PDA

View Full Version : Latest Paul Doyle Article



Stuttgart88
06/10/2005, 9:17 AM
Sorry to add another "media" themed thread but here's the latest in Paul Doyle's anti-Kerr articles, though I have to concede that this time the article is thoroughly fair in its tone & most, but not all of its criticisms are pretty accurate. I know we've all been advocating rallying behind our team and manager & I for one have been disgusted by the standard of writing in The Irish Independent recently but I think it's worthwhile putting this article up anyway. I have to say that for once Mr.Doyle is making a decent case in a tone that makes him worth listening to.

Where do I disagree?

- I still think the draw in Paris was a creditable enough result & performance. We might have won it & might have lost it.
- Kerr did NOT go 4-5-1 when Keane went off at home to Israel. Rather than making a defensive substitution as many still wrongly believe he made, he made a conservative substitution by not taking a risk on young Elliott. Duff was moved upfront in a 4-4-2. I maintain this substitution contributed to our downfall but at least Doyle does partially acknowledsge that the gods were against us that day too.
- "Talk of [Duff's] disliking of Kerr's conservatism is easy to credit". This is more Indo-style innuendo. It may be right but I hate this type of tone.

Also, was Joe Kinnear really chomping at the bit for the Irish job in 1996?


Curtain closing on Kerr

Roy Keane is unlikely to be in charge of the Republic of Ireland next year. So is Brian Kerr

Paul Doyle
Tuesday October 4, 2005

So, the Football Association of Ireland wants to appoint Roy Keane as the country's next manager, does it? Yes, if various reports in the English media today are to be believed. Which they shouldn't be. Because the claims seem to have been spawned by nothing more reliable than two openly speculative opinion pieces that appeared in the Irish press last Sunday. There are no quotes to support them, no views from nebulous "sources", no tangible indication that either the player or the association is giving the matter any serious thought whatsoever.

It's true that the FAI works in mysterious ways - Mick McCarthy was appointed in 1996 after four humdrum seasons in charge of Millwall at a time when Joe Kinnear, then working miracles with Wimbledon, was pleading for the post. Even the ultimately successful appointment of Jack Charlton baffled most observers at the time, who had believed it was a run-off between local favourite Liam Tuohy and Liverpool legend Bob Paisley. So a move for total novice Keane is not impossible, especially given that another of the country's great midfield generals, John Giles, served as player/manager in 1975 when simultaneously managing West Bromwich Albion.
It's also true that, a lot like in 2003, when Kerr was appointed, there are no obviously outstanding candidates. But the only fact that the speculation about the Irish job really reveals is that the current incumbent, Brian Kerr, is very unlikely to get a contract renewal when his current deal expires in 2006. And in this observer's opinion, he will not deserve one.

That may seem a reckless statement given that Ireland, with two games left to play, could still top their group. But I believe they won't, nor will they sneak into a play-off spot. The momentum is with the opposition, Ireland are missing several key players through injury and suspension, and Kerr has made at least one crucial blunder in almost every important match to date. It will be scandalous if Ireland don't qualify - because they have the players and have had the opportunities to win the group relatively comfortably - but that is what is about to happen.

The main gripe against Kerr is his failure to be flexible, to respond to opportunities as they arise. Perhaps this shortcoming is borne of conservatism, perhaps it betrays a technocrat's refusal to trust human variables and instead put all his faith in some abstract system (little wonder it was once reported that Gerard Houllier wanted to make Kerr his right-hand man at Liverpool).

It's as clear as the nose on Andy O'Brien's face that Kerr's master plan was to claim away draws against Ireland's three main rivals (France, Switzerland and Israel), then whop them all at home. A reasonable enough theory. What's more, the fixture list teed this scenario up nicely, as Kerr and the FAI, following the strategy successfully used by Mick McCarthy for the 2002 World Cup qualifiers, cajoled the other nations into letting Ireland play all three of their big opponents away first (the French protested, reckoning this would give Ireland an unfair advantage, but they eventually agreed when the Irish claimed they wouldn't be able to host anyone during 2004 or early 2005 because Lansdowne Road would be under renovation).

In all three matches - in Paris, Basel and Tel Aviv - it became obvious that Ireland were the better team and could nick maximum points if they attacked with gusto. In Paris, they met a French team in disarray: confidence was crushed by a shoddy Euro 2004 showing, manager Raymond Domenech was openly at war with several players, and a slew of retirements, injuries and suspensions meant that rather than face Zinedine Zidane, Patrick Vieira and Claude Makelele, the Irish central midfield had to take on 20-year-old debutant Rio Mavuba and Alou Diarra, a player who didn't make a single appearance for Liverpool during three years on Anfield's books.

In Switzerland and Israel, Clinton Morrison scored early but still the Irish couldn't win. The draw in Israel was particularly outrageous, since the Irish were manifestly superior in every department but betrayed an arrogance and/or fear seldom seen from a Republic of Ireland team and began to patronise their opposition by toying with them and playing for time. They deservedly conceded a last-minute equaliser.

