A Mick McCarthy side.....

[Orchard Celt]

Winning 2-0 against a poor Isreal side would never have surrendered like we did last night, infact it would have ended up 5/6-0. Our subs last night were predictable and what must young Elliot feel like when he see's the likes of Doherty coming on ahead of him trying to win us an important game. Elliot scored a lot of goals for Sunderland this year and anytime I've seen him looks a good wee player, instead Kerr goes with the tried and trusted.

BK has to start giving the young ones more run outs in friendlies cause it back-fired on us last night, look at the bench, there wasn't much experience yet these are the same players that have sat on the bench the last year and a half without ever getting a proper run out.

In this years group we should have beaten a poor French side, WE DIDN'T, we should have held on against a poor Isreal side away from home, WE DIDN'T, we were 2-0 up against the same poor Isreal side at home and still DIDN'T win.

I was a BK fan and still am but this is really poor

[brine3]

selective memory, huh...

[jimbob117]

Our subs last night were predictable and what must young Elliot feel like when he see's the likes of Doherty coming on ahead of him trying to win us an important game


No matter what ya say about doherty, he came on and did exactly what he was asked to last night, you cant fault him on that performance.

[Soper]

No matter what ya say about doherty, he came on and did exactly what he was asked to last night, you cant fault him on that performance.
I remembr one header which ended up in Kilkenny

[jimbob117]

I remembr one header which ended up in Kilkenny

yeah, he may have misdirected one header but the guy won every ball and gave us options we didnt have before he came on. he was basically a nuisance to their defense.

[brine3]

I remember quite a few headers that he headed across the goal into the path of strikers. Unfortunately the Israelis seemed to use some kind of US weapons technology to erect a force field around the goal, it's the only explanation I can think of.

[Orchard Celt]

No matter what ya say about doherty, he came on and did exactly what he was asked to last night, you cant fault him on that performance.

Its not Doherty I'am having go at, but once he came on it was route 1 stuff, he won his fair share of headers and to be honest played OK I thought, but its dissappointing that were still going down this route when we have a young striker who's had a great season for Sunderland not been given the chance to see what he can do. We had the ball played into the right area's last night, but once Keane went off we never had a striker or mid-fielder running into these area's meaning Isreal could easily clear the ball

[pete]

Hilarious thread. How mant times did McCarthy teams concede last minute goals??? Yugoslavia, Croatia...McCarhtys teams had great difficulty with holiding leads.

Doherty had something like 80%+ success rate with headers & the other 20% he was fouled.

We may disagree with Kerrs decisions but bar Elliot he had no other optiosn on the bench.

[Don Vito]

Hilarious thread. How mant times did McCarthy teams concede last minute goals??? Yugoslavia, Croatia...McCarhtys teams had great difficulty with holiding leads.

What ever you say about McCarthy we never failed to make the playoffs under his stewardship, now its a strong possibilty that it will happen for the second time running because we'll have to take at least four point from the Swiss French matches to make them.

[jimbob117]

What ever you say about McCarthy we never failed to make the playoffs under his stewardship, now its a strong possibilty that it will happen for the second time running because we'll have to take at least four point from the Swiss French matches to make them.

Thats not true at all. i mean if we beat one of them, we are more or less gaurenteed a play off place once we draw with the other one, and we are a very hard team to beat under kerr.

[Slash/ED]

Winning 2-0 against a poor Isreal side would never have surrendered like we did last night, infact it would have ended up 5/6-0. Our subs last night were predictable and what must young Elliot feel like when he see's the likes of Doherty coming on ahead of him trying to win us an important game. Elliot scored a lot of goals for Sunderland this year and anytime I've seen him looks a good wee player, instead Kerr goes with the tried and trusted.

BK has to start giving the young ones more run outs in friendlies cause it back-fired on us last night, look at the bench, there wasn't much experience yet these are the same players that have sat on the bench the last year and a half without ever getting a proper run out.

In this years group we should have beaten a poor French side, WE DIDN'T, we should have held on against a poor Isreal side away from home, WE DIDN'T, we were 2-0 up against the same poor Isreal side at home and still DIDN'T win.

