Next Senior Men's Team Manager - Runners and Riders

[Eirambler]

That probably includes me then, though I'd contend that the whole argument is a bit of a straw man. In my opinion, we didn't do badly under Kenny because we were not pragmatic or because we were only trying to play expansive football. We did badly because in the end it was proven he wasn't a great coach, manifested by several weaknesses such as in-game reaction, bad substitutions, conceding the same goal over and over again, and just overall patternless play. Portugal away was as pragmatic as you could get, and it nearly yielded a famous result. France at home too.

I don't think anyone is so stupid as to think we must play expansive football as an end in itself. Pragmatic is fine, and starting with a foundational principle of being hard to beat is also fine (under Kenny we were easy to beat) but the bottom line still has to be that good players have to do good things to win games.

Edit: I just read your subsequent post. I agree that the new manager will have pace and an emerging talent upfront. That should be at the core of any manager's strategy.

I think loads of our supporters think that. I think there are Ireland supporters out there that would rather we played expansive football and qualified for nothing than go back to what was successful for us and qualify that way again.

I agree that the two aren't entirely mutually exclusive. For example if we played Charlton's exact tactics now we would get nowhere because the game has moved on. But we still have to be sensible in our approach, the best route to success in international football is conceding no more than a single goal in a game. That probably sounds like a very obvious comment, but it's more the case in international football than in club football where 3-2 type scorelines are more common. There's a reason why, until recently, the "national scoreline" was 1-1. It was because we generally didn't score too many but we prioritised defence to make sure we didn't concede too many either.

Incidentally I would disagree that the France home game was pragmatic, as evidenced by the goal we conceded. We didn't have enough defensive midfielders on the field to cover the space at the edge of the box despite being punished for it repeatedly, and Cullen played the ball short instead of safe because that's how the management wanted the game to be played. France were nothing special that particular night, if we had actually been pragmatic we'd have gotten a result from the game.

[Stuttgart88]

I thought it was just a careless stupid pass myself.

[tetsujin1979]

Didn't think the goal against France had anything to do with the number of DMs on the pitch, France had seven players in our half when Cullen played the ball to Knight, we had nine in or around the box, plus Bazunu in goals. It wasn't time to play the ball out of defence, it was time to clear the ball, and reset positions.

[Diggs246]

Didn't think the goal against France had anything to do with the number of DMs on the pitch, France had seven players in our half when Cullen played the ball to Knight, we had nine in or around the box, plus Bazunu in goals. It wasn't time to play the ball out of defence, it was time to clear the ball, and reset positions.

I would add to this by saying I think Cullen needs another DM beside him, I think he struggled a lot in the last campaign as he was the only one really
I also think second DM should be an enforcer type. I know people think I'm a lunatic for suggesting Collins as a DM, but I'm not sure who else could possibly do it. the lads like knight and Molouby aren't suitable IMO

[JR89]

Didn't think the goal against France had anything to do with the number of DMs on the pitch, France had seven players in our half when Cullen played the ball to Knight, we had nine in or around the box, plus Bazunu in goals. It wasn't time to play the ball out of defence, it was time to clear the ball, and reset positions.

I would add to this by saying I think Cullen needs another DM beside him, I think he struggled a lot in the last campaign as he was the only one really
I also think second DM should be an enforcer type. I know people think I'm a lunatic for suggesting Collins as a DM, but I'm not sure who else could possibly do it. the lads like knight and Molouby aren't suitable IMO

I think we need a ball player in next to Cullen. Let Cullen do all the dirty work with someone next to him a la Luca Connell who can spread the ball around and pick out a pass.

If a defender is being considered then Bosun Lawal should be top of the list. Would have came through the Watford academy playing midfield. Of all the CBs his passing looks the best. For the U21s he's often playing better balls into the final third than the midfield. Big strong lad but can move with the ball when given space or makes space for himself.

