Entertaining actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diggs246

I didn't think it was crap at all
Entertaining actually.

---

Each to their own taste, but sitting back and defending for most of the game does not entertain me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BOOMSHAKALAKA

Are our players any worse than the Australian squad? Looking at the clubs they play for, definitely not. It just goes to show what an organised, properly coached team can do. It's what we should be aiming for. Competing against top teams is not an impossible task that Kenny wants everyone to believe.

---

We tend to compete fairly well against the top teams under Kenny, albeit draws mostly and plucky defeats. His biggest problem is not being effective enough at all against the lower teams. That’s where the more embarrassing results and/or performances have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

We tend to compete fairly well against the top teams under Kenny, albeit draws mostly and plucky defeats. His biggest problem is not being effective enough at all against the lower teams. That’s where the more embarrassing results and/or performances have been.

---

We got 2 points out of 12 ( Portugal and serbia) we probably deserved a point away to Portugal but we stole a point off serbia at home.

Yeah, points wise not great. A couple draws and a couple plucky defeats. Would you give him the Belgium result there to help me out a bit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

We tend to compete fairly well against the top teams under Kenny, albeit draws mostly and plucky defeats. His biggest problem is not being effective enough at all against the lower teams. That’s where the more embarrassing results and/or performances have been.

---

The only top teams we've played in competitive games have been Portugal and Serbia. In 3 of those games we were well beaten and lucky that wasn't reflected on the score board. We've only had 1 win against a team that some would describe as decent opposition in 30 games under Kenny. That was against Scotland who are no great shakes.

My point here is that people are talking about not having the players and needing to improve player development, obviously that is true but it's not the job for the senior manager. He has to get the best out of what he has. Blaming failure on the players seems like a very flimsy excuse when you look at some of the teams at this world cup.

We shouldn't accept the thinking that we can't compete with Portugal and Serbia like Kenny has told us. Looking at teams like Australia, Japan, South Korea etc should give us hope. It's possible to compete at the highest level even if you don't have outstanding players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Yeah, points wise not great. A couple draws and a couple plucky defeats. Would you give him the Belgium result there to help me out a bit?

---

Actually what I will say is Portugal at home was a v good performance and obviously Scotland too. But he has had years and overall he has been very very poor. I honestly think he is worse then stan.
Whats fascinating is the straw that broke the camels back was his substitutes v Norway and Malta, thats seems to be when his own supporters turned on him. Bringing on Jeff was ridiculous but taking off obefemi v Scotland away was a far more serious indictment of his ability.

Lost 4-1 to France. Does that give Kenny a free pass in March? Plucky defeat - helped by a fluke of a goal - to an Argentina side that should have been out of sight.

P4, L2, W1, D1.

I get the general point and agree that there’s evidence of good coaching, organisation and no little amount of hunger and hard work, and that can count for a lot, but that’s been evident in several of our games against better teams. It’s also been absent in our worst performances.

For us though it’s a results business when we’re playing well but not getting results, someone else’s work when we are, lucky when we get an OG after a really ballsy comeback, bad management when we play well but Parrott misses a sitter…

I actually think we’ve better players than Australia more or less across the board. I’d like to see how Australia would do in a League B NL campaign, or a Euro qualifying campaign. I’d guess not much better than us, if at all.

I think Rob Page has been impressive in his spell as Welsh coach yet they stank the place out. And if they were to play Australia tomorrow I wouldn’t bet much on Australia winning.

There’s almost always an Iceland or an Australia we can point to.

But if the point is that spirit, organisation and sound tactics are a necessary but insufficient condition for success then yes, of course I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Lost 4-1 to France. Does that give Kenny a free pass in March? Plucky defeat - helped by a fluke of a goal - to an Argentina side that should have been out of sight.

P4, L2, W1, D1.

I get the general point and agree that there’s evidence of good coaching, organisation and no little amount of hunger and hard work, and that can count for a lot, but that’s been evident in several of our games against better teams. It’s also been absent in our worst performances.

For us though it’s a results business when we’re playing well but not getting results, someone else’s work when we are, lucky when we get an OG after a really ballsy comeback, bad management when we play well but Parrott misses a sitter…

I actually think we’ve better players than Australia more or less across the board. I’d like to see how Australia would do in a League B NL campaign, or a Euro qualifying campaign. I’d guess not much better than us, if at all.

I think Rob Page has been impressive in his spell as Welsh coach yet they stank the place out. And if they were to play Australia tomorrow I wouldn’t bet much on Australia winning.

There’s almost always an Iceland or an Australia we can point to.

But if the point is that spirit, organisation and sound tactics are a necessary but insufficient condition for success then yes, of course I agree.

---

I'm not sure if I get your point. You're jumping all over the place. Australia beat Denmark and Tunisia? I was just looking at their squad with players for Hearts, Stoke etc, no one playing in a top league but they went and definitely didn't embarrass themselves on the world stage. We struggle to finish above Armenia, Azerbaijan and Luxembourg and all we hear is that our players are useless.

Is our squad much weaker than Japan's or South Korea's? These are all teams competing with the top ranked sides. No excuses are being thrown out by their team managers. We're not even coming close in groups with the top teams but our manager gets a free pass. It just doesn't wash. Either does blaming players for missed chances after 2 years and 30 games.

Our players being used as a scapegoat was something criticised hugely when Trappatoni and O Neill used it. Kenny shouldn't be above such criticism, especially viewing some of the squads performing well at this world cup. Kenny can't even get us close to qualification!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diggs246

Actually what I will say is Portugal at home was a v good performance

---

The one where we didn't have a shot on target until after Portugal's late red card despite them having left several players out because they knew the Serbia game four days later was the important tie?

I can't rate that as a very good performance tbh.

Also just to correct Stutts' post - Australia won two games and lost two. Beat Denmark and Tunisia (and agree they were well beaten by Argentina despite the scoreline and the late chance)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The one where we didn't have a shot on target until after Portugal's late red card despite them having left several players out because they knew the Serbia game four days later was the important tie?

I can't rate that as a very good performance tbh.

Also just to correct Stutts' post - Australia won two games and lost two. Beat Denmark and Tunisia (and agree they were well beaten by Argentina despite the scoreline and the late chance)

---

well then we are left with Scotland and nothing else in 30 international football matches? Ukraine away maybe

Did u not support him? Obviously you are entitled to change your mind, but Portugal at home is believe or not is one of the extremely few highlights of this man regime

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diggs246

well then we are left with Scotland and nothing else in 30 international football matches? Ukraine away maybe

---

Well at a lower level hammering Azerbaijan and Qatar were respectable performances. (I wouldn't include Luxembourg in that as we laboured for an hour, and if their goal hadn't been ruled out shortly before we took the lead it would have been a very different game)

But yeah, Scotland and Ukraine. And then you start to wonder if the latter was more down to Ukraine being knackered after five games in June and a squad where many players had no club because of the war.

Do I support him? No. If a 0-0 draw against a side only half trying where we still didn't create anything until they went down to ten men late on is a highlight after 30 games, then it's hard to support him. But it's the performances against Malta/Lithuania/etc that worry me more. Malta's star player was with Oxford, the same club as our lowest player. And we were utterly steeped to win. That's not remotely acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BOOMSHAKALAKA

I'm not sure if I get your point. You're jumping all over the place. Australia beat Denmark and Tunisia? I was just looking at their squad with players for Hearts, Stoke etc, no one playing in a top league but they went and definitely didn't embarrass themselves on the world stage. We struggle to finish above Armenia, Azerbaijan and Luxembourg and all we hear is that our players are useless.

Is our squad much weaker than Japan's or South Korea's? These are all teams competing with the top ranked sides. No excuses are being thrown out by their team managers. We're not even coming close in groups with the top teams but our manager gets a free pass. It just doesn't wash. Either does blaming players for missed chances after 2 years and 30 games.

Our players being used as a scapegoat was something criticised hugely when Trappatoni and O Neill used it. Kenny shouldn't be above such criticism, especially viewing some of the squads performing well at this world cup. Kenny can't even get us close to qualification!

---

Sorry, I thought Oz only drew with Tunisia.

I said I thought our players are mainly better than theirs, but I think Scotland (esp midfield) and Ukraine have better players than us. Hence we came third. I think we had better players under Trap and O’Neill than we do now so back then it was fair to knock the “we don’t have the players” excuse. And my own view back then was that we had the players to be competitive but not much more.

I stand by my view that Oz would struggle to qualify from Europe and wouldn’t do great in Nations League B.

And despite me getting one result above wrong I thought my concluding point was quite clear, and it was agreeing with you.

Quote:

---

Not sure about this in response to that part of my post. I think a lot of people were glad to see him appointed and where the differences are is based on the degree to which people saw this as a challenge in terms of rebuilding, restyling and how long that could reasonably expect to take before we would see greenshoots or regular results and performances... that is all outside of some of the other awkward things that happened for him in a new role (a lot of new, young players with a new manager during the instability of Covid - covid alone not an excuse but the compounding effect of a new squad, style and the inability to select a consistent squad - made things tougher than for others; the Robbie Keane stuff; the knives out in the backroom). The long and short of it is the degree to which he was/is supported in the role is directly connected to the length of time people were willing to give him. For me, i was consistent since day one - I was supportive and excited for his general vision but also i had concerns with Kenny and his public speaking / media comfort; further, i wasnt sure if he was ready at the time he was appointed. I always said it was a 2 year grace period for me but that i would want to see progress. That timeline came and went and i wasnt seeing the things i would have hoped to have seen so, yep, changed tack. It doesnt make me wrong or right or vice versa. I think the same general principle was applied by quite a few on here - you too Paul, to be fair, although you lost faith super early (not day one though) i think when you realized you wouldnt be going for a jolly-up for a few years

---

The last bit in bold got me thinking about this article I read last week -> https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...ilege-25636361

There's a superiority complex going on amongst certain contributors to this forum, anything that doesn't fit into the narrative of "their" vision of football is inferior. It's become more apparent as those become more ardent about what that should be and why Kenny is(or was for some) the man to bring that in. There was prophesising before Kenny took charge of a game about the style and play we would adopt. The reality is that there has been nothing of note brought in under Kennys reign thus far. We are nowhere closer to that style of play that those said we were seeing under kenny at the start than we were under Oneil bar a few more passes around the back four and centre circle but what has become wholly apparent is we are far more porous in defence than we have been for a long while regardless of the opposition.

Do you think Morocco, tunisia, japan or even Holland care about the possession stats for their games and big wins? Of course they don't! Do you think if we have possession like bigger teams we are going to get further than a last 16 regardless of how much of it we have? We wont! We are a small nation and no matter how good we become we will never be Brazil and we will never be capable of affecting that style like they do. Of course that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to play better football, we should embrace it, if that's what it is and we are capable of doing it.

Lastly the Australia talk. We could only dream of winning two group games. Who are we to snigger or belittle them? They were a kick of the game away from pushing a highly regarded Argentina to ET in a very entertaining second half of football. Kenny(and his ardent merry band of supporters) could only dream of that record in a world cup. Anyone saying different is talking complete nonsense(see paragraph 1).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

The last bit in bold got me thinking about this article I read last week -> https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...ilege-25636361

There's a superiority complex going on amongst certain contributors to this forum, anything that doesn't fit into the narrative of "their" vision of football is inferior.
.....
......
........

---

Brilliant! So there are posters on here with superiority complexes is it? I suppose you are very well placed to make that assessment in fairness....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAFC_rdfl

Brilliant! So there are posters on here with superiority complexes is it? I suppose you are very well placed to make that assessment in fairness....

---

I dont have any complex though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I dont have any complex though.