I was a BK fan and still am but this is really poor

http://www.soccernet.com/euro2000/news/19991010irerep.html

[Don Vito]

Thats not true at all. i mean if we beat one of them, we are more or less gaurenteed a play off place once we draw with the other one, and we are a very hard team to beat under kerr.

Thats what I said Jimbob! Beat one of them and draw with the other, i.e. take four points. I seriously doubt we can do that based on our recent performances, the last time we won a meaningful match was almost four years ago against Holland. And with Kerr morphing onto a Gerrard Houllier style mentality I just don't think we have the killer insticnt. Hopefully I'll be proved wrong but I just cant see it at the moment. Typical isnt it-a major tournament reasonably close and we fcuk it up.

[jimbob117]

Thats what I said Jimbob! Beat one of them and draw with the other, i.e. take four points. I seriously doubt we can do that based on our recent performances, the last time we won a meaningful match was almost four years ago against Holland. And with Kerr morphing onto a Gerrard Houllier style mentality I just don't think we have the killer insticnt. Hopefully I'll be proved wrong but I just cant see it at the moment. Typical isnt it-a major tournament reasonably close and we fcuk it up.

Sorry, i thought u meant take 4 points from BOTH sides.
True, the last meaningful match we won was 4 yrs ago,but russia and switzerland wasnt really kerrs team so the 2 upcoming group home games are what will make or brake him. and i still believe we played well yesterday, it was a freak occurence

[Flea]

Hilarious thread. How mant times did McCarthy teams concede last minute goals??? Yugoslavia, Croatia...McCarhtys teams had great difficulty with holiding leads.

Doherty had something like 80%+ success rate with headers & the other 20% he was fouled.

We may disagree with Kerrs decisions but bar Elliot he had no other optiosn on the bench.

So just cos McCarthy's sides conceded last minute goals its justifies this performance. If you haven't noticed McCarthy is long gone(and doing well with Sunderland mind you :) ) and Kerr has to stand on his own two legs and hold up his hand. Correct me if I'm wrong but the set of players that was out there yesterday never gave away a two nil lead to anyone in Landsdowne yet against such weak oppostion. Kerr needs to hold his hand up cos it was his change(or the management in general) that turned the tables. When he took off Robbie he should have brought on another forward, Elliot or the Doc(who did wll :) ) - a straight 'positive' switch. Instead the team was altered in a few areas to suit the oncoming Kavanagh moving our most creative player Duff a few times (who was creating everything on the left) against the no.21. When Kilbane moved out that side died, while Duff was gettin' a hard time of it. Kavanagh did Ok but shouldve given Reid more freedom. O'Shea could have been subed, really awful, worst performance I've seen in ages.

So there it is, no blaming McCarthy, the ref or anyone else. We gave away a comfortable lead AT HOME to a poor side. Kerr its on you man! :(

[brine3]

we waz robbed, stop blaming greener

[Irish Pride]

If Ireland were losing or drawing Mick would take of a defender and go with 3 at the back and 3 up front. he always did that when things didnt go his way sometimes it work(World Cup 2002) and sometimes it didnt(Swiss 2002).

But you cant say if this was a Mick McCarthy side we would of won. you can keep conparing with the past. the lads played well and were unlucky not to win.

[zinedineontour]

stop dredging back to the past ffs.. if this was a mick side .. ffs its not .. get over it .. we played well second half luck and refs decisions were not on our side ..

[monutdfc]

If Ireland were losing or drawing Mick would take of a defender and go with 3 at the back and 3 up front. he always did that when things didnt go his way sometimes it work(World Cup 2002) and sometimes it didnt(Swiss 2002).

I don't remember going 3 at the back in World Cup 2002 - maybe against Germany - but the twice I do remember were Russia away and Switzerland at home. Both times absolute disasters.

Having watched the highlights on Sky we were desparately unlucky. Definite penalty and red card in the opening minutes, good shout for a penalty when O'Shea was tugged, several clearnces off the line, we completley dominated and were very unlucky.

[thecorner]

holland, anyone :rolleyes:

[stojkovic]

holland, anyone :rolleyes:
Not only Amsterdam in 2000 but also ;

1-0 up against the great Macedonia - LOST 3-2

1-0 up against Belgium and Turkey AT HOME in the play offs and drew both to go out after the 2nd legs.

