If there’s a case to be made along the lines of that proposition, it seems to me it’s logically answered by saying that the quality of “not matching” merely means the face cloth has gone missing, not that the authenticity of the shroud that we have is rightfully brought into question.
Any proponent of that argument, who would attempt to put it forward as if its “not matching the John 20 account” therefore lessens the likelihood that the shroud is authentically Christ’s burial cloth is executing a devious sleight of hand. Are you such a proponent?
If the face cloth is gone missing, then the image of His face would be too.