:D That doesn't fit the narrative. We were aging no hopers who were never getting close to qualifying until Pep Kenny came on board.Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
Printable View
:D That doesn't fit the narrative. We were aging no hopers who were never getting close to qualifying until Pep Kenny came on board.Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
I’m willing to be convinced by Kenny on the basis of what has been an improvement, but I don’t buy into the historical revisionism that his supporters indulge in. Yeah we are passing the ball more than we did, and there’s been a bit more fluency and organisation in the last few games, but it still seems a bit fragile. The most worrying thing for me is his faith in players who have never demonstrated (yet, in some cases), that they can play consistently at this level. Maybe Idah and Parrott will come good, but Horgan, Keane, Collins are never going to be good enough. We’re not blessed with striking talent, but Hogan is playing regularly at a higher level and scoring goals.
Reading isn't your strong point, is it? I've said that it's fair to wonder if the last three games were a purple patch. That's not the same as declaring them so. The Luxembourg game will tell us more. If we lose or draw it, then yeah, it would start to look more like the eye of a storm, wouldn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Another daft comment. Of course we can only beat what's out there - but if what's out there is throwing the ball into the back of the net for us (Azerbaijan) or a half-strength team focused on a different match altogether (Portugal) then that absolutely becomes a factor to be considered when appraising whether we're improving. So I'm not saying we only got those results because of the opposition, but I am saying it has to be taken into account when considering the Portugal performance that they appeared half interested and dropped half their team. That's a huge difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
He did have 16 mostly crap performances. Seven games without scoring a goal - our longest run ever. For most of that, we didn't even look like scoring a goal. Defeat at home to Luxembourg, our worst ever competitive defeat. Rescuing a draw against Azerbaijan at home with a late equaliser after another insipid performance - an awful result which ranks well below previous upsets such as draws against Georgia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Albania and Iceland. Being completely outplayed by the only decent attacking sides we met. What more do you want?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
And you can't just brush all of that off with a comment about transition. These were guys who by and large didn't play at club level the desperate hoofball stuff Ireland played, so straight off they're halfway there at least. Yes, there were issues around covid and the excessive team changes that caused, and around bringing players through (often when they weren't there), and around the lack of crowds which didn't help us. But it was still 16 games and a year of appalling form, when we weren't even surprised when we were 1-0 down in Andorra after almost an hour. That's too long of a transition period to be honest.
You say we're not able to compete at the top of the table - we don't even know if we can compete at the middle of the table. The Nations League would say we can't. Tomorrow we face a side lower than the middle of the table again, which is why failure to win with a good performance tomorrow would be a big worry.
Again, I think we will win, but it is still entirely reasonable to say that there's a lot riding on this game.
For me Kenny is a bluffer. Started an own religion toó! I understand why people would keep him based on faith. I wouldnt. Refs were awful and al the calls were against the green since Belgrado. But he is the main responsible
Fág doesn't sound right in that context, maybe Lig Peig ina haonar works!Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapshot
As we can't qualify for the WC, no there isn't. Knowing how awkward Serbia and Portugal found it there, I don't expect to win, and it's not armageddon if not. We rarely win any games as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Kenny was appointed to change how we play, and bring through new players to do so. That has been, and continues to be done. If the price of that is losing a home game v Luxembourg or even away to Luxembourg, that is the price that has to be paid. It's not the worst home result in our history, its not like we're losing 1-6 to Germany and 1-5 to Denmark at home these days. Now we're drawing 0-0 at home to Portugal and 1-1 at home to Serbia and you dismiss it because it wasn't the expected team. That's their business. We beat Andorra 4-1, and we should be happy that we won a game for a change. No the story is, that the skiers were ahead for a few of the 90 minutes.
Portugal's approach to the game is a matter for Portugal to worry about, they were the team with qualification on the line and everything to lose, which they should have in injury time. If they end up stuck in the playoffs or out of the World Cup, then they have questions to answer.
We've lost once in the last 9 games, in injury time. We're 5 games unbeaten, the newbies are finding their feet, the passing and possession stats are way up compared to what has gone before, Lansdowne is sold out again. That's more than enough reasons for Kenny to stay in charge.
Brilliant common-sense summary. Well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Absolutely, thanks. I try hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by EAFC_rdfl
All of that is reasonable but when does it become important for Kenny to start winning games and to be at least in contention to qualify cone the last round or 2 of qualifying games?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
By the time we start our next nations league group he will have over 20 games as manager will there be an expectation for that group that we should be challenging and in contention to top it up to the last round of games?
Or are we saying that it's the euro qualification group that expectations kick in and until then everything gets a free pass? And what is the expectation for the next euros group?
If we don't qualify for the euros but continue to play football that people find attractive would Kenny be under pressure then or would he have another contract extension to take us through the following World Cup group?
By the time the next euro s would be over our current up and coming promising generation of players who were impressive through the age groups from 16s 17s and 19s up to 21s with Kenny and have transitioned into the senior picture such as connolly, obafemi, parrott,ebosele, Knight, Collins kelleher, bazunu, omobamidele,molumby,ronan, idah etc will be mid 20s and likely getting close to their prime. Its unlikely that the current 21s and 19s squads will provide as many players to the senior set up but hopefully a few special ones will come through..
is Kenny destined to be afforded the opportunity to qualify for the next World Cup with these players regardless of results up to then ? Would that World Cup be the cut off or if we were competitive and missed out through a playoff would he still be around for the following euros?