And dont mention a 10 man Spain in Suwon that he failed to notice.

Not taking Kerr's side here cus I have gone off him big time.

[NeilMcD]

If Ireland were losing or drawing Mick would take of a defender and go with 3 at the back and 3 up front. he always did that when things didnt go his way sometimes it work(World Cup 2002) and sometimes it didnt(Swiss 2002).

But you cant say if this was a Mick McCarthy side we would of won. you can keep conparing with the past. the lads played well and were unlucky not to win.


Rubbis he made lots of dodgy subs, one in macedonia , one against portugal at home. Mc Carthy did a lot of what Kerr has been doing and making the conservative safe sub, which results on us sitting back and conceding late on. He also started the whole thing of Duff up front. Kerr was at fault for the subs on sat , but its wrong to say that his is Mr. Conservative and Mc Carthy is Mr Cavalier.

[Irish Pride]

Rubbis he made lots of dodgy subs, one in macedonia , one against portugal at home. Mc Carthy did a lot of what Kerr has been doing and making the conservative safe sub, which results on us sitting back and conceding late on. He also started the whole thing of Duff up front. Kerr was at fault for the subs on sat , but its wrong to say that his is Mr. Conservative and Mc Carthy is Mr Cavalier.

ah yeah, i know he made lots of dodgy subs but the 3 at the back and 3 up front was always going to back fire. It is hard to believe most of Duff caps have come as a striker. And whats even more amazing was Kilbane(the old sunderland kilbane) was playing ahead of him.

[eirebhoy]

Why are people putting the substitution down to conservativeness? How did it make us more conservative?

[onenilgameover]

Why are people putting the substitution down to conservativeness? How did it make us more conservative?


If we fail to go to Germany...My overall memory and it will only be a memory of Brian Kerr will be him running to the side of the pitch hands upward gesturing to get back...We were 1 nil up against Israel in Tel Aviv and there was a three on two situation Roy Keane had the ball over to the right inside the Israeli half....did anyone else see this...??

Kavanagh for Keane was wrong cos it messed up the whole struture and made us think and play defensively....

Doc for Reid was the choice of person without choice and that was only ten mins into the second half...it forced into the panic situation of grab anything crap scrappy goals and forced us into having the match be decide by luck...There is no such thing as luck...and if Kerr is the sort of man who analyses everything a details man as it were he should have known that. I have never been convinced and he is making me very worried at the moment.

[eirebhoy]

Elliott wasn't going to be risked. I don't know if that was down to confidence or whatever but a lot of the top managers are the same. If you weren't going to put on Elliott, who would you have put on? I don't think he was being defensive with his substitution. For some reason he didn't want to play Elliott and that is all that was wrong in that first half substitution.

I would scream at the TV when Martin O'Neill wouldn't bring on McGeady or whatever but what the hell do I know. Kerr seems to be an easy target for whatever reason but he knows much more than journalists of papers like the Guardian.

[onenilgameover]

Elliott wasn't going to be risked.
How do you know this and information do you have to back it up?

Personal I would have put anyone on that would have been a straight like for like swap. First choice would have been Elliot then Lee then the Doc.


These were they substitutes Berr Kerr chose now if he wasn't gonna be risked why put him there?

substitutes
12 Kenny
13 Steven Reid
14 Kavanagh
15 Elliott
16 Doherty
17 Miller
18 Lee

[Stuttgart88]

Why are people putting the substitution down to conservativeness? How did it make us more conservative?

2 points on this:

My initial reaction to seeing Kavanagh coming on was that he was bringing on an EXTRA midfilder, going to 4-5-1. I think many people's reaction to this was that it was defensive / conservative. However that wasn't the case - Kavanagh simply accomodated a reoganisation of a 4 man midfield.

But not "risking" Elliott was definitely conservative. When will we have a better chance to get him involved? Why pair him with Morrisson in Glasgow if he wasn't prepared to play him if required? I honestly thought it was screamingly obvious at the time.

[Plastic Paddy]

Kerr seems to be an easy target for whatever reason but he knows much more than journalists of papers like the Guardian.