[Jolly Red Giant]

That’s one way of looking at it. Another is, he was 3 points off a playoff spot for the euros and 1 point off a playoff spot for the World Cup, finishing 3 points behind group winners (and tournament runners up) France. A win percentage higher than any Ireland manager that had more than a handful of games and also the lowest loss percentage of the same, losing just 4 of 33 games. You can spin Kerr's tenure either way you like, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of those 2 extremes. Could have been better for sure, but also maybe should’ve been given another campaign

Kerr was unlucky with the 2006 qualifiers - his squad had a good starting 11 but the rest of the squad was thin and was plagued with injuries - he probably only had his full starting 11 for one game during qualification (home to France). The top four teams in that group finished within three points of one another - a bounce of that ball could have resulted in the play-offs or even winning the group (e.g. if Ireland won in Paris instead of drawing - and they played very well - then Ireland would have topped the group and France would have finished third).

[Jolly Red Giant]

I agree with a lot of what you say here, but there are a few things I’d pull you up on. Firstly, in relation to Eoin Hand. I don’t think he had a weaker team than Giles, in fact I think it was a bit stronger. Brady, Stapleton and O’Leary were more experienced, Mark Lawrenson emerged (though Giles originally capped him as an 18 year old). Ronnie Whelan also came through, and Michael Robinson emerged aa a partner for Stapleton. He also had other solid pros like Grealish, Langan etc. Hand produced one of the finest ever qualifying campaigns in the WC for 1982. We beat Holland and France at home, and drew with Belgium, got a draw in Holland and lost narrowly (with the help of some “questionable” refereeing decisions in Paris and Brussels. Desperately unlucky not to qualify, failing on goal difference. For some reason the following two campaigns never went as well for Eoin Hand. We played decent football under Hand.

You make a valid case - I was going from memory rather than checking the squad he had. And Hand did a good job as manager until the very end when the wheels came off - he had the base put in place by Giles to work with. You are also correct about the refereeing decisions - not for the first time we were robbed of qualification.

On Stephen Keny There is no doubt that he failed. However, I think it’s grossly unfair to say “he has never demonstrated over his entire career an ability to get the best from his teams.” That’s demonstrably untrue, as evidenced by his trophy collection. You also state that he is “a run of the mill LOI manager who fell into good situations on more than one occasion.” Again, his record says otherwise. Dundalk were nowhere near winning titles before he took on the job, he got them to runners up in his first season and won the title in his second. Ok, you can say that he wasn’t able for the step up to the Ireland job, but he was clearly more than just a “run of the mill” LOI manager. There is also the argument that with the benefit of previous squads his way may have had more success. We’ll never know. There was always going to be a period of some pain while young, inexperienced players were being blooded. When assessing managers, the strength of the playing pool they have simply can’t be ignored.

This I will disagree with - Kenny did well at Longford - not so good at Bohs (who were Champions when he took over) - after being sacked by Bohs he fell into the Derry job with a good underachieving squad at his disposal and did well there - his second spell was similar, landing into the job with a good squad - he then moved to Shamrock Rovers to a team that were Champions and was sacked before the end of the season - he was then very fortunate to fall into the Dundalk job just after it was taken over by new owners who put money into the club. I would argue that Kenny was hit and miss with his jobs and was occasionally lucky with where he ended up - the two teams who were existing Champions that he took over ended up sacking him quite quickly because he was so poor. Now - the key is not what he did in Ireland - there are many managers who have had success in the LOI but have never been able to move beyond that - Kenny is one of those. His time in Scotland was a disaster and he had to bounce back to the LOI to get work. He was never remotely close to be capable of managing an international team.

I will refer back to the following - Brian Kerr - P33 - W18 - D11 - L4 -- Stephen Kenny - P40 - W11 - D12 - L17 (and those wins came against small footballing nations) - this shows the difference between someone who was actually able to do the job and someone who wasn't. And the signs were all there - Kerr did a remarkable job with St. Pats, twice taking them from the brink of extinction to winning the LOI - did a remarkable job with the U16s, U18s and U20s - and was consistently successful (and in relatively terms was a success with the Faroes as well) - Kenny was not, as demonstrated by his failures at Bohs, Shamrock Rovers and most particularly Dunfermline. Kenny is clearly a nice guy - and some people in the FAI were clearly smitten by him - but an international manager he was not and he was never going to be anything other than a disaster in the job - why - because he previously proved that he couldn't break out of the LOI mould (and had failures there as well).