---

pointing out other people's complexes is a complex

This is all very complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

The last bit in bold got me thinking about this article I read last week -> https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...ilege-25636361

There's a superiority complex going on amongst certain contributors to this forum, anything that doesn't fit into the narrative of "their" vision of football is inferior. It's become more apparent as those become more ardent about what that should be and why Kenny is(or was for some) the man to bring that in. There was prophesising before Kenny took charge of a game about the style and play we would adopt. The reality is that there has been nothing of note brought in under Kennys reign thus far. We are nowhere closer to that style of play that those said we were seeing under kenny at the start than we were under Oneil bar a few more passes around the back four and centre circle but what has become wholly apparent is we are far more porous in defence than we have been for a long while regardless of the opposition.

Do you think Morocco, tunisia, japan or even Holland care about the possession stats for their games and big wins? Of course they don't! Do you think if we have possession like bigger teams we are going to get further than a last 16 regardless of how much of it we have? We wont! We are a small nation and no matter how good we become we will never be Brazil and we will never be capable of affecting that style like they do. Of course that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to play better football, we should embrace it, if that's what it is and we are capable of doing it.

Lastly the Australia talk. We could only dream of winning two group games. Who are we to snigger or belittle them? They were a kick of the game away from pushing a highly regarded Argentina to ET in a very entertaining second half of football. Kenny(and his ardent merry band of supporters) could only dream of that record in a world cup. Anyone saying different is talking complete nonsense(see paragraph 1).

---

Regarding style, I think there has been a notable change in approach and sometimes it has worked and other times it hasnt. But it is a transition, doesn't happen overnight (should be further along now though). When you've been instructed to hoof the ball for or if its been the mainstay of the national footballing identity for the best part of 35 years, it takes time to reverse that. The most obvious thing for me is how often (comparatively speaking) we are playing out short from the keeper and/or trying to work triangles out of defense into transition. I think that has been a qualified success and a glaring difference to the managers that came before - more so Trap and McCarthy where poor Randolph and co were probably suffering from RSI after international breaks. Whether from hands or from kick-out the game was constantly slowed down, everyone pushed up and the long punt would come. The balance that Kenny has brought in is the right thing to have tried (how effectively is obviously subject to debate). It is a mugs game to continue to give the ball away relentlessly against all teams, not just the best teams. I think that deserves some acknowledgement as the right thing. Two things i agree on - 1) we are treacherously ponderous in possession in midfield against a low block (too much sideways and backways where a more progressive percentage pass is on) and 2) we are conceding more, especially from range. It is rare we get carved open but it has happened, in particular in the early games under the 4-3-3 system.

Possession definitely isn't everything but by its very nature it does help, it improves odds. It shouldnt be possession for possessions sake though - there has to be some cut, some bite and we aren't seeing that consistently enough at this stage or at all. Not sure if it is down to personnel or coaching but my guess is it is mostly the former. Not trying to shift the goalposts in this next comment but some of the teams you mention - even if they are not all household names - have a dash of quality that we are sorely missing. We dont even (yet, maybe) have one "world class" or difference making player - not for a long time (Hoolahan? Pushing it). Either way, it is a trend that we have been dealing with since the late 90's. And have done nothing at the highest levels of the game to address strategically and/or meaningfully. Our domestic structures are still grotesquely underutilized (a different argument for another thread). Only a handful of our squad are premiership players, none are playing at the top table (maybe a case for Doherty) and none of them are players that the top tier are envious of. As i said, not moving the goalposts but it does make a difference. Look at Morrocco more closely - from a playing personnel perspective, they are streets ahead of us. They'd destroy us. Japan, the same. They all have a host of players who are at the top table - whether in Europe or England. Australia and Tunisia, i think, are great comparisons for us to take a look at. Not sure anyone is sniggering at them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Not sure anyone is sniggering at them...

---

Certainly not me. I really admire what they’ve done this tournament. I just don’t think they’d cut the mustard in a European qualifying group or NL League B group.