Typical mypost stuff - ignore the points made as to why the Luxembourg game is important, and just repeat the same irrelevancy (we can't qualify for the World Cup).Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Again wantonly distorting what I said, and throwing in a few absurdities for good measure. To tick them off quickly -Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
> 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. That's much different than, say, conceding an early goal and quickly equalising (like 2001) or pummeling them and being hit on the break.
Nearly all? That's some going. Is Kenny allowed to pick an extended panel so that he include "nearly all" of Mick's squad and all of the players he has given debuts to?Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
[QUOTE=mypost;209496 Kenny was appointed to change how we play, and bring through new players to do so..[/QUOTE]
How many of the players that he has brought in have been integral to the new style of play. Cullen maybe? As I have said, before, I’m willing to give him a chance, but this Messianic thing, doesn’t square with the facts. He’s brought in young players, some of whom look promising and some are clearly not ready for this level.
Bazunu is as important as anybody. Doherty is featuring more frequently. Callum Robinson has become essential. Omobamidele was very good against Serbia as the third centre half, comfortable in defence and pushing up a little. That is 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
AND THE WINNER IS!! Truth is you both make extremely compelling points and both of your viewpoints more than hold up to scrutiny. All of which is to say that tonight's game is as big a crossroads game for an Irish manager as there ever has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I'd say in the long term a change in style/outlook/philosophy is worth some short term pain. Lux at home was no worse than, say, Gibraltar under Mick, home and away. Abject rubbish on both occasions, the only difference being that in Gibraltar Randolph saved our bacon at a critical moment in the game. I'd allow Mick the plastic pitch and strong wind as a factor away, but home was just deplorable. Lux at home was in a soulless empty stadium as were the NL games. That cuts any manager some slack in my book - no home advantage. An opportunistic pot shot on 88 minutes went in, Denmark systematically dismantled us. I think you're being overly critical of some of the earlier Kenny performances. Helsinki and Cardiff were both pretty decent, a key moment in each game being the difference. Objectively I'd say they were better performances than any in our earlier NL campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Bazunu, Robinson, Cullen, Doherty, Duffy, Coleman, Hendrick and others are playing great stuff and Hendrick is playing his best in 5 years. Duffy is a man possessed.
I've been a fan of yours personally since we both joined this forum donkeys' years ago but man, your whingeing over pretty much everything from the context of the Portugal game (no doubt beating the All Blacks was facile yesterday) to a 19 year old tier 3 goalkeeper capturing the hearts of the nation is making me seriously considering blocking/ignoring you. You'd be the first. There have been WUMs galore here down the years but they intend to wind people up. You're just being wilfully petty and one-eyed. Really tiresome.
Ah come on Stutts. Is that how you react to a view different to yours?
Yes, Lansdowne was empty for the Luxembourg game, and yes we're in transition. But a read back on the match thread will show that most posters were of the view that Kenny should resign/be sacked after it not just for that performance, but for his career to date. This post from NeverFeltBetter expresses it best -
Let's not get revisionist about it all now that we've gotten a couple of good results.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
Ditto the Bazunu stuff - there can be no harm in some balance in analysing his performances, because a lot of the comments about him (not just here) have been, as you accuse me, one-eyed.
No that’s four players actually, not all of them have instrumental to a change in style, especially a goal keeper, Robinson got caps under Mick, when available, Doherty is not exactly a neophyte. Omobamidele is a real find, but not sure that he wouldn’t have promoted irrespective of who the manager was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
No, it's how I react to constant tedious whingeing.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I don't recall any as one eyed about Bazunu as you have been. I think most have recognised that he' s got away with some mistakes that would have changed the narrative. But I'd take Shane Duffy's opinion of him over anyone's here.
4 to go with Cullen that you had already put forward... Actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
Subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Here's what I last had to say on it.Quote:
but the goalposts have been moved, a workmanlike deserved draw against Portugal at home is not good enough to appraise the merits of Kenny, it's reduced due the opposition not at their peak, therefore now Luxembourg is the key :rolleyes:
Would you like to apologise for lying about the shifting goalposts? I get the feeling I'll be waiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Pineapple Stu has already dismantled this.Quote:
What if it's a regular away game performance to a decent in form side (such as Luxembourg are now) in a qualification campaign, the type of game for decades that we have struggled to win or even draw, oft times losing, the type of game from Giles onward where we have performed ignobly, or what if it's akin to the performance when a much superior Ireland team under Charlton struggled both home and away to an inferior Luxembourg?
Yes, because he's fourth, and in losing to Luxembourg and drawing with Azerbaijan (both aberrant performances, you say; gosh he must be unlucky as hell). If he'd beaten Luxembourg already, this would not be a critical game for him. It will decide whether or not he finishes 4th behind a Luxembourg team which is objectively rubbish.Quote:
But now Kenny is supposed to be judged on this key game?
Seeing as my post came first, I guess we know what that makes yours.Quote:
There's bull and there's total bull.
Gosh, if you thought I was sneering at her, you would be traumatised by my attitude to your unwarranted belligerence.Quote:
And Fwiw I have have little respect for the that type of Irish boorishness that not only does not understand the Peig life experience but who condescend to sneer at her and her life experience.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I think a lot haven't actually. And isn't that the same one-eyed-ness, just from the other angle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Mick was picking a 33 year old Richard Keogh ahead of John Egan (26 years old) till Keogh’s car crash...Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
It’s mad to assume Omobamidele would be playing under McCarthy/O’Neill/Trap
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
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!
PS - But it might have involved losing a load of games in the process and that certainly wasn’t Mick’s brief.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by passinginterest
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
Why are you persisting with this point? It feels like posters are being baited.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by elatedscum
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme feet
(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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
Not quite as many Micks.