For whatever reason? Because his tactical ineptitude has cost us results? :rolleyes: Come on eirebhoy, you've seen the evidence as much as the rest of us have. Paul Doyle had four parts right to every one wrong in his Guardian article on Monday. I only hope his conclusion proves to be a pessimistic one, rather than the expected reality. :(

:ball: PP

[Stuttgart88]

There's an article in the Irish Indo this morning saying that criticsm of Kerr is way off the mark. I'd say:

Yes - the players goofed up
Yes - their 'keeper was inspired & a cheat
Yes - the ref was inept & inconsistent
Yes - we missed 3 or 4 chances from within 4 yards
Yes - we did actually play really well for 80% of the game
Yes - we were downright unlucky

But also: Yes - we handed them back an initiative they should never have had & Kerr is at least partly responsible for that (100% responsible in my opinion). The dogs on the street know where Duff is at his most effective.

So it's the Indo that's off the mark in my opinion.

I often think the Irish are never happy unless we're complaining about something but I think there's a difference between our perpetual "the manager's crap" rants and objective criticsm of Kerr's tenure.

Personally I'm always in the "glass is half full " camp - I really hate knocking people unless it's blatantly warranted. McCrathy always had my support until I found out in late 2002 about the full extent of players getting drunk during match build ups & that type of stuff. The Indo's article should acknowledge this, and the fact that his assistant was a total no-mark not fit to be involved in an international set up in my mind.

Giving Kerr the job was 100% the right decision at the time but in my mind it's hard to even say -AT THIS POINT - he's even been a qualified success. I admit the really big games are still to come though.

After the desperately bad 2-1 win over Albania Kerr bemoaned the lack of tactical flexibility of Irish/British teams & I thought then he was about to offer something fresh and imaginative. But looking at this team's performances & selections I see nothing at all where Kerr has put his stamp on the team. His off-flield changes most defintely have to be commended though.

We've used a host of friendlies but at no stage have we ever done anything imaginative like trying Kilbane / Kennedy / Clarke at left-back. McGeady has played about 10 minutes in total, Jason Byrne was given a meaningless 2 minutes, Steven Reid was left out of the squad for a year, Richard Dunne for months. Kerr uses Duff upfront from time-to-time. Where has been Kerr's unique footprint? Andy Reid, John O'Shea & Andy O'Brien are about the only personnel changes since Mick, all being pretty obvious, though I commend the way he brought Keane back into the fold.

It's also not fair to say that things might be any better under Mick though the manner of our WC2002 qualification (24 points from a tough group)certainly looks to be a high water mark in recent history.

The glass is still half full but cop on Independent, we're allowed our say (and in many cases we actually do have more knowledge than playing Championship Manager on a computer you condescending so-and-so). We're only voicing our concerns because our recent mediocrity hurts.

If Kerr steers us through to Germany from this position I'll be the first to say well done. He'll deserve the credit.

[Macy]

It was a tatical mistake to move Duff up front imo. However, it's more not recognising that the rest of the team just give him the ball and expect him to do something as much as a striaght tatical fook up. In much the same way a big man up front leads to long balls, when it'd be better to still get crosses in from the wings. He should've gone for a straight swap for Keane.

Kav should've started in place of Holland imo too.

Think Kerr's fell into the trap of playing his best 11 available players rather than playing the 11 that fit best - i.e. playing people out of position. A lot of managers do. Imo McCarthy too often didn't even do that - he picked his 11 favourite players.

I personally think the critism of Kerr is harsh at this stage. People are comparing his first full campaign (before it's even ended ffs) to McCarthy's last full campaign.

[Plastic Paddy]

I personally think the critism of Kerr is harsh at this stage. People are comparing his first full campaign (before it's even ended ffs) to McCarthy's last full campaign.

I'm not doing that Macy but I believe that so far Kerr has come up short. Four straight wins and I'll give him the credit that such a run, and all that goes with it, will deserve. I'm not sure that anything less is good enough, though.

:ball: PP

[eirebhoy]

How do you know this and information do you have to back it up?
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, not slating him for a substitution we (the glorious fans) think he should have made.

I'm going to keep bringing up Jose Mourinho because he is regarded as one of the best in the business.