[pineapple stu]

This I will disagree with - Kenny did well at Longford - not so good at Bohs (who were Champions when he took over) - after being sacked by Bohs he fell into the Derry job with a good underachieving squad at his disposal and did well there - his second spell was similar, landing into the job with a good squad - he then moved to Shamrock Rovers to a team that were Champions and was sacked before the end of the season - he was then very fortunate to fall into the Dundalk job just after it was taken over by new owners who put money into the club. I would argue that Kenny was hit and miss with his jobs and was occasionally lucky with where he ended up - the two teams who were existing Champions that he took over ended up sacking him quite quickly because he was so poor. Now - the key is not what he did in Ireland - there are many managers who have had success in the LOI but have never been able to move beyond that - Kenny is one of those. His time in Scotland was a disaster and he had to bounce back to the LOI to get work. He was never remotely close to be capable of managing an international team.

That's a spectacularly selective way of analysing things tbh. He took over Bohs in the bottom half of the division and got them to the Cup final in his first season and then won the league in his first full season. Was second the next season behind Ollie and his unsustainable millions. Nothing wrong with that.

You say he landed a good squad at Derry then - the same Derry who hadn't been higher than fifth in the previous seven seasons. Hardly a great squad - so to lead them to runners-up (again behind Ollie's millions) in his two full seasons was a great achievement, not to mention hammering Gretna and holding PSG to a draw in Europe.

As soon as he left, they slumped to seventh.

Dundalk hadn't been higher than fifth in 20 years when he took over, and had just won a promotion/relegation play-off to stay in the Premier. Kenny led them to second straight away, and - which you ignore - turned them into the dominant side in Ireland (at a time when Rovers were the money team, having reached the EL group stages and pocketed a couple of mill).

There was no luck about where he ended up - a good manager will get good options, and that's what happened Kenny. And arguably taking over clubs who had barely avoided relegation was doing things the hard way - there was a big rebuild needed at both clubs, but Kenny delivered immediate results. Plus Derry went bust because of the double contracts issue, yet Kenny still led them back to third in the league (with a presumably much reduced budget)

It's not remotely arguable that Kenny wasn't an exceptional manager at LoI level.

[Eirambler]

I thought it was just a careless stupid pass myself.

I mean it was a careless pass, as a standalone incident. But if a player or team is sent out with a game plan that involves playing a large number of short passes in risky areas of the pitch within a game, the odds are that one or two of them at least will go astray, because players are human. And given the quality of individuals we were up against that was always a big risk to take as a overall approach. The more pragmatic approach would have been to have a zero risk gameplan in that area of the pitch and then the risk of an individual careless pass would have been significantly reduced. So would our possession and pass completion percentages of course, but let's face it we weren't doing a whole lot with the ball anyway when we did have it, because we are an inferior passing team to France.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I suppose the key difference between Touhy/Giles and Charlton though was that Charlton achieved tangible success, Touhy and Giles didn't. The idea that we could have been more successful in the 80s and early 90s with a different approach is highly, highly questionable. We've never managed it any other time so there's little to suggest that we would have done it then. In fact it's highly likely that our success came about precisely because we played the way we did.

Sure, if you take the Egypt game in isolation and ignore everything else, we may well have won that game as a standalone match playing a more expansive style. But you can't just turn it on and off like a tap, had we played that way we would probably have lost the other two games and finished third in the group and either been eliminated at that point or by West Germany in a last 16 game if we had scraped through. That's if we even qualified for the tournament to begin with. I certainly doubt we'd have qualified for USA 94 for example, had we adopted an expansive approach, and probably not for Euro 88 either. It's why I strongly believe that Dunphy was wrong then in the same way that so many were wrong about Kenny in recent years.

Touhy made a remarkable turn around in the team that didn't win a match for more than 4 years before he was shafted by the FAI. Giles was robbed twice by corrupt officials of qualification - the most blatant being in Bulgaria were we would have wont he game instead of losing if there was an impartial referee and linesmen.

There were four candidates for the managers job when Charlton was appointed - Charlton, Bob Paisley, Giles and Touhy - Charlton ended up getting the job after Touhy was once again shafted. Given the players that were available at the time I would contend that any of the other three could have been just as successful and maybe even more successful than Charlton, playing a different style of football - why - because they all had a major record of success previously. Unfortunately we will never know. I was using the Egypt game as an example of how Charlton's style of football limited what the team could do - not that it proved any contention about the rights or wrongs of the Charlton era - but I would argue that Irish team was as good as the English and the Dutch teams in our group and potentially could have won all three games playing differently. Again - we will never know.

Now - this is not to take away from what Charlton achieved - he did a remarkable job for most of the period in charge. However, it is necessary to remember that his initial success was based on a very lucky break when Gary Mackay scored for Scotland in Bulgaria - in the 86th minute of the game. Without that goal Charlton may have been the nearly manager like Giles and Hand before him. Such is the nature of football.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I would add to this by saying I think Cullen needs another DM beside him, I think he struggled a lot in the last campaign as he was the only one really
I also think second DM should be an enforcer type. I know people think I'm a lunatic for suggesting Collins as a DM, but I'm not sure who else could possibly do it. the lads like knight and Molouby aren't suitable IMO

If a defender is being considered then Bosun Lawal should be top of the list. Would have came through the Watford academy playing midfield. Of all the CBs his passing looks the best. For the U21s he's often playing better balls into the final third than the midfield. Big strong lad but can move with the ball when given space or makes space for himself.

I agree with trying Collins in MF and I think the suggestion of looking at Lawal for the position is a good one too.

[Jolly Red Giant]

It's not remotely arguable that Kenny wasn't an exceptional manager at LoI level.

We will have to agree to differ - Kenny is one of a long line of LOI managers who have had success (and failures) in the LOI but then were not able to make the step up to bigger jobs. LOI is his level and if he chooses to go back there (he's only 52) he will probably have some more success (and probably failures). He never showed anything that suggested he was capable of doing the international job - despite being set up to take it for two years before he got it.

[pineapple stu]

We will have to agree to differ - Kenny is one of a long line of LOI managers who have had success (and failures) in the LOI but then were not able to make the step up to bigger jobs. LOI is his level and if he chooses to go back there (he's only 52) he will probably have some more success (and probably failures). He never showed anything that suggested he was capable of doing the international job - despite being set up to take it for two years before he got it.

I'm not disagreeing with that - but you've shown nothing at all to back up your view that he was "a run of the mill LOI manager who fell into good situations on more than one occasion" who "never demonstrated over his entire career an ability to get the best from his teams"

All the evidence (as I and TonyD have outlined) strongly disagrees with you there.

[Stuttgart88]

I mean it was a careless pass, as a standalone incident. But if a player or team is sent out with a game plan that involves playing a large number of short passes in risky areas of the pitch within a game, the odds are that one or two of them at least will go astray, because players are human. And given the quality of individuals we were up against that was always a big risk to take as a overall approach. The more pragmatic approach would have been to have a zero risk gameplan in that area of the pitch and then the risk of an individual careless pass would have been significantly reduced. So would our possession and pass completion percentages of course, but let's face it we weren't doing a whole lot with the ball anyway when we did have it, because we are an inferior passing team to France.

ah I dunno about that. At some point you've got to trust good footballers to play simple passes. Did we really play a lot of risky passes deep in our own half? We actually executed some very good attacking transition phases in that game.

I'd say we agree that a pragmatic approach could well be to soak up pressure by being compact out of possession and be able to counter attack quickly, but good transitions depend on being able to pass the ball in basic situations. And in any event I'm not sure we have the defence to be able to go through 100 mins of football without making mistakes.

But if a new manager came in and said his first job is to make us hard to beat (at least from Greece's level upwards) and then build on that I'd be supportive. I'd still like to see us have the guile needed to play through defensive lines of mid/lower ranked teams and aim to have a larger % of possession. I think that's what Kenny wanted but only occasionally delivered.

[SkStu]

You make a valid case - I was going from memory rather than checking the squad he had. And Hand did a good job as manager until the very end when the wheels came off - he had the base put in place by Giles to work with. You are also correct about the refereeing decisions - not for the first time we were robbed of qualification.


