Stephen Kenny

[pineapple stu]

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)

[Diggs246]

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

[pineapple stu]

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.

[Stuttgart88]

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.

[paul_oshea]

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).

[EAFC_rdfl]

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....

[paul_oshea]

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.

[tetsujin1979]

I dont have any complex though.

pointing out other people's complexes is a complex

[SkStu]

This is all very complex.

[SkStu]

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...

[Stuttgart88]

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.

[Snapshot]

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.

[Stuttgart88]

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.

[SkStu]

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.

[paul_oshea]

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?

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.

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

[Jd2793]

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.

[paul_oshea]

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.

[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?

[Jd2793]

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

[SkStu]

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.

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...