(I'm going to put this in bold as I'm pretty certain Mourinho has done something similar plenty of times):
If Mourinho had Kezman and Tiago on the bench and Drogba up front with Gudjohnson. Lets say Chelsea were winning 2-0 and and Gudjohnson got injured after 25 minutes. Mourinho brings on Tiago for Gudy and puts Duff in a more forward role. Absolutely nothing bad would be said about him. I'd be actually really suprised if Mourinho never made a similar substitution to this about 10 times or more last season.

We don't know why Elliott is not going to start tonight (as the papers seem to suggest), or why he didn't come on on Saturday but Kerr knows more than any of us so lets give him the benefit of the doubt. Its all well and good us telling him to play Elliott when we hardly know the player.

And I don't think we lost that match because of the substitution. We lost or rhythm after 15 minutes. The substitution was made on 27 minutes. I don't see how if Elliott was put on we wouldn't have conceded a free kick and a penalty. Its not as if they were dominating possession. They got into our half twice and made something from it. Everyone takes the easy target and blames Kerr. If Kerr was in charge of Chelsea when they lost their 2 goal lead against Bolton he'd be taking the blame.

[stojkovic]

Why not bring on Elliot - inexperience ?

Robbie Keane played in three friendlies before earning his fourth cap v Croatia in a qualifier in 1998 at the age of 18.

Before you shout abuse - YES Robbie was playing 'second tier' football at the time with Wolves, same as Elliot with Sunderland.

There is no difference, he should have come on.

I manage an amatuer team and if I put a midfielder up front while I had two strikers on the bench there would have been trouble.

[Plastic Paddy]

Why not bring on Elliot - inexperience ?

Robbie Keane played in three friendlies before earning his fourth cap v Croatia in a qualifier in 1998 at the age of 18.

Before you shout abuse - YES Robbie was playing 'second tier' football at the time with Wolves, same as Elliot with Sunderland.

There is no difference, he should have come on.

I manage an amatuer team and if I put a midfielder up front while I had two strikers on the bench there would have been trouble.

You're spot on in your assessment, stojkovic. As for your last point, you can understand why Jonathan Macken might have put up with David James going on up front the other week rather than causing a fuss when you think of the manager that made that particular decision... :D

:ball: PP

[eirebhoy]

Why not bring on Elliot
We don't know. He's probably not going to play tonight either. Should Kerr have his job on the line because we don't know why he won't play Elliott? All we can do is guess but I seem to be the only person giving him the benefit of the doubt.

You have to remember that Elliott could not get into the Sunderland team at the end of the season while Duff is well capable of playing up front for the best team in England.

[tetsujin1979]

Why not bring on Elliot - inexperience ?

Robbie Keane played in three friendlies before earning his fourth cap v Croatia in a qualifier in 1998 at the age of 18.

Before you shout abuse - YES Robbie was playing 'second tier' football at the time with Wolves, same as Elliot with Sunderland.

There is no difference, he should have come on.

I manage an amatuer team and if I put a midfielder up front while I had two strikers on the bench there would have been trouble.

Elliott has 2 fairly established strikers in front of him, who are scoring at the moment. When Keane came through, Quinn and Cascarino were in the latter stages of their careers, and the jury was still out on Connolly (still is to some degree), we needed to try new players, I don't know if that need is there right now.

[stojkovic]

Elliott has 2 fairly established strikers in front of him, who are scoring at the moment. When Keane came through, Quinn and Cascarino were in the latter stages of their careers, and the jury was still out on Connolly (still is to some degree), we needed to try new players, I don't know if that need is there right now.
Need ?
Our two strikers can't get their game at their clubs.
They will elsewhere though.
But 2-0 up against a poor side what better way to make an appearance up front. We are not talking about a centre half here.

[Plastic Paddy]

We don't know. He's probably not going to play tonight either. Should Kerr have his job on the line because we don't know why he won't play Elliott? All we can do is guess but I seem to be the only person giving him the benefit of the doubt.

You have to remember that Elliott could not get into the Sunderland team at the end of the season while Duff is well capable of playing up front for the best team in England.

It's not about Elliott though, is it? It's about killing something that was in rude health. Snatching near-defeat from the jaws of victory, not for the first time either recently. And that's what hurts.

Why does the spotlight fall on Elliott? Becasue we know that he can fill the hole left by Keane to some extent, which would therefore mean we could play in the same way as we did for twenty-five glorious minutes on Saturday afternoon.