The folly of clinging to his plot so rigidly was was rammed home in Dublin last June when Israel refused to roll over and instead stole a 2-2 draw. They were able to do this partially because of an astonishing goalkeeping performance by Dudu Aouate, something Kerr claimed afterwards it was impossible to legislate for. Wrong. If Ireland had taken three points in Tel Aviv (not to mention Paris and Basle), they would have had a cushion to soften the blow of that draw. And besides, would even an inspired Aouate have been able to withstand the pressure if the Irish had made a like-for-like replacement when Robbie Keane got injured in the 27th minute, rather than switching to a 4-5-1? When 2-0 up in the first half. At home. To Israel.

A second area where Kerr has disappointed is motivation. He presided over one of the most soulless displays of any Irish sports team ever when - with qualification for Euro 2004 still a real possibility - his side simply folded to gift, as it happens, Switzerland a 2-0 win.

One of the main reasons he got the job in the first place was because he was reputed to have an excellent relationship with the younger players in the squad, having worked with them successfully at youth level. He himself continually played this up, joshing affectionately about Damien Duff, in particular, in a way that almost suggested he was some kind of father figure to the Chelsea winger.

But he has flagrantly failed to get the best out of Duff, whose performances throughout the campaign have gradually sunk from promising to anonymous, at times even bordering on disinterested. Talk of him disliking Kerr's conservatism is easy to credit.

Duff's worst performance was his last one, in the home clash with France (and can only partially be excused by the fact that the French double-marked him). That was the one match where the Irish attacked, or at least tried to, with genuine gusto from start to finish. But it was an entirely different French side to the one that the Irish had declined to finish off in Paris 11 months previously. Zidane, Vieira and Makelele were all back and their belief was restored. And there was always the chance that one of Les Bleus would come up with the sort of wonder strike that Thierry Henry produced to win the match. But if Ireland had been ambitious and assertive earlier in the campaign, that goal would never have been as damaging.

Given all of the above, how can any Irish fan be confident that Kerr's men will win in Cyprus on Saturday and beat Switzerland in Dublin on Wednesday week? No wonder minds are starting to think of a replacement. But there's no sign that Keane is to be offered the job. Besides, won't he be playing at Celtic? Which reminds me: wonder what Martin O'Neill will be up to by then...

gustavo
06/10/2005, 9:57 AM
also gerry mcdermott had a sly dig this morning when he was talking about the games ahead when he mentioned that the guys were playing to save our world cup chances and brian kerrs €400,000 a year job :rolleyes: as if that needs mentioning

wallis
06/10/2005, 10:47 AM
To me, Doyles opinion in the article is fair enough. He backs up what he is claiming which in my mind is the right thing to do. But it does make me chuckle when I read lines like :

"They were able to do this partially because of an astonishing goalkeeping performance by Dudu Aouate,something Kerr claimed afterwards it was impossible to legislate for. Wrong. If Ireland had taken three points in Tel Aviv (not to mention Paris and Basle), they would have had a cushion to soften the blow of that draw"

So, he accepts that it was an astonishing goalkeeping performance that was responsible. This is a far cry from the "its all BKs fault with his tactics" that has been repeated more times than the Great Escape !

I cant understand his thoughts that "...something Kerr claimed afterwards it was impossible to legislate for. Wrong. If Ireland had taken three points in Tel Aviv (not to mention Paris and Basle), they would have had a cushion to soften the blow of that draw"

Even if we had taken three points in Israel , the backlash for Kerr and the team for 'blowing' a 2-0 lead would still be the same. The attack on the substitution would still have taken place. All the journos seem to conveniently forget that this 'poor Israel' team they are talking about will finish the campaign undefeated. Heck, theres a chance that they be the only undefeated side in the group and still not qualify.

My opinion on Duff - I blame Mourinho. He has taken one of the most exciting attacking midfielders in the premiership and turned him into a continental robot. Get ball , run forward ten yards , see opponent , stop , turn , pass back - repeat for 90 minutes to ensure regular appearances (no wonder Joe Cole cant get a full game). If you are not running at defenders in training and in competitive matches you will soon lose the confidence and ability to do it in the odd international that crops up every few months.

"Talk of [Duff's] disliking of Kerr's conservatism is easy to credit". Are you kidding me , a guy who plays for Jose Mourinho is disliking another managers conservatism ?

From what I remember hearing , yes , Kinnear was desperate for the job.