A lot of other straw men flying about this thread tonight too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Regarding style, I think there has been a notable change in approach and sometimes it has worked and other times it hasnt. But it is a transition, doesn't happen overnight (should be further along now though). When you've been instructed to hoof the ball for or if its been the mainstay of the national footballing identity for the best part of 35 years, it takes time to reverse that. The most obvious thing for me is how often (comparatively speaking) we are playing out short from the keeper and/or trying to work triangles out of defense into transition. I think that has been a qualified success and a glaring difference to the managers that came before - more so Trap and McCarthy where poor Randolph and co were probably suffering from RSI after international breaks. Whether from hands or from kick-out the game was constantly slowed down, everyone pushed up and the long punt would come. The balance that Kenny has brought in is the right thing to have tried (how effectively is obviously subject to debate). It is a mugs game to continue to give the ball away relentlessly against all teams, not just the best teams. I think that deserves some acknowledgement as the right thing. Two things i agree on - 1) we are treacherously ponderous in possession in midfield against a low block (too much sideways and backways where a more progressive percentage pass is on) and 2) we are conceding more, especially from range. It is rare we get carved open but it has happened, in particular in the early games under the 4-3-3 system.

Possession definitely isn't everything but by its very nature it does help, it improves odds. It shouldnt be possession for possessions sake though - there has to be some cut, some bite and we aren't seeing that consistently enough at this stage or at all. Not sure if it is down to personnel or coaching but my guess is it is mostly the former. Not trying to shift the goalposts in this next comment but some of the teams you mention - even if they are not all household names - have a dash of quality that we are sorely missing. We dont even (yet, maybe) have one "world class" or difference making player - not for a long time (Hoolahan? Pushing it). Either way, it is a trend that we have been dealing with since the late 90's. And have done nothing at the highest levels of the game to address strategically and/or meaningfully. Our domestic structures are still grotesquely underutilized (a different argument for another thread). Only a handful of our squad are premiership players, none are playing at the top table (maybe a case for Doherty) and none of them are players that the top tier are envious of. As i said, not moving the goalposts but it does make a difference. Look at Morrocco more closely - from a playing personnel perspective, they are streets ahead of us. They'd destroy us. Japan, the same. They all have a host of players who are at the top table - whether in Europe or England. Australia and Tunisia, i think, are great comparisons for us to take a look at. Not sure anyone is sniggering at them...

---

After 30 games it's Kenny yay or nay. Otherwise it's navel gazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snapshot

After 30 games it's Kenny yay or nay. Otherwise it's navel gazing.

---

At this point probably yes, but up to this point a broader discussion was appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snapshot

After 30 games it's Kenny yay or nay. Otherwise it's navel gazing.

---

Yeah, the forum should know my perspective by now on yay or nay. I was just responding to some of the points that PaulO made. Bitta discussion, like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The one where we didn't have a shot on target until after Portugal's late red card despite them having left several players out because they knew the Serbia game four days later was the important tie?

I can't rate that as a very good performance tbh.

Also just to correct Stutts' post - Australia won two games and lost two. Beat Denmark and Tunisia (and agree they were well beaten by Argentina despite the scoreline and the late chance)

---

I think we need to revisit and recalibrate a few results that were talked up. Belgium and Serbia were two of the worst teams in the World Cup but we acted like it was a heroic, possible once in a generation type performance against a second string Belgium with little or no interest. Redraw the list there, what do you think was actually a good performance? I concur with the Portugal away, on another day that as 3 or 4 0. Which to me leaves us with Scotland home?

Quote:

---

But it is a transition, doesn't happen overnight (should be further along now though). When you've been instructed to hoof the ball for or if its been the mainstay of the national footballing identity for the best part of 35 years, it takes time to reverse that

---

Didnt quote the whole lot but its opinions or discussions like this that leave me sceptical. It's almost like hanging your hat on the hope(silently) that someone or two will come into the team and just give us that ability to play like a Croatia or whatever your(not you personallY) flavour of the day is. Then come out and say its all down to Kenny, we just had to give him enough time. I'm in no doubt that other managers(bar trap perhaps) would have changed our style of play if we had Grealish and Rice in that midfield or someone(or two) of similar ability - dont reply saying wessi.