We also know where Duff's best role is for Ireland, and so indeed does he, as he declared publicly only yesterday. The fact that Kerr entertains other notions marks him out at best as an alternative thinker. And that's why I for one am becoming more worried. It's not over yet by a long chalk, but that's down to the inconsistency of others rather than any efforts on our part. The jury's still out.

:ball: PP

[eirebhoy]

PP - I'm repeating myself in 2 threads here but anyway. :) Elliott had not started a game for Sunderland since the 2nd of April (1 game since mid March). He was on the bench for Sunderland's last 6 games. He didn't do very much against Celtic.

We didn't lose those 2 goals because of that substitution. We hadn't been playing well since the 15th minute. Holland tackled someone 40 yards out and Given mis-kicked the ball which led to a peno. Its not as if we fell apart as soon as Duff went up front. We hadn't been playing well since the 2nd goal.

[eirebhoy]

Paul Doyle had four parts right to every one wrong in his Guardian article on Monday.
You cannot be serious? Show me where I'm wrong in my replies to the sections of his article:


Quote:
The man in black denied Ireland a clear penalty, handed one to Israel for a non-existent foul



No Paul, we can admit when its a bloody clear foul by O'Shea.

Quote:
Instead of applying a plaster - replacing Keane with another striker - Kerr attempted to perform major surgery.



What striker would that be? A centre half in Dohery that couldn't make the Norwich bench? Elliott who had started 1 game since mid-March and was on the bench for all the rest? Alan Lee? Or someone that could get his game up front for Chelsea, in Damien Duff.

Quote:
His decision to unleash Graham Kavanagh, a hard-working midfielder who, despite his unerring set-piece deliveries, is simply not an international class player



Go watch a bit of bloody football Paul. He is a better central midfielder than Holland or Kilbane so if Kav isn't international class we haven't got much choice.

Quote:
meant moving Damien Duff from the left flank, where he had been bamboozling the visitors



bamboozling? He was really ineffective out there because of the amount of players on him. In fact, Kilbane was probably more effective when put on the left wing.

Quote:
These changes unbalanced Ireland and gifted the initiative back to Israel who, in fairness, had the wherewithal to grab it, albeit with the assistance of a referee who awarded a penalty against John O'Shea for neglecting to stop a forward from falling.



Well I thought we went downhill after 15 minutes to be honest. But anyway, are you saying that if we put Elliott on up front Holland wouldn't have tackled (and clearly won the ball) someone 40 yards out? Or Given wouldn't have miskicked the ball and gave it to the opposition which led to the penalty? They hardly dominated as soon as Duff went up front. They had 2 set pieces and took them.

Quote:
but it was plain for all to see that if Doherty (or Stephen Elliot) had been on the pitch since the 23rd minute, Ireland would certainly have had a third, at least.



Oh come on. If Doherty came on and we conceded those 2 goals you’d be putting the blame on Kerr again. Doherty is a centre half and at best last resort for a goal.

Quote:
Away to Switzerland and Israel, a full-strength Irish side swaggered into an early lead only for Kerr to become negative, concede territory and ultimately settle for draws.



Unless Kerr is lying, he told the players at half time to go out, push up and create more. Is he lying? Obviously he told the players that possession is the most important thing but he hardly told them to sit on the 1-0 lead.

Quote:
Against injury- and suspension-ravaged France in Paris, a full-strength Irish side were in the process of delivering one of their most accomplished away performances and outclassing their illustrious hosts, only for Kerr to become negative, concede territory and ultimately settle for a draw.



Now its getting ridiculous. Kerr is to blame because we didn't win in France? Cop the hell on Paul.

Quote:
Kerr should simply have helped himself to away victories when they were offered to him on a plate.



Ah no. I would have done the same. I would have told the Israeli's to score in injury time. He never once said his policy was to get away draws. He said that teams usually win the group with away draws and home wins. He said this after the draws, not before the matches and it was basically to keep his players heads up. He hardly told his players to go out and play for a draw. They were all devastated after the Israel match. Roy even told the players to keep their heads up after we failed to win in Paris. Hardly like they felt they did a job well done.