Apart from that , its a fair article

wws
06/10/2005, 11:28 AM
Strip away the bullsh.t and his basic thesis is 'win your games - dont draw or lose them'.....fcking groundbreaking stuff


what an after the fact twa.t - I've yet to hear one analyst bar Brady come out and admit the obvious - OUR CURRENT CROP OF PLAYERS ARE COMPLETELY SH.T AND HAVE BEEN FOR TWO CAMPAIGNS NOW


the keane factor also has not "saved" ireland - its had the reverse effect since his re-introduction.... Martin O neill couldn't turn this water into wine

Nature abhors a vacuum - by limiting player access to the press Kerr has intensified the inevitable press campaign to have him removed (which would have been there in any case going into the last two games) with no soundbites every second story is 'sources close to so and so say Kerr like Frances Black and the players like the wolfe tones' - that type of sh,t)

Lionel Ritchie
06/10/2005, 11:54 AM
It's true that Joe Kinnear wanted the Job in 96 and many would've liked to see him get it -myself included. However he had a list of condidtions if I recall right and two of those were insurmountable as far as FAI were concerned-

1. he wanted to continue managing Wimbledon whereas the FAI rightly wanted a full time manager

2. He wasn't prepared to undergo an interview process -if the FAI wanted to offer it to him he was happy to look at what they were offering. Might seem a bit snobby now but at the time Kinnear was being tipped for any number of top premiership jobs -Liverpool, Leeds United, Tottenham, Arsenal and Aston Villa as well as Celtic jobs were all mentioned.

Though fast forward to 2002 -he was at Luton Town, had come out the other end of a serious heart scare (which would put many premiership clubs off I imagine) and I think he was sticking by that 2nd criteria.

OwlsFan
06/10/2005, 1:03 PM
If Kinnear was gagging for the job he should have applied for the job like we all have to do in the real world. No, he thought himself beyond that so the FAI was correct not to give it to him.

I don't remember us being the better side in Basel. We scored an early goal but that was about it. Easy to say 3 points were going a begging but they weren't. The game in France could have gone either way. Israel games were a disaster for the late goal and conceding 2. At Lansdowne we had 40+ minutes to win it but we couldn't after they came back. The side just wasn't good enough.

Quite frankly we have a poor enough side just as France, the Swiss and Israel have. We are all much of a muchness. No other manager would have made a difference in my opinion. The question is can we raise our game for the last 2 matches? We must or it's oblivion.

I expect a big performance against the Swiss if we can avoid the banana skin in Cyprus.

elroy
06/10/2005, 1:23 PM
This type of reporting is very unhelpful when we will all have so much time to analyse this group in a weeks time either one way or the other.
Personnally I feel the attacks on Kerr are a bit over the top. For one we talk about Kerr's tactics and how he has often failed to adjust his tactics in various games, just look at the options he has on the bench and there isn't a whole lot to work with, in particular up front.

Criticism of Ireland not winning this first french game is very unfair, it was a good result, we had a couple of good chances but even the best sides in the world would struggle to beat france at home.
In the Swiss game, I thought that was also a good result as the Swiss were largely the better side, the biggest disappointment for me was the fact that the Swiss scored so quickly after we took the lead.
The Israel away game imo is where kerr made his biggest errors, we got a good early lead which shouldnt have being defended comfortably and not as deep as we were. I remember times in the second half when there was chances of mounting a good attack and no options were available as we were defending so deep.
The Israel home game was one of the most frustrating games I was ever at simply because after such a dominant performance we only got a draw. But luck really wasnt on our side that night.
The french game really exposed our limitations as an attacking force, defensively we played well but we really lacked imagination and a 'plan b' when it was clear 'plan a' wasnt working. Whether you blame that on the manager or the lack of available options Im not sure.

I for think we will qualify for the play offs, and either way, Kerr should be given another qualifying campaign in charge.

as_i_say
06/10/2005, 1:35 PM
Yeah that article is balanced enough alright. I am like most Irish fans in that I always want the team to do well regardless of who is in charge but it is Kerrs blatant conservatism that really grated me troughout this campaign.

I'm glad he mentioned the 2003 game against the swiss because for me, that match set the tone for things to come. I thought that if a new manager sent out a team to play like that things are gonna continue in a negative conservative way. That game was the worst Irish team performance I have ever seen including your macedonias and Liechtensteins.

I still prey that we qualify and its never too late to change your way of doing things but I think the players are not inspired by them as they were with Mick. At least under Mick at home, we played attractive football (at hme anyway)and home matches were always enjoyable but under Kerr its painful to watch sometimes.

Re:Duff I think that Chelsea have contributed to the way he plays but surely Kerr could say-look forget about Chelsea, put the head down for us and play the way you used to for us and Blackburn.

The media's treatment of Kerr in the last few weeks has been disgraceful. I feel sorry for him but if we dont qualify I think he has been given a fair crack o whip and should be let go.

zerocoolie
06/10/2005, 1:47 PM
It's as clear as the nose on Andy O'Brien's face ...

classic! :)

as_i_say
06/10/2005, 2:01 PM
Gary Doherty will be breathing a sigh of relief-i guess being a balding big nosed ginge let him off the hook with that one :)