Quote:

---

Not sure anyone is sniggering at them...

---

Ya fair enough, but outside of this forum I got that feeling, within the forum it felt a little like belittling their achievement. IF Stepheny Kenny got us to a WC and we won two group games I'd bite your hand off regardless of any style or how much ball we played along the back 3/5. I do actually think theres others who would rather that never happened if SK wasnt the manager, theyre that deep in it now and see no way out to the detriment of the team or not

serbia were excellent in qualifying theres no point rewriting that because they forgot how to defend in the WC. They went in as group winners, deservedly so. they absolutely pumped us at home yet we drew 1-1. portugal didnt create next or near the amount of chances against us in the game they beat us in.

They had greater GA than us, they were brittle anytime we attacked in beograd and conceded 2, also conceded 2 at home to Portugal. They were brutal in the world up defensively and not much better in qualifying. They had an easy group as it turned out.

which effort is greater - to claim the teams we faced in qualifying were good, or to claim the same teams were terrible in the World Cup?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

which effort is greater - to claim the teams we faced in qualifying were good, or to claim the same teams were terrible in the World Cup?

---

which ever option denigrates the manager more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Didnt quote the whole lot but its opinions or discussions like this that leave me sceptical. It's almost like hanging your hat on the hope(silently) that someone or two will come into the team and just give us that ability to play like a Croatia or whatever your(not you personallY) flavour of the day is. Then come out and say its all down to Kenny, we just had to give him enough time. I'm in no doubt that other managers(bar trap perhaps) would have changed our style of play if we had Grealish and Rice in that midfield or someone(or two) of similar ability - dont reply saying wessi.

---

Why skeptical? The bit you quoted (surely a fair comment on its own merits) is nothing like hanging my hat on better players and, even if it was, the rest is kind of ridiculous. I actually don't understand what point you are making. You isolated a part of my post but then, i think, tried to argue about better resources and imply that i would use that as validation of Kenny...? Am i right? All I can say is better resources would make a difference to SK being able to more successfully implement a new way of playing. It would also present a new type of pressure. If successful, he would deserve some amount of credit for that in this hypothetical scenario, surely? Like any manager before him... What i mean there is JC got criticized for playing a style that ignored the quality of player available and for leaving out quality players (O'Leary for example, or the role he gave Aldridge) because they were ballers and didnt fit his style. He was so successful that nobody really cared but the criticism was there at the time and i think it is to some degree a point of regret looking back. In short, he ignored a very strong playing calibre at the preference to a system - and generally reaped the benefit of that singlemindedness as the manager. Mick V1.0 inherited quality and we brought through some exceptional players at that time. He had a "new way" at the time too and got his rewards and his criticisms. Kerr inherited that golden generation and failed and so on. Its not a Kenny issue - its just the way it is. Managers have to make the best use of the talent available (shape, style, tactics). Better talent should help but not always and if it fails, the criticism comes. If it is successful, the manager benefits and gets credit. Again, I'm not really following the point you are making here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Ya fair enough, but outside of this forum I got that feeling, within the forum it felt a little like belittling their achievement. IF Stepheny Kenny got us to a WC and we won two group games I'd bite your hand off regardless of any style or how much ball we played along the back 3/5. I do actually think there's others who would rather that never happened if SK wasnt the manager, theyre that deep in it now and see no way out to the detriment of the team or not

---

Who are these people? I am not aware of any such sentiments on here.

Actually, even though i left out the bit you quoted at Pineapple, who were the people hailing Belgium as a "once in a generation" performance? SK and the team got deserved credit for a good performance, comments about "good signs / resilience / green shoots" etc but all the usual qualifiers applied from my recollection. Happy enough if you can provide evidence to the contrary!! Since you're dealing mostly in hypothetic, i think a loss to Belgium would have been twisted to stick the knife into SK - "couldn't even beat a half interested Belgium team" etc etc...