[carnstien]

And with Kerr morphing onto a Gerrard Houllier style mentality I just don't think we have the killer insticnt.
Jesus I know, I thought I was the only one to notice, Kerr reminds me so much of Houllier its scary, just in the way he makes bizzare tactical decistions, often plays players out of position and his conservitive attitude twoards the game.

[eirebhoy]

just in the way he makes bizzare tactical decistions, often plays players out of position and his conservitive attitude twoards the game.
You've pretty much summed up Martin O'Neill. :)

[Slash/ED]

The farcical striker situation shows maybe, just maybe Kerr should not have taken such a píss taking attitude towards Jason Byrne :)

EB, Duff is not a striker. He has said it himself. He's proved it time and time again. I can't think of a single game Duff played up front where he's been an effective striker. Therefor I couldn't care less if Mourinho put him up there a few times, it was the wrong decision. And taking off a striker and bringing on a mid fielder no matter how you reshuffle the pack is going backwards. You're taking off an attacking player for a not so attacking player.

[Donal81]

Mick McCarthy's worst legacy - worse than Saipan - is that people think that Duff is some sort of winger-cum-striker who can do a job upfront. He f*cking can't. He's an amazing player but does absolutely nothing as a striker and I have never, ever seen any evidence where he's been effective up front. This would be bad enough in itself, that we're playing a bad striker upfront. Couple this with the fact that he's one of the world's greatest left-wingers and it becomes a joke. I wish people would stop discussing it, it's that ridiculous.

Time and time again, it's been proved that Duff in form on the wing is of much greater effectiveness no matter who's upfront than when he's upfront and Kilbane is on the left-wing.

I can't believe this argument has resurfaced.

[Slash/ED]

Mick McCarthy's worst legacy - worse than Saipan - is that people think that Duff is some sort of winger-cum-striker who can do a job upfront. He f*cking can't. He's an amazing player but does absolutely nothing as a striker and I have never, ever seen any evidence where he's been effective up front. This would be bad enough in itself, that we're playing a bad striker upfront. Couple this with the fact that he's one of the world's greatest left-wingers and it becomes a joke. I wish people would stop discussing it, it's that ridiculous.

Time and time again, it's been proved that Duff in form on the wing is of much greater effectiveness no matter who's upfront than when he's upfront and Kilbane is on the left-wing.

I can't believe this argument has resurfaced.

Absolutley, how many inept performances must he put in while up front? Duff and Keane was, goals wise, probably one of the worst partnerships in the Irish teams history iirc.

[stojkovic]

I can't believe this argument has resurfaced.
Kerr brought it up on Saturday.

[eirebhoy]

Of course I agree that Duff isn't very good up front. Mourinho does it and he's the best manager in the world, Kerr does it and he deserves the sack. Thats the reason I brought Mourinho into it. I have pointed on another out a few reasons incidents with Chelsea that Kerr would have been slated for if he had done while Mourinho gets away with it.

[Slash/ED]

Of course I agree that Duff isn't very good up front. Mourinho does it and he's the best manager in the world, Kerr does it and he deserves the sack. Thats the reason I brought Mourinho into it. I have pointed on another out a few reasons incidents with Chelsea that Kerr would have been slated for if he had done while Mourinho gets away with it.

Mourinho is quite conversative too though, the difference is, his defence is good enough to withstand the pressure that brings, so it's playing to his strenghts, same with Porto (In fact espically so). Ours is not, so it doesn't work, and we consistently throw away leads in important games as a result. You can't compare them.

Though when Mourinho uses Duff as a striker, he is equally wrong. It goes to show how inept Kezman must be.

[eirebhoy]

Mourinho is quite conversative too though, the difference is, his defence is good enough to withstand the pressure that brings, so it's playing to his strenghts, same with Porto (In fact espically so). Ours is not, so it doesn't work, and we consistently throw away leads in important games as a result. You can't compare them.
I think O'Shea is the only weak link in our defense. Our defense is good enough and has an excellent record. The Swiss goal was down to Kilbane giving the ball away (Carr didn't play well there but Finnan has overtaken him now). The Israel home goal was a shot from outside the box that every defence concedes once in a while. The Israel home goal was a crazy header from a free kick. We are usually very good at defending set pieces. They are the only goals we conceded with the exception of the peno.

[Donal81]

Kerr brought it up on Saturday.

I know, that's what I meant.