Staunton on the Late Late tonight

[NeilMcD]

So basically whoever Delaney appointed was going to be tarnished in your view and the views of other here as they had been Delaneys choice. The manager should not be criticised or mis-quoted (as has happened on this thread) just cause he was appointed by a CEO who looks to be pretty incompetent.

[nedder]

I don't think he'll get anymore leeway than any other manager. At the end of the day, he will be judged on results. final.

[klein4]

so basically if he finishes outside top two he should be gotten rid of then after the euro qualifiers? if judged on results?
(and neilMcd will you give it a rest with this misquote lark already,it was obvious to anyone with half a brain it wasnt a direct quote from delaney or staunton)

[Dublin12]

Being realistic a 3rd place finish is what I think we'll be aiming for no matter who we draw tomorrow,there are gonna be 3 top teams above us and if we can finish above one of them it'll be a job well done.We don't have the players to cover the positions,if Duff,Keane,Given,Dunne get injured we are in serious trouble as seen against the Swiss when we were missing our 2 best players.

[NeilMcD]

You said it was a quote from Stuanton and Delaney so I can only go on what you said.

[klein4]

Well I think people can no see that the best option is to ignore all posts from Klein 4 if you want to deal in intelligent debate about football.
well if you want to go into quotes start with the above.....best example EVER of someone practicing what they preach....:D :D :D

[Karlos]

Being realistic a 3rd place finish is what I think we'll be aiming for no matter who we draw tomorrow,there are gonna be 3 top teams above us and if we can finish above one of them it'll be a job well done.We don't have the players to cover the positions,if Duff,Keane,Given,Dunne get injured we are in serious trouble as seen against the Swiss when we were missing our 2 best players.

I agree with your comments here. I think 3rd place is the most relaistic aim at the moment. It will be an improvement on 4th and a step in the right direction. I feel the expectation is already been set way to high with demands of top a 2 finish. If we finish in the top 2 I'll be extremely happy but top 3 and a sign of progress should be enough to keep Stan in the job - as it was for Kerr when he took over from McCarthy (although I still maintain we should have qualified from that group regardless of the first two results but Kerr certainly deserved another campaign after it)

[klein4]

3rd ,4th or last the end result is the same....seems what was unacceptable a month or so ago is now suddenly acceptable...

[Karlos]

3rd ,4th or last the end result is the same....seems what was unacceptable a month or so ago is now suddenly acceptable...

It was unacceptable considering the postition we were in, the players we had (e.g. Keane, Cunningham etc) and a manger that was in the job 3 years. It's a completely different scenario now, with a new boss, some new players and a fresh start. If it must be compared, then it should be against the first campaigns by Kerr & McCarthy not a campaign 3 years into their reign. It's just simple logic.

If qualification was the only issue for us then Kerr would have walked in 2003 when we were in touching distance of euro 2004 with 3 Kerr games to go regardless of what happened in the first two. The fact is despite non-qualification at that stage the team had shown improvement and he was rightly given another campaign imo.

The team however did not make any further improvement in the following campaign and in places, played worse. That's not progress in anyone's mind. As it stands now Stan takes a team that finished 3rd and then 4th into a group with 3 teams that will be stronger than us (at least on paper).

I want to see progress in the team and my expectation is that finishing 3rd would be progress although I don't believe for a second that's what we should or will aim for.

I'd have been all for keeping Kerr despite non-qualification if I honestly felt that the team had improved over the last campaign and just went out becuase luck conspired against us.

[NeilMcD]

Fair post there Karlos. I was in 2 minds about Kerr going or not but it does seem that team morale was pretty low and the performances were going down hill rather than up hill. We only had 1 got performance in all the competitive games under Kerr. So its a bit churlish to just simply say he was sacked because we did not qualify and therefore that should be the only judge of a manager from now on. As usual the evidence is in the detail with these things. I think if we have a very poor campaign for 2008 there will be pressure to remove Staunton. However if we come 3rd and are not far of 2nd and we show progress then he will be kept on just like Mc Carthy and Kerr were kept on after their 1st campaigns.

[eirebhoy]

klein4 - most people will know I was pro-Kerr but in your case I think its just bias.

"3rd ,4th or last the end result is the same....seems what was unacceptable a month or so ago is now suddenly acceptable..."

Lets reverse that and say, failing to qualify for two tournaments under Kerr was acceptable, failing to qualify for one under Stan will be unacceptable?

I'll give Staunton until the end of his contract unless he really fecks the place up which I doubt is going to happen.