This I will disagree with - Kenny did well at Longford - not so good at Bohs (who were Champions when he took over) - after being sacked by Bohs he fell into the Derry job with a good underachieving squad at his disposal and did well there - his second spell was similar, landing into the job with a good squad - he then moved to Shamrock Rovers to a team that were Champions and was sacked before the end of the season - he was then very fortunate to fall into the Dundalk job just after it was taken over by new owners who put money into the club. I would argue that Kenny was hit and miss with his jobs and was occasionally lucky with where he ended up - the two teams who were existing Champions that he took over ended up sacking him quite quickly because he was so poor. Now - the key is not what he did in Ireland - there are many managers who have had success in the LOI but have never been able to move beyond that - Kenny is one of those. His time in Scotland was a disaster and he had to bounce back to the LOI to get work. He was never remotely close to be capable of managing an international team.

I will refer back to the following - Brian Kerr - P33 - W18 - D11 - L4 -- Stephen Kenny - P40 - W11 - D12 - L17 (and those wins came against small footballing nations) - this shows the difference between someone who was actually able to do the job and someone who wasn't. And the signs were all there - Kerr did a remarkable job with St. Pats, twice taking them from the brink of extinction to winning the LOI - did a remarkable job with the U16s, U18s and U20s - and was consistently successful (and in relatively terms was a success with the Faroes as well) - Kenny was not, as demonstrated by his failures at Bohs, Shamrock Rovers and most particularly Dunfermline. Kenny is clearly a nice guy - and some people in the FAI were clearly smitten by him - but an international manager he was not and he was never going to be anything other than a disaster in the job - why - because he previously proved that he couldn't break out of the LOI mould (and had failures there as well).

I think Pineapple Stu has covered off the response that this post requires quite excellently so i wont go into the details any more. I do just want to know, though, what does it mean to "fall into" a job?

[sbgawa]

I think Pineapple Stu has covered off the response that this post requires quite excellently so i wont go into the details any more. I do just want to know, though, what does it mean to "fall into" a job?

Did you not watch "A bridge to far" Stu? Lots of fellas including John Wayne falling into jobs, JW fractured his foot in the fall

[SkStu]

I agree with trying Collins in MF and I think the suggestion of looking at Lawal for the position is a good one too.

I am onboard the Diggs train to move Collins to MF, at least for a look. The position is one of the most important on the pitch and, in addition to all the usual attributes that a defensive midfielder brings to the team, the candidate needs to a) be comfortable taking the ball facing his own goal, b) more than decent on the half turn but most importantly, c) be football smart and switched on at all times (this is my biggest concern about Collins). It is a specialist role nowadays - you need to know when to engage, when to tackle, when to sprint, when to jog etc. It would also see Cullen relegated to the bench as you couldn't have both of them on the pitch; Cullen is an out and out 6.

[SkStu]

Did you not watch "A bridge to far" Stu? Lots of fellas including John Wayne falling into jobs, JW fractured his foot in the fall

Thanks - explains a lot.

A fractured foot would have put a definitive end to Kenny's breakdancing career.

[liamoo11]

I am onboard the Diggs train to move Collins to MF, at least for a look. The position is one of the most important on the pitch and, in addition to all the usual attributes that a defensive midfielder brings to the team, the candidate needs to a) be comfortable taking the ball facing his own goal, b) more than decent on the half turn but most importantly, c) be football smart and switched on at all times (this is my biggest concern about Collins). It is a specialist role nowadays - you need to know when to engage, when to tackle, when to sprint, when to jog etc. It would also see Cullen relegated to the bench as you couldn't have both of them on the pitch; Cullen is an out and out 6.

Does he have that kind of declan rice athleticism to play defensive midfield? I don't think so. Rice manages that position despite been so limited in his passing ability because his athleticism to be fair is class. When rice was coming through at West ham to the first team he was always a Centre half it really was only with us internationally he played midfield

[SkStu]

Does he have that kind of declan rice athleticism to play defensive midfield? I don't think so. Rice manages that position despite been so limited in his passing ability because his athleticism to be fair is class. When rice was coming through at West ham to the first team he was always a Centre half it really was only with us internationally he played midfield

I suppose the argument there is that he is probably more athletic than Cullen in most regards and, if comparing to Declan Rice (*spit*), his ball carrying and passing would be a good bit better than Rice's was/is when he moved to DM (at least on the surface). That said, it wouldnt be anywhere close to John Stones or Rodri yet. Like I said, i like the idea of Collins being tried in DM role as an experiment. On the surface, he appears to tick a few of the boxes (while also coming with some warnings). But you wont really know his true limitations there until he plays a few competitive games.