Brian Kerr Documentary

[Donegalcelt]

And everyone knows why Connolly came on in Suwon!

[Macy]

Either you think Kerr wasn't good enough and it was time to change or you think he would have improved given more time so should have been given another contract.
To me, it depends on who is to replace him. It shows it was a rushed decision by the FAI that we're still waiting.

If someone of quality is brought in, then it probably was the right decision. If it's a past it spoofer like Venables or an up and coming former player too early in his career, it was the wrong one.

[Donegalcelt]

To me, it depends on who is to replace him. It shows it was a rushed decision by the FAI that we're still waiting.

If someone of quality is brought in, then it probably was the right decision. If it's a past it spoofer like Venables or an up and coming former player too early in his career, it was the wrong one.

I reckon O'Leary will do well to last another month at Villa and his pending sacking will "justify" the FAI in their own minds on the waiting game.

[Reddladd]

Lads, a bit off thread at the moment but by any chance did anyone tape the documentary. I had it set up to record and my good brother changed the channel to RTE 2 so I have an hour of the Blissard of Odd.
I would really appreciate it if you could leave a message or mail me.
I was never as disgusted when I got home and sat down with a cup of tea to see that other tool!!

[Macy]

I reckon O'Leary will do well to last another month at Villa and his pending sacking will "justify" the FAI in their own minds on the waiting game.
Yeah, and no doubt fail to see the irony of waiting for him to be sacked from his second high profile job to make him available...

[Donegalcelt]

He done well with Leeds with loadsa money, not too hot with Villa on a limited enough budget so hell knows what he'll do when unable to buy anyone if in charge internationally

[Dotsy]

To me, it depends on who is to replace him. It shows it was a rushed decision by the FAI that we're still waiting.

If someone of quality is brought in, then it probably was the right decision. If it's a past it spoofer like Venables or an up and coming former player too early in his career, it was the wrong one.

I wouldn't agree Macy. The FAI would have been wrong to hold on until we had a quality successor to Kerr available and lined up to take over immediatley. Sometimes you just have to make the decision and run with it. IMO we performed well in only one match (France away) that mattered. We failed overall in the other matches to play to our potential. I recognise we are no world beaters but we had the players to do better against Israel and Switzerland in particular. Our last two performances were dire. I think the players have to accept some ofthe blame (especially in Cyprus) for this but for whatever reason this group of players were not performing for Kerr. I don't think this would have changed so Kerr had to go. I don't take any pleasuere in that, I think he is a nice man but a change was necessary. We finished fourth in the group which is not acceptable. At international level you can't change the pool of players so the manager is the one that has to go.

[sullanefc]

I reckon O'Leary will do well to last another month at Villa and his pending sacking will "justify" the FAI in their own minds on the waiting game.

David O'Leary has pubicly said that he won't manage Ireland until he is finished his career in England. I don't rate him anyway. And if he considers the Ireland job as a cushy retirement job, I say sod him.

[OwlsFan]

To me, it depends on who is to replace him. It shows it was a rushed decision by the FAI that we're still waiting.

If someone of quality is brought in, then it probably was the right decision. If it's a past it spoofer like Venables or an up and coming former player too early in his career, it was the wrong one.

I half agree with you. It wasn't a rushed decision by the FAI because Kerr's contract had expired. What were they to do ? Offer him another one for 3 months :eek: ?

I agree that it will only be a correct decision if they get someone better but there was/is no rush.

[pineapple stu]

Good point but cannot agree with this. Kerr's Ireland were trailing 1-0 to France and drawing 0-0 with the Swiss in a must win game and at no stage as the game wore on did we take the game to him. There was nothng to lose but still no reaction.
Same with the 2-0 defeat in Switzerland... And I actually thought Connolly did well when he came on against Spain - strange choice for a sub alright, but it nearly worked (he had the best chance in extra-time and was unlucky to shoot just wide).

[klein4]

I agree that it will only be a correct decision if they get someone better but there was/is no rush.
no rush? surely the new manager will need some time to get his team right in a few freindlies before the qualifiers start? its not like a club manager. you cant afford to slip up in any of your games in the qualifiers. either the FAI know who they want as manager or they dont. If they do then just appoint him so he can get started on the job as soon as possible. if they dont then who is to say the options will be any better if they wait? in fact you could say the closer it gets to the qualifiers the more likely they will be forced to take whatever is available to them at the time. I dont see the point in any more meaningless freindlies like the Greece game a couple of years ago.

[Stuttgart88]

I've been away for a few days and there's an awful lot above to single out for response.

Geysir - you said you didn't remember Yugolslavia away: Breen & Staunton between them made a bad error for Stojkovic (?) to score. McAteer was taken down by their keeper for a stonewall penalty that wasn't given.

The only two points debated above where I will come to Kerr's defence are in agreeing that Kerr did not make a defensive substitution at home to Israel. Duff pretty much replaced Keane directly. We did not go 4-5-1. But that said it was an utterly ludicrous substitution that not one single person in the ground that night would have considered other than Kerr. 3 personnel changes were made to accomodate one injured player and they no longer needed to double & triple mark Duff.

I think Kerr's Ireland played far better at home to France than we did against Holland in 2001. The difference was we had all the luck in the world on our side against Holland. But at no point can you say we deserved to win against France.

Am I the only one here who remembers Kerr's quote after Israel (a) and at home to China? Maybe he was only saying it to divert criticism that he was overly defensive but he said that out in Tel Aviv he did NOT revert to 4-5-1 at the very end. Instead he moved Duff upfront. That's what he said - check the tapes. So therefore in total against Israel, Duff played for about 25 minutes upfront. 25 minutes - 3 goals conceded. I'll still contend though that Hughton, the guy with more international & top level experience than Kerr, has to share a lot of the culpability for the dud substitutions (& having to wait for Clinton to declare himself ******ed at the end in Israel).

I maintained during qualification that even allowing for the errors against Israel (managerial & by the players) we should wait and see how we performed in the last 2 games. We needed to win both yet I can barely remember two worse or two less committed performances ever. The players were just not responding to Kerr's methods. But how on earth Kerr felt that not playing 3 upfront for the last 15 minutes (or more) against Switzerland was justified is beyond me. TWICE Kerr replaced a forward with a forward. We needed a ****ing goal for God's sake. Was he deep down trying to add to all those "unbeaten" stats?

Personally I preferred Mick's tenure to Kerr's. I always got the impression under Mick that the players were happy to be there & happy to be taking on the world. Mick was often happy to try new players in friendlies. I came away from Lansdowne feeling really positive because I'd just seen Healy and Steven Reid play really well in their early games. I honestly thought we were on the verge of great things having had a decent WC2002 and then going to Finland and winning 3-0 with Barrett & Healy scoring, Butler playing well & Jim Goodwin getting a cap. Kerr's tenure was a largely joyless experience. Under Kerr I never remember asking so many times why certain players always made the squad and why others just couldn't get near it.

But I think we should all be clear about one thing: one might have been better than the other (take your pick) but neither was particularly good. We should be aiming a lot higher this time around. I refuse to believe the players we have available are not good enough.

[klein4]

do you not think it is possible that we suffer from the same delusions that england fans suffer from on a smaller scale in that our players are not actually as good as we think they are?

[Stuttgart88]

I refuse to believe the players we have available are not good enough.


do you not think it is possible that we suffer from the same delusions that england fans suffer from on a smaller scale in that our players are not actually as good as we think they are?

Conceding an injury time equaliser in Tel Aviv and the loss of a 2-0 lead at home to Israel cost us a place in the finals. A cocktail of bad tactics, silly errors & bad luck cost us these points. The players available were good enough to qualify, the performances weren't.

[klein4]

but its the players who are putting in them bad performances....

[Dotsy]

but its the players who are putting in them bad performances....

Agreed they are not without blame. I was disgusted with some of the performances particularly against Cyprus away. However a team also needs to be managed otherwise why not just have a selection committee and then let the players get on with it themselves on the pitch. I agree with Stuttgart the players available (while by no means world beaters) should have been good enough as a team to qualify from that group. The displays against Israel and Switzerland were a mixture of poor performances from some players but also IMO poor tactics and decisions from the management team. Thinking your team should qualify from what to be honest was a fairly poor group and expeceting them to win every competition by right are two very different attitudes.

[klein4]

fair enough. I wasnt saying "oh how is poor brian supposed to make anything of the muck he has to work with" but I do think that the managers situation seemed to deflect a bit of criticism from some pretty awful perfomances from some players. my hope is we get a top class manager in that wont be afraid to drop players who arent performing because of their reputations. and I think it wasnt that poor of a group. israel trained like a club side before the qualifiers and got some pretty good results on the back of some hard work put in so credit where credit is due.

[dfx-]

seemed to deflect a bit of criticism from some pretty awful perfomances from some players.

It's not hard to play poorly when we bypass the midfield like we did at home to Switzerland. The most common phrases I heard in the commentary in the latter stages of the tournament dealt with "Harte/Dunne/Cunningham/Finnan/Carr/Given goes long"

The team is going to be awful when you resort to that and that's where Kerr failed or should have changed if he saw that for the final 5-6 matches like I for one did

[geysir]

I've been away for a few days and there's an awful lot above to single out for response.
Then I wonder should I feel victimized that you choose to first select my memory lapse? Then that was the game where the Yugoslavs kept coming down the quality bus lane on Ireland's left wing?
I take it that you did not see the documentary yet.
Although Brian got his chance to say his bit I wonder about the edits and what was left out.The overall image of Kerr that was portrayed reminded me of the time of the US Presidental election (Carter and Regan) when the media carried front page pictures of Jimmy Carter in a state of near collapse while out jogging.
25 years later Carter, I think, is still hale and hearty.

[klein4]

It's not hard to play poorly when we bypass the midfield like we did at home to Switzerland. The most common phrases I heard in the commentary in the latter stages of the tournament dealt with "Harte/Dunne/Cunningham/Finnan/Carr/Given goes long"

The team is going to be awful when you resort to that and that's where Kerr failed or should have changed if he saw that for the final 5-6 matches like I for one did
mmmmmm I dont remember that to be the case but I didnt hear commentry for most of the games. I never saw the israel away game which seems to be the begining of all the criticism and I was away for all the fallout for the home game against israel but I did see it. I understand what you are saying that the manager should send his team out to play in a certain way and that should be clear enough to the players so as to cut out stupid mistakes and resorting to long balls back to the opposition. but I do think that when the going got tough a lot of the players went missing.

[eirebhoy]

It's not hard to play poorly when we bypass the midfield like we did at home to Switzerland. The most common phrases I heard in the commentary in the latter stages of the tournament dealt with "Harte/Dunne/Cunningham/Finnan/Carr/Given goes long"

The team is going to be awful when you resort to that and that's where Kerr failed or should have changed if he saw that for the final 5-6 matches like I for one did
Against Holland last year I don't remember one long ball. Given kept passing the ball to one of the defenders and they worked it from there. It was only a friendly but that was the game plan for that match. Kerr doesn't have a particular style of play. He plays the best style to try to exploit the opposition. Strachan said a couple of days ago:
“There’s not a long ball and a short ball as far as I’m concerned – only a good ball.”

We did have a few managers that played the long ball game regularly but Kerr changed the style of play for different matches. He said once that he likes to play different formations in friendlies to get the player used to them so he can switch during matches. I don't think he did that though. :)

[OwlsFan]

We did have a few managers that played the long ball game regularly but Kerr changed the style of play for different matches.

A "few managers"? I think Big Jack was the only long ball manager we ever had. Mick Mc immediately changed the team to a passing game and never changed after than.

[onenilgameover]

The Girlfriend was in a retaurant a few days ago and with ol big BK three tables down from her....I sent her a text to ask the big man if he was gonna eat dinner and if so was he gonna take responsibility for it???? Boom Boom ;)

[TonyD]

I've just read through al this thread and some of it has made sense, some of it has been rubbish. Someone(Can't remember who), claimed Kerr was too busy smiling for the media to do the job properly. I nearly got sick laughing at that one. Whoever that was must have missed the savage media campaign against Kerr (The worst, and most personal, I can remember - even worse than the abuse dished out to Eoin Hand). Someone else said the players got Kerr to the top of the group in June, and he then blew it. That's an interesting view of things. The players were responsible for all the success, Brian Kerr for all the failure.(See "selective" in the dictionary) My Club crest probably gives away my sympathies - I'm a Brian Kerr fan, always will be. He's rightly a legend around Inchicore, and don't forget he's still the only Irish manager ever to win a trophy at any level. (If anyone's even thinking of mentioning Jacks little 3 team tournament in Iceland, don't bother.)On the Kerr v McCarthy debate, I don't think that one was significantly better than the other. McCarthy had more success, he also had more time. One thing they have in common is that when the wheels started to come off, and the media turned on them, they were both unable to arrest the slide in the team. McCarthy had Keane at his peak too, which can't be underestimated. Kerr had him for four competitive games when he was past his best. Kerr lost 2 competitive games during his time in charge, to listen to some people you'd think he'd lost a dozen. OK, he didn't win enough, and I'm not saying he did a perfect job, but let's have a bit of balance. On the World cup campaign I agree the results against Israel are what cost us. In the away game Israel never loked like scoring,and it was probably the players as much as Kerr who were over-cautious(Besides he wouldn't be the first manager to err on the saide of caution in that situation. Difference is he didn't get away with it.) On the home game, I agree with Eirebhoy that Ireland should have won the game comfortably. There were more than enough chances and it was just one of those freakish games. They had a good 10-15 minute spell and scored twice from penalty and a free kick. Ireland dominated 80 pre cent of that match and I don't buy for a second the argument that the substitution cost us the 2 points. That's hindsight gone mad. Like I said they had 15 good minutes in the game, who's to say it wouldn't have happened even if Robbie Keane had stayed on(or indeed if Elliot had come on in his place). The French game at home was extremely close, and one we were always liable to lose. It's after that in my opinion that the wheels really came off. I think the whole media situation really affected, not just Kerr, but the players too. The performance in Cyprus stank of fear, pure and simple. No doubt someone will pop up to say that it was Kerrs job to get the players over that, so I'll save you the bother. It was, and he didn't. That's probably his one biggest failure in my eyes. But something people should bear in mind, very few managers have ever managed to turn things around once the downward spiral begins. It takes on a momentum of it's own. I don't believe it makes Brian Kerr a bad manager. Add to this the fact that he was missing his two best players for the Swiss game, and Robbie Keane was going through a bad patch at Tottenham (Who knows what difference it might have made if he was in his current form.) So that's my take on things. A lot of excueses, sure, but all valid ones I think.

[Stuttgart88]

I think these are all fair points Tony, and well made too.

But when you say Israel never looked like scoring in Tel Aviv, I'd draw attention to a great save by Shay from a free kick in the first half and two absolute gilt-edged chances in the second (one ballooned over and another hit straight at Shay when it was as easy to score).

It doesn't change my opinion that neither McCarthy nor Kerr was a particularly good international manager & we should be looking higher up the ladder this time.

[gspain]

Mick McCarthy finished no worse than 2nd in any campaign. I agree he made mistakes particularly in his first campaign.

Brian Kerr finished no better than 3rd. That was our lowest finish since 1985. We finished 4th in his 2nd campaign.

He asked to be judged on results. He was!!!!!

[NeilMcD]

I agree with both GSpain and Tony D on this one. I think the points are well made in Tony's post and it does give a bit of context to the whole debate. But in the end you are judged on your results over 2 campaigns and Gspain is right we did not finish any better than 3rd and we only ever had one super power in our group over the 2 campaigns and that was France. Finishing 3rd maybe ok if we had 2 super power teams like we may have in the next campaign.