Republic of Ireland Team Talk/News/Rumours 2020/2021 - see Mod Note in OP [18/11/20]

Kermit.de.frog

briany wrote: »

Yeah, losing to Luxembourg at home is a humiliating result, but I've never seen an Irish manager resign after such a result, that early in the campaign/tenure. The closest I've seen is Mick resigning after losing to Switzerland and Russia, but that was also coming off the back of Saipan, and having been 8 years in the job. If Staunton didn't immediately get the sack for losing 2-5 to Cyprus, it would be hard to expect that Kenny will be sacked for losing to Luxembourg.

He'll probably go after this campaign is out, but we've seen this cycle before. Bringing in a more experienced top-level manager always has the same conclusion - "these lads can't play open expansive football, so I will set them up not to be beaten. Worked for Trap until the Euros. Worked for O'Neill until Denmark. After these, belief in the system slumped and the managers were sacked. Right now we're in the other part of the cycle where the team tries to play football, but get's picked apart for fun at the back, and back come the calls for a defensive manager.

This cycle will never end until some players of real quality come through, which may be a while yet, if it ever happens, considering the state of the FAI and the domestic football system.

Yes but even on your last point there seems to be gambles being taken with player management that could see us lose more scarce talent. I expect it tbh.

It doesn't really matter how dyed in the wool green a player is - we must be a pretty unappealing prospect career wise atm, not good when some of them have other options.

athlone99

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yes but even on your last point there seems to be gambles being taken with player management that could see us lose more scarce talent. I expect it tbh.

It doesn't really matter how dyed in the wool green a player is - we must be a pretty unappealing prospect career wise atm, not good when some of them have other options.

I'll throw something out there, yes SK may not fancy Obafemi at the moment but its highly possible that he asked SK to leave him out of the squad so that he can get fit or Southampton asked SK not to pick him. He needs to be managed carefully and spending more time at his club and going through the proper strength and conditioning is probably more beneficial for him and the club. Seems to me that people are jumping on every little decision SK makes and a means to beat him down even more.

johnnyryan89

athlone99 wrote: »

I'll throw something out there, yes SK may not fancy Obafemi at the moment but its highly possible that he asked SK to leave him out of the squad so that he can get fit or Southampton asked SK not to pick him. He needs to be managed carefully and spending more time at his club and going through the proper strength and conditioning is probably more beneficial for him and the club. Seems to me that people are jumping on every little decision SK makes and a means to beat him down even more.

Bingo. Otherwise he'd have been in the U21s even but clearly he needs to be managed. As Kenny said himself in the press conference that he's got a modified training program, and can't train everyday. Which is why he wasn't even selected for the U21s because they play 3 games in 11 days and would have broken him had he went to their training camp.

Hopefully he can overcome these issues because it's sounding like he could turn into the next Ledley King with how injuries are going to affect when and what training he'll do.

johnnyryan89

Brighton being linked with Knight is probably the final nail Molumbys coffin as a Brighton player, not that I thought he'd be a Brighton player for much longer.

Feel sorry for the lad as he was on the verge of the senior set up under Hughton but two long term knee injuries robbed him of nearly two years of his development period. Which isn't great when you're probably already two years behind in development to others because you came through the Irish system.

athlone99

sugarman wrote: »

Yeah Potter doesn't seem to rate him at all, a move in the opposite direction wouldn't be the worst. He'd get ample opportunity at Derby but the club is a bit of a basket case at the moment, so probably best avoided. Maybe a move back to Millwall would be best for him with Shaun Williams gone.

As for Knight, I dont think Brighton would be a good move for him at all. Seems like a board signing rather than a managerial one and I cant see him breaking into the team under Potter. Same goes for West Ham and Burnley.

Palace could be a good move depending who they get in as manager, not a great deal of competition there in midfield as it stands.

Leeds could be a good one too, I think Bielsa would love him for his work rate and effort but could prove difficult to break into the team.

Leeds would be his best option. I think Palace are going down, no manager and 17 players out of contract. Only thing is if he did go to Palace and a manager wanted to play him, he could get a lot of game time.

Tchaikovsky

Agree that Leeds would be the best move for him, forget the other 4. They'd also be the least likely club to be changing manager in the next few months.

johnnyryan89

sugarman wrote: »

Leeds could be a good one too, I think Bielsa would love him for his work rate and effort but could prove difficult to break into the team.

Yeah said myself before that I'd love for Leeds to sign him and for him to get to work with a coach like Beisla for a bit. For an Irish teenager he's well ahead of others in terms of minutes played, and even a season or two of getting games from the bench but getting to work with an experienced coach like Beisla would do his development the world of good.

henke

Agree on the Leeds sentiments. Bielsa would do wonders for his development as a player. Bamford never looked PL level at Palace or Burnley and Bielsa has got something out of him. But plenty of other examples in that Leeds team Phillips Harrison etc.

henke

henke wrote: »

Agree on the Leeds sentiments. Bielsa would do wonders for his development as a player. Bamford never looked PL level at Palace or Burnley and Bielsa has got something out of him. But plenty of other examples in that Leeds team Phillips Harrison etc.

It would be great if Leeds buy Knight. Because it means Bielsa's army of analysts have drilled down into the stats and know he brings something special, and they can work on it and churn out a top level EPL player. A lot of Leeds fans want the club to sign superstars, but the foundation of their success is based on the likes of Harrison, Bamford, Meslier, Cooper, Phillips, Ayling, Dallas, Alioski, the 20/30/40 per week types. All deemed Championship level 2 years ago, but coached to maximise potential and now well established at EPL level. Knight is not going to get that at Derby.

Francie Barrett

Francie Barrett

Hendrick was lampooned for this attempt at a Tweet last night.

Scoundrel

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Hendrick was lampooned for this attempt at a Tweet last night.

He tweets like he plays

topmanamillion

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

He should have gone there and then but we don't have standards anymore only excuses.

We don't have the players either. The down ward spiral started at the end of the MON reign and carried right into McCarthys one.
We were very fortunate to get out of Gibraltar with 3 points and finished qualifying with the same amount of goals as Georgia.
Kenny is now trying to turn that slump around with a crop of players who are at best squad players in the lower half EPL and Championship.
One of our main strikers is a 19 year old with 2 senior goals in league one.
The phrase silk purse out of a pigs ear comes to mind.
Who knows if Kenny is the man for the job. Even if we had a joint manager set up of Klopp and Pep they wouldn't get us to this world cup. The job was always about blooding young players.
As it has transpired all our young promising players have flopped or underperformed so there's no one particularly exciting left to call up.
I feel sympathy for Kenny because you couldn't say one thing has went his way in terms of injuries, Covid or players performing.

Did you smash it

topmanamillion wrote: »

We don't have the players either. The down ward spiral started at the end of the MON reign and carried right into McCarthys one.
.

In terms of producing quality players the downward spiral began at the start of this century, 20 or so years ago. It’s being a slow but steady year on year decline ever since.

Edit - I should say that decline probably stopped last year when we have managed to produce some talent. But they are all little boys on work experience until they get to around 20 caps.

TheCitizen

topmanamillion wrote: »

We don't have the players either. The down ward spiral started at the end of the MON reign and carried right into McCarthys one.
We were very fortunate to get out of Gibraltar with 3 points and finished qualifying with the same amount of goals as Georgia.
Kenny is now trying to turn that slump around with a crop of players who are at best squad players in the lower half EPL and Championship.
One of our main strikers is a 19 year old with 2 senior goals in league one.
The phrase silk purse out of a pigs ear comes to mind.
Who knows if Kenny is the man for the job. Even if we had a joint manager set up of Klopp and Pep they wouldn't get us to this world cup. The job was always about blooding young players.
As it has transpired all our young promising players have flopped or underperformed so there's no one particularly exciting left to call up.
I feel sympathy for Kenny because you couldn't say one thing has went his way in terms of injuries, Covid or players performing.

Still should be beating Luxembourg at home though having said all that.

johnnyryan89

Did you smash it wrote: »

I should say that decline probably stopped last year when we have managed to produce some talent. But they are all little boys on work experience until they get to around 20 caps.

And this is the big problem, because these young lads are being asked to make up for the lack of talent that's there between the ages of 23 and 28. Still probably gonna take another ten years before we see progress on making up for the years of neglect, when the young crop now are just in their 30s and the likes of Zefi's age group are mid 20s.

In hindsight we probably should have left Mick where he was to take care of the ****e we've got at senior level currently, and left Kenny where he was in the underage to further work with more young players as the crop of youngsters from 02 to 06 are being touted as a better crop than Connolly, O'Connor, and Molumbys 98 to 02 crop.

But don't blame him wanting to take over when it was his time because I wouldn't trust the FAI to keep their word if the handover was moved back a couple of years.

~Rebel~

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

And this is the big problem, because these young lads are being asked to make up for the lack of talent that's there between the ages of 23 and 28. Still probably gonna take another ten years before we see progress on making up for the years of neglect, when the young crop now are just in their 30s and the likes of Zefi's age group are mid 20s.

In hindsight we probably should have left Mick where he was to take care of the ****e we've got at senior level currently, and left Kenny where he was in the underage to further work with more young players as the crop of youngsters from 02 to 06 are being touted as a better crop than Connolly, O'Connor, and Molumbys 98 to 02 crop.

But don't blame him wanting to take over when it was his time because I wouldn't trust the FAI to keep their word if the handover was moved back a couple of years.

The state the FAI are in, honestly I don't think we could even afford to have him in place. Sure even just his nonsensical 'loyalty' bonus payout for just fulfilling his contract was two full years of Kenny's wage.

In an ideal world, would've liked Kenny to spend longer with the U-21s alright though.

athlone99

TheCitizen wrote: »

Still should be beating Luxembourg at home though having said all that.

We have no right just to beat anyone at international level. Luxembourg beat us because they put a plan in place years ago and are now reaping the benefits of it.

athlone99

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

And this is the big problem, because these young lads are being asked to make up for the lack of talent that's there between the ages of 23 and 28. Still probably gonna take another ten years before we see progress on making up for the years of neglect, when the young crop now are just in their 30s and the likes of Zefi's age group are mid 20s.

In hindsight we probably should have left Mick where he was to take care of the ****e we've got at senior level currently, and left Kenny where he was in the underage to further work with more young players as the crop of youngsters from 02 to 06 are being touted as a better crop than Connolly, O'Connor, and Molumbys 98 to 02 crop.

But don't blame him wanting to take over when it was his time because I wouldn't trust the FAI to keep their word if the handover was moved back a couple of years.

How would that have worked? Mick didnt really play young players, if Mick stayed in the job we would have just kicked the can down the road a few years in terms of younger players coming through. I dont think he would have qualified the team either. And the 21s manager can only do so much. The players development comes from playing with their clubs, if they cant get in a team they wont help the international team.

johnnyryan89

athlone99 wrote: »

How would that have worked? Mick didnt really play young players, if Mick stayed in the job we would have just kicked the can down the road a few years in terms of younger players coming through. I dont think he would have qualified the team either. And the 21s manager can only do so much. The players development comes from playing with their clubs, if they cant get in a team they wont help the international team.

Yet gave Parrott, O'Connor, Byrne, Cullen, and Travers their Ireland debuts.

athlone99

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Yet gave Parrott, O'Connor, Byrne, Cullen, and Travers their Ireland debuts.

In friendlies, but there was very little chance of them getting competitive game time. Mick always went with the tried and trusted.

Did you smash it

athlone99 wrote: »

In friendlies, but there was very little chance of them getting competitive game time. Mick always went with the tried and trusted.

And Connolly in competitive.

johnnyryan89

athlone99 wrote: »

In friendlies, but there was very little chance of them getting competitive game time. Mick always went with the tried and trusted.

There was little chance of them getting game time in competitive games because he had one campaign. The time to start blooding younger players was 2018 but we wasted a year by given MONROY a new contract and then sacking them a year later.

athlone99

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

There was little chance of them getting game time in competitive games because he had one campaign. The time to start blooding younger players was 2018 but we wasted a year by given MONROY a new contract and then sacking them a year later.

Well you could make the same argument that we wasted a year giving Mick the job. There was always going to be some pain along while we tried to bed in the new players no matter who the manager was. SK should be doing slightly better but i think he needs the next euros and then we judge the squad from there. If we have players not playing at a high level for their clubs its hard to expect the international senior team to be doing well.

johnnyryan89

athlone99 wrote: »

Well you could make the same argument that we wasted a year giving Mick the job. There was always going to be some pain along while we tried to bed in the new players no matter who the manager was. SK should be doing slightly better but i think he needs the next euros and then we judge the squad from there. If we have players not playing at a high level for their clubs its hard to expect the international senior team to be doing well.

Oh the last few years have been a cluster **** thanks to stupid decisions by the FAI we can all probably agree on, and I've no issue with Kenny in the seniors and how things are currently going. Just would have preferred we kept him in charge of the underage a little bit longer to work more with younger players that are still coming through or replace him with someone better than Crawford.

No disrespect to Crawford as he's meant to be a good coach, but he's more got the job because he was already an FAI employe, and the chances of actually hiring a new coach that has experience at club level was slim to none. Because hiring Kenny when we did was the first time the FAI had probably done something positive for the underage teams in 20 years.

Did you smash it

athlone99 wrote: »

Well you could make the same argument that we wasted a year giving Mick the job.

Could you?

Mick came within a goal of qualifying against two superior teams. I don’t really know what manager we could realistically appoint and do better than that.

JKerova1

~Rebel~ wrote: »

In an ideal world, would've liked Kenny to spend longer with the U-21s alright though.

Isn't that Kennys fault though? The FAI wanted him to take the U-21's job but he played hardball with them in order to get the senior team position.


Should definitely have kept Mick in charge until the end of the Euro play-offs and Kenny should have stayed put with the U-21's until that campaign was finished. Not qualifying for the last U-21 competition was a disaster given how well we had done in the group up until the last few games.


When you look at the dearth of talent available now it really feels grim looking back at the good players we actually had who were wasted. From 2003 - 2011 we had a serious team of Premier League players with not one tournament qualification to show for it. I know you can blame Henry's hand for one of those but 04, 06 and 08 were all tournaments we were good enough to be at.

athlone99

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Oh the last few years have been a cluster **** thanks to stupid decisions by the FAI we can all probably agree on, and I've no issue with Kenny in the seniors and how things are currently going. Just would have preferred we kept him in charge of the underage a little bit longer to work more with younger players that are still coming through or replace him with someone better than Crawford.

No disrespect to Crawford as he's meant to be a good coach, but he's more got the job because he was already an FAI employe, and the chances of actually hiring a new coach that has experience at club level was slim to none. Because hiring Kenny when we did was the first time the FAI had probably done something positive for the underage teams in 20 years.

I agree with you there. I think we could do with a higher profile of manager at U21s. Crawford is suppose to be a good coach but ideally you would want someone like SK there for 4-6 years to bring lads on and build a culture but i also cant blame him for wanting to be ambitious and take the senior job.

athlone99

Did you smash it wrote: »

Could you?

Mick came within a goal of qualifying against two superior teams. I don’t really know what manager we could realistically appoint and do better than that.

Yes of course. Played dire football, and scrapped wins against Gibraltar. What do you want from the International team? Dire long ball football, sitting back, scrapping wins, attacking for the last 10 mins to draw nick a draw or a team that tries to be progressive, keep the ball, create chances? I certainly know what id rather watch.

And with the FAI's player development program, what was the point in investing in youth and keeping SK with the U21s playing football and then having a senior team manager doing the complete opposite? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. something had to change.

athlone99

JKerova1 wrote: »

Isn't that Kennys fault though? The FAI wanted him to take the U-21's job but he played hardball with them in order to get the senior team position.


Should definitely have kept Mick in charge until the end of the Euro play-offs and Kenny should have stayed put with the U-21's until that campaign was finished. Not qualifying for the last U-21 competition was a disaster given how well we had done in the group up until the last few games.


When you look at the dearth of talent available now it really feels grim looking back at the good players we actually had who were wasted. From 2003 - 2011 we had a serious team of Premier League players with not one tournament qualification to show for it. I know you can blame Henry's hand for one of those but 04, 06 and 08 were all tournaments we were good enough to be at.

So are you blaming a manager for being ambitious and wanting the senior job? that makes no sense. He wanted the senior job when Mick got it and then only took the 21's on condition that he became senior manager. I dont blame him for being ambitious and Covid obviously changed the timeline of things but it is a pity they couldnt see out the U21s campaign.

Did you smash it

athlone99 wrote: »

Yes of course. Played dire football, and scrapped wins against Gibraltar. What do you want from the International team? Dire long ball football, sitting back, scrapping wins, attacking for the last 10 mins to draw nick a draw or a team that tries to be progressive, keep the ball, create chances? I certainly know what id rather watch.

And with the FAI's player development program, what was the point in investing in youth and keeping SK with the U21s playing football and then having a senior team manager doing the complete opposite? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. something had to change.

I think your takes are wrong.

I think you need to look at the games Kenny’s Ireland played against Wales, Qatar, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, England, Finland again and ask yourself honestly was the football we played anymore coherent than the performances under McCarthy. Kenny may try to be progressive but in reality I rarely see it on the pitch.

Are we more likely to score a goal under Kenny?
Have we built pressure in games more under Kenny?
Have we got in behind defenses better under Kenny?

The only answer to the first question is undoubtedly No, the second question is another No for me, the third question you could call it either way.

yourdeadwright

Look lads we all know we have a very poor selection of players the worst we have had in probably 40 years ,
We all know its a major issue & its something that will not be solved in a hurry but even in knowing that we also all know we have a manger who is clearly out of his depth ,

If somehow how you have not heard him speak, not seen the games or even missed the results then just look at he number of his own handpicked staff who have decided to walk away ,

The chap is probably sound & a really nice guy but he is not fit for purpose as manger of our countries football team ,

johnnyryan89

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Look lads we all know we have a very poor selection of players the worst we have had in probably 40 years ,
We all know its a major issue & its something that will not be solved in a hurry but even in knowing that we also all know we have a manger who is clearly out of his depth ,

If somehow how you have not heard him speak, not seen the games or even missed the results then just look at he number of his own handpicked staff who have decided to walk away

The chap is probably sound & a really nice guy but he is not fit for purpose as manger of our countries football team ,

You mean Duff whose changed jobs now three or four times in the last five years, Alan Kelly who was a Mick appointment at first but (foolishly) asked to stay on, and Higgins who was a scout and left because he was offered a managerial job at club level.

Yet we've replaced Duff and Kelly with possibly better appointments. There's no doubt Barry is head and shoulders above Duff, one is now coaching underage with Shelbourne and the other just won the Champions League with Chelsea.

You make it sound like there's been a mass walk out of staff.

athlone99

Did you smash it wrote: »

I think your takes are wrong.

I think you need to look at the games Kenny’s Ireland played against Wales, Qatar, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, England, Finland again and ask yourself honestly was the football we played anymore coherent than the performances under McCarthy. Kenny may try to be progressive but in reality I rarely see it on the pitch.

Are we more likely to score a goal under Kenny?
Have we built pressure in games more under Kenny?
Have we got in behind defenses better under Kenny?

The only answer to the first question is undoubtedly No, the second question is another No for me, the third question you could call it either way.

Ive enjoyed watching most of those games. We now look like we have a plan and have a strategy for what we are trying to do. Micks plan like Trap and Mon was to sit back, wait for the last 10 mins to attack and not bring im young players. We the players we now have, they need a coherent plan and i can see that starting to come together.

Whats your definition of progressive? More likely to score i would say yes. If you look at chances created under SK its as good as double than previous managers but the players havent been there to put them away.

We are keeping the ball better but are a bit too slow in possession, i dont know if thats managers instructions or just the players being scared/getting use to a new way of playing with ireland.

The reality is we are 15-20 years behind most countries in Europe and that why Luxembourg beat us.

athlone99

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Look lads we all know we have a very poor selection of players the worst we have had in probably 40 years ,
We all know its a major issue & its something that will not be solved in a hurry but even in knowing that we also all know we have a manger who is clearly out of his depth ,

If somehow how you have not heard him speak, not seen the games or even missed the results then just look at he number of his own handpicked staff who have decided to walk away ,

The chap is probably sound & a really nice guy but he is not fit for purpose as manger of our countries football team ,

You mean the first manager since probably John Giles to state we have the players to play football is some how a bad thing? Id say many of the players are still trying to get use to being told to pass it. SK has never been good in front of the media, so thats nothing new there.

So given the state of the team, FAIs finances etc who would you actually get to manage the team? Most successful domestic manager is years deserves a chance and should be judged on his 2nd campaign when all the new players are bedding in.

SomethingElse

athlone99 wrote: »

You mean the first manager since probably John Giles to state we have the players to play football is some how a bad thing? Id say many of the players are still trying to get use to being told to pass it. SK has never been good in front of the media, so thats nothing new there.

So given the state of the team, FAIs finances etc who would you actually get to manage the team? Most successful domestic manager is years deserves a chance and should be judged on his 2nd campaign when all the new players are bedding in.

He won't last long enough for a second campaign. His results so far have been shambolic culminating with a loss to Luxembourg - a team with a far inferior squad to ourselves. All of our games, bar England, were winnable but yet we've lost or drew the lot.

athlone99

SomethingElse wrote: »

He won't last long enough for a second campaign. His results so far have been shambolic culminating with a loss to Luxembourg - a team with a far inferior squad to ourselves. All of our games, bar England, were winnable but yet we've lost or drew the lot.

Really? Inferior? I seen a squad that has played together for years and played great football and rightly won. They are years ahead of us. The arrogance of some fans is unreal, what right do we have to beat anyone? We have done nothing to develop talent here for 20 years and we are now reaping the rewards of it.

Course he will, if they get rid of him where do we go then and who would take the job? This is a new FAI who wont react on a whim. If there is a long term plan they will and should stick to it. He should get the Euros campaign and if he fails there then depending on what the performances were like things should be assessed.

noodler

athlone99 wrote: »

Really? Inferior? I seen a squad that has played together for years and played great football and rightly won. They are years ahead of us. The arrogance of some fans is unreal, what right do we have to beat anyone? We have done nothing to develop talent here for 20 years and we are now reaping the rewards of it.

Course he will, if they get rid of him where do we go then and who would take the job? This is a new FAI who wont react on a whim. If there is a long term plan they will and should stick to it. He should get the Euros campaign and if he fails there then depending on what the performances were like things should be assessed.

This constant lowering of standards is mad.

We should be beating Luxembourg.

It doesn't have to be pretty but we shouibe getting turned over at home.

noodler

athlone99 wrote: »

Really? Inferior? I seen a squad that has played together for years and played great football and rightly won. They are years ahead of us. The arrogance of some fans is unreal, what right do we have to beat anyone? We have done nothing to develop talent here for 20 years and we are now reaping the rewards of it.

Course he will, if they get rid of him where do we go then and who would take the job? This is a new FAI who wont react on a whim. If there is a long term plan they will and should stick to it. He should get the Euros campaign and if he fails there then depending on what the performances were like things should be assessed.

This constant lowering of standards is mad.

We should be beating Luxembourg.

It doesn't have to be pretty but we shouibe getting turned over at home.

Did you smash it

athlone99 wrote: »

Really? Inferior? I seen a squad that has played together for years and played great football and rightly won. They are years ahead of us. The arrogance of some fans is unreal, what right do we have to beat anyone? We have done nothing to develop talent here for 20 years and we are now reaping the rewards of it.

Most Irish fans seemed to think an away draw to Georgia was an absolute disgrace in the previous campaign. Now a home lost to Luxembourg is seen as natural.

For me, it’s hard to follow the logic. I see an away draw as Georgia as fairly natural while a home loss as Luxembourg as really pushing it. Seems to be a minority view.

Guffy

noodler wrote: »

This constant lowering of standards is mad.

We should be beating Luxembourg.

It doesn't have to be pretty but we shouibe getting turned over at home.

Why?

~Rebel~

noodler wrote: »

This constant lowering of standards is mad.

We should be beating Luxembourg.

It doesn't have to be pretty but we shouibe getting turned over at home.

In a pandemic, I don't think 'Home' means anything. Like, there's literally zero advantage to it. At least at club level there's some benefit as it means less travel, and you're playing on a ground you're totally familiar with from playing there week in week out. But internationally, our lads all still have to hop on a plane for the 'home' match, and stay in a hotel for the week, and do everything the away side does. Without fans, it may as well be anywhere.

SomethingElse

Did you smash it wrote: »

Most Irish fans seemed to think an away draw to Georgia was an absolute disgrace in the previous campaign. Now a home lost to Luxembourg is seen as natural.

For me, it’s hard to follow the logic. I see an away draw as Georgia as fairly natural while a home loss as Luxembourg as really pushing it. Seems to be a minority view.

It's that same logic as pointing out that Luxembourg are better managed than us while at the same time failing to recognise that is because of exactly how poorly we are being managed.

johnnyryan89

Did you smash it wrote: »

Most Irish fans seemed to think an away draw to Georgia was an absolute disgrace in the previous campaign. Now a home lost to Luxembourg is seen as natural.

For me, it’s hard to follow the logic. I see an away draw as Georgia as fairly natural while a home loss as Luxembourg as really pushing it. Seems to be a minority view.

Pretty sure people were up in arms that Mick went there happy to play for a draw, even though had we won it meant a draw would have done us against Denmark or something.

Did you smash it

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Pretty sure people were up in arms that Mick went there happy to play for a draw, even though had we won it meant a draw would have done us against Denmark or something.

The first half of your post is a take. As I remember it, Irish supporters thought we were entitled to think a win in Tbilisi should be expected. My take is the defence did their job. The attacking players of callum Robinson, James Collins and James McClean did not summon up a goal. Maybe that’s surprising to some people.

We didn’t have Mcgoldrick who was our class attacking player...despite not scoring at club level.

The second half of your post is incorrect. On a group table basis a win in Tbilisi still would have led to non qualification with all other results remaining the same.

Did you smash it

Guffy wrote: »

Why?

We are a long way ahead of them in the world ranking. We were anyway. Falling off a cliff now, when Kenny got the job I knew we wouldn’t qualify to Qatar but I set a modest target of staying in the top 50 in the world for Kenny to get a new contract. A really modest target as when we took over we were 32nd.

Now we might not stay in the top 60.

Fandymo

athlone99 wrote: »

How would that have worked? Mick didnt really play young players, if Mick stayed in the job we would have just kicked the can down the road a few years in terms of younger players coming through. I dont think he would have qualified the team either. And the 21s manager can only do so much. The players development comes from playing with their clubs, if they cant get in a team they wont help the international team.

Mick didn’t really play young players because he didn’t have to worry about the future. He was told at the start that Kenny was being parachuted in no matter what. Mick had already brought through a young crop back in his first time in the job after Jacks old guard were retiring etc.

LuckyLloyd

Results are going to have to pick up lads. You can't keep putting your hands over your ears and shouting 'RESULTS BLAH BLAH BLAH THEY'RE PASSING THE FOOTBALL'.

Hopefully the scheduled win over Andorra turns this thing around for him, as embarrassing as it is. But it isn't going beyond this campaign unless results improve. That's just the facts of it lads. Like the sky being blue.

johnnyryan89

https://twitter.com/FAIreland/status/1400029485773299714

Looks like Luca Connell could be playing left back. Should be a tougher game today playing Australia's U23s who begin their own preparation for the upcoming Olympics.

Francie Barrett

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Looks like Luca Connell could be playing left back. Should be a tougher game today playing Australia's U23s who begin their own preparation for the upcoming Olympics.

Ferry is filling in a left back.