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.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.
Last edited by mypost; 14/11/2021 at 3:44 PM.
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.
It's not constant tedious whingeing Stutts. It's an attempt to look at things objectively without revisionism, and trying to back my views up where I can. Just because I don't share SkStu's chest-thumping pride at Thursday's performance (which I don't begrudge either; I just don't agree with it) doesn't mean I'm being negative.
I think a lot haven't actually. And isn't that the same one-eyed-ness, just from the other angle?
Last edited by pineapple stu; 14/11/2021 at 4:20 PM.
Mick was picking a 33 year old Richard Keogh ahead of John Egan (26 years old) till Keogh’s car crash...
It’s mad to assume Omobamidele would be playing under McCarthy/O’Neill/Trap
That wasn't the exam question. The exam question was about players who have been instrumental to a change in style. Doherty and Robinson were in the squad but were not starters. It is very, very clear that they are integral to Kenny's change in style and they were not always starters under Mick and MON (in Doherty's case).
What relevance does the point that Bazunu is a keeper carry to the discussion? The point is that Bazunu is also crucial to the change in style. It's obvious. Look what having him there does to our centre halves in terms of how and where they look for and receive the ball. Same for the wing backs.
And the point with Omobamidele has been responded to.
Mick's last game he played Randolph, Doherty (Coleman was injured), Egan, Duffy, Stevens, Browne, Hourihane, Hendrick, Whelan, McClean and McGoldrick. Doherty, Egan, Duffy, Hendrick and one of McClean and Stevens are the likely starters tonight from that team.
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?
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.
Haven’t read all you have had to say on this as I know it's just nonsense ;-) but is it not a negative to have players that are integral to a style of play – because that equates to dependency? Ideally you want options for each position and not to build a style of play that is dependent on certain players. And the absence of integral players is actually a plus in the for Kenny column – he has broadened the pick of players to give us options for each position.
But take Norway for example (which echoes back to us when Duff and Keane were in their prime). There is a dependency there on two creative players: Haaland and Ødegaard, and the team is built around them. They have made Norway competitive, but if they are missing from the team, the team falls flat – see Saturday’s game against Latvia when Haaland was unavailable.
The claim was that Kenny had brought in new players in order to change the style of play. I pointed out that the new players are not integral to the new style with the possible exception of Cullen. So I think we are probably on the same page.
"I pointed out"- you think you're stating fact, do you? You've clearly ignored Bazunu who most people feel is integral. You've also ignored the fact that the existing players have adjusted to the style of play in a really clear way- that is fact, no matter what you say. And what of the lads that are being used more and more as part of the style of play? Callum Robinson is case in point. McGrath and Omobamidele and Ogbene are clearly used to great effect in the new style of play, to a lesser extent than Cullen and Bazunu, granted. But when there are only 11 players on the pitch almost all players are integral.
Why are you persisting with this point? It feels like posters are being baited.
Firstly, Do you really think that Mick McCarthy would have dropped Randolph? Secondly, Do you really think that he would have played the youngest of the 3? And if he wanted to replace Bazunu with Travers, Kenny could have. He has clearly pledged to stick with Bazunu on the basis that he thinks that Bazunu is best with his feet. So, regardless of the opinion that you state as if fact, it appears as though Kenny has stuck with Bazunu on the basis that he feels he is the best man for the job and that is his selection.
.
I’m genuinely not trying to wind up anyone or pick an argument for the sake of it. Nor am I criticising Kenny. I just think that his blooding new players, and promoting a new style are two different things. Some of the new players have not necessarily adapted to the style, and some of the older players have flourished with the license to be more expressive. I’m happy to admit that Bazunu is a better fit for the new style, but I am not certain that’s the only or main reason why he was selected. Can we agree to differ on this and move on? I respect your opinion, just don’t agree with it necessarily.
FWIW- This is the team I think McCarthy would have played fir the most recent qualifiers if he were in charge:
Randolph
Coleman
Duffy
Egan
Stevens
Hendrick
Hourihane
Browne
Robinson
McClean
Hogan
I reckon that team might struggle against (3-4-2-1): Bazunu; Omobamidele, DOS, Collins; Doherty, Cullen, McGrath, Manning; Ogbene, Knight; Idah/Parrott.
Remember when Kenny's U21 team beat Mick's senior team 2-1 in a training match?
Wasn’t aware of that ! I think it’s a fairly safe bet that Ogbene, McGrath and probably Omobamidele wouldn’t have seen any game time under McCarthy, the former two probably wouldn’t have even got in the squad.
(Side note - why is it always “Mick” but “Kenny”. ? Not having a go at you btw, everyone seems do it)
Out for a spell, got neglected, lay on the bench unselected.
Probably a hold-over from remembering him as a player first.
You can't spell failure without FAI
I don't know actually! Maybe because there have been so many Stephens, or variations thereof, in Irish football's recent history. Staunton, Carr, Reid, Hunt, McPhail, Ward, Finnan, Ireland, Elliott, Quinn, Kelly.
Not quite as many Micks.
Last edited by Supreme feet; 19/11/2021 at 3:06 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks