What does Mick McCarthy think he did to get these results?
(Whatever results he's talking about)
What is this new style that everyone seems to think is holding the country back?
If it wasn't for a loose enough Randolph pass and a dozy, lazy reaction from Matt Doherty in Finland, Stephen Kenny's Ireland would've kept three clean sheets in succession with ease and they would've done it in games where they created enough to win comfortably.
When Mick McCarthy or Martin O'Neill set their teams up, they set them up
entirely with a view to keeping it tight at the back. We gave up any attacking impetus outside of set pieces and moments of magic - we sacrificed that end, we sacrificed everything because we were too afraid of leaking at the back - and we strapped ourselves in for 90 minutes of being bossed around by Georgia, ironically coughing up way more chances in the process.
Do people think Stephen Kenny is against Shane Duffy scoring a header from a corner?
Stephen Kenny's teams in the past have famously been extremely effective from set pieces, his only Ireland goal to date has come from the head of Shane Duffy, and a hatful of corners and free kicks have presented themselves as chances that should've been put away.
When Mick McCarthy drones on about crossing it into the box, Stephen Kenny's Ireland team has brought about as many big moments from those crosses as a McCarthy or an O'Neill side ever did - probably around four chances a game - and the only difference is that they've added to those opportunities with
more chances.
In fact, the stats against Finland showed they doubled the shot tally of the hosts but they also showed that anyone who has, for some reason, convinced themselves that Stephen Kenny is on a moral crusade against crossing the ball is really just not looking at what's in front of them:
- 10 shots for Ireland and 5 for Finland
- 6 corners for Ireland and 2 for Finland
- 29 crosses for Ireland and 6 for Finland
Ireland have crossed the ball in, had their chances, and outside of that, it hasn't been 86 minutes of defending - it's been easier defending because they're pushing back and they're controlling the ball, it's been more sights at goal and it's been more and more big chances passed up.
You can go through all the games and see turning points come and go. Against Finland, the most recent examples were Sean Maguire with a stinker of a touch, Stevens hitting the bar, Curtis denied on the line, Connolly into the side netting, Doherty saved with his head and one with his foot, Hendrick playing the ball behind Doherty when he was clean through on goal. Over and over in these games, Ireland are doing so much that you wouldn't have batted an eyelid if they won each of them 3-0.
But because results aren't going their way, no-one cares. The argument is why does any of it matter if they're not winning.
What does that mean exactly? Surely all a manager can do is get his team playing well. Surely all you want him to do is get the team into positions of having more clear cut chances than their opponents. That's exactly what Ireland are doing and the more times you play well, the more likely you are to have success in the long run, in games even more important than the Nations League.
There's a notion doing the rounds that Stephen Kenny has given up pragmatism for this philosophy. What pragmatism are we talking about? Honestly.
Stephen Kenny's Ireland are leaking less chances and creating more chances. That's way more pragmatic than any of the three previous regimes.
Is it because it's not being knocked long from Duffy to a solitary attacker standing without a team mate in sight? That's not pragmatic, it's stupid.
Is it because we're not defending with 10 bodies at all times? That's not pragmatic, it's asking for trouble and more often than not - you know, in those 7 of the last 9 campaigns where we failed to qualify for a major tournament - we got the trouble we were asking for.
Do people really forget that, in 2019, in four games against Georgia and a glorified airport in Gibraltar, Ireland scored four goals?
Stephen Kenny's teams look better defensively - in his second camp - than O'Neill's and McCarthy's because his players aren't under 90 minutes of relentless pressure. And Stephen Kenny's teams create the same chances from corners and frees and they create more on top of that. What else is there to talk about?
We can go on about what a tough, unique camp it's been, having far too many players come and go because of HSE regulations, playing with half a team and five subs against Wales and debuts being awarded out of necessity. We can say relax, it's the Nations League - O'Neill came bottom of his group and that was enough to warrant a Euro playoff. We can say it's been two camps during a pandemic, just give it time.
Or we can just say look at the chances being created. Gilt-edged, gaping opportunities that rarely came about in previous regimes. We can just say look at the overall play, look at the improvement already and look how much more comfortable we are in defence because we're actually joining in on the ball-playing too.
And we can ask, most importantly, are you really harping back to the fucking Mick McCarthy days?
He said in commentary that it's all well and good playing good football but you have to get results.
The alternative, to be fair, is doing what Mick McCarthy did during his last tenure.
Neither.