[klein4]

biased? why? I just think we should be aiming to qualify for every tournament. we shouldnt be writing them off because we have appointed a manager who has never managed before and he needs time to learn.he is either good enough now or is it not. its pretty much the same team as kerr had minus keane who was injured and off form for a lot of the qualifiers and cunningham who is very much replaceable.if anything we have some good players coming thru.we already have people on here saying on the one hand they are optimistic about staunton and the other that they would be happy with finishing 3rd and making some "progress".now if thats not double standards what is? What if we finished third yet the two top seads totally ran away with it and we are not in contention from early on? is that better than fourth with bein in with a shout til the last match? positions in the goup mean feck all outside of the top two. he should be sacked if his team are not in contention to qualify. cause that would just show he cant manage and shouldnt be persevered with.

[Den Perry]

You hit the nail on the head there Karlos. Quotes are have been attributed to Steve Staunton to get a point across. Yet there is no source for these quotes. How can we trust or believe the argument been put across if we have no reference point. That is what I find boring and to me comes across as more of a rant against Staunton really. There are many reason for criticising the FAI or Stauntons credential but they should be backed up by hard evidence. If that happens well then I would have no problem with the post.

As Karlos has backed up I have no problem disagreeing with people and then at a later date agreeing with that same person about a different point.

Such as the hard evidence used by Delaney in proving Staunton's credentials and for the most important job in Irish football??

[NeilMcD]

That is just one sentence there why not put a clear argument with clearly argued points why you think that Staunton is not ther right man for the job and where that we are giving up on qualification to Euro 2008.

[klein4]

because it only took one sentance to dismiss your latest "novel" as rubbish...?

[NeilMcD]

Which novel is that now Klein. YOu will find that I put forward a lengthy piece on Staunton which was balanced and based on fact but also had a bit of opinion contained in it. Several people who do not agree with me on several issues said it was a good post or a well argued post. All I am saying is that I look forward to reading interesting posts that are balanced and contain facts but also have good amount of opinion contained in the argument. One line smart comments or rants with not factual back up are boring to me. That is why I will read posts by posters like Eirebhoy and Stuttgart and Karlos and Tired and Emotional. All of them have varied range of opinions on Kerr and Staunton but none of them tend to rant on this forum.

[Den Perry]

That is just one sentence there why not put a clear argument with clearly argued points why you think that Staunton is not ther right man for the job and where that we are giving up on qualification to Euro 2008.

Is this clear enough for you?
1. The only "managerial experience" he had was as assistant coach at WALSALL
2.Far more experienced candidate with proven success
3. After publicly humiliating his captain at World Cup 2002, many players would find it hard to trust him
4.He refers on National television to "the Granny rule". While this in itself is not a crime, it is highly embarrassing for the manager of our national team to use such phraseology....it sets the tone that we shall be going back to the give it a lash ideology .....

[NeilMcD]

Fair enough Dan you are getting better at this.


I agree he does not have any managerial experience. I do not think he should have got the job. However now that he does I am not going to shoot him down before anything has begun. One could also argue that Van Basten, Hughes Klinsmann, did not have any experience before they took over their country.


Who was the more experienced candidate with proven success. Are you refering to Also I say fair enough I would have preferred Aldridge and he should have at leat got an interview.

I think point 3 you are on dodgy ground as many players took the same side that Staunton did which was to play on and not say anything in favour of Keane at the time or since and they supported Mc Carthy just like Staunton did.

I agree the Granny Rule reference is a nonesense as Kerr did as much as any previous manager but the talent was not there. I thought it was a very simplistic and naive answer from Staunton and it does not fill me with optimisn with answers like that.

[klein4]

Which novel is that now Klein. YOu will find that I put forward a lengthy piece on Staunton which was balanced and based on fact but also had a bit of opinion contained in it. Several people who do not agree with me on several issues said it was a good post or a well argued post. All I am saying is that I look forward to reading interesting posts that are balanced and contain facts but also have good amount of opinion contained in the argument. One line smart comments or rants with not factual back up are boring to me. That is why I will read posts by posters like Eirebhoy and Stuttgart and Karlos and Tired and Emotional. All of them have varied range of opinions on Kerr and Staunton but none of them tend to rant on this forum.
self praise is no praise at all neil...

[Den Perry]

Fair enough Dan you are getting better at this.


I agree he does not have any managerial experience. I do not think he should have got the job. However now that he does I am not going to shoot him down before anything has begun. One could also argue that Van Basten, Hughes Klinsmann, did not have any experience before they took over their country.


Who was the more experienced candidate with proven success. Are you refering to Also I say fair enough I would have preferred Aldridge and he should have at leat got an interview.

I think point 3 you are on dodgy ground as many players took the same side that Staunton did which was to play on and not say anything in favour of Keane at the time or since and they supported Mc Carthy just like Staunton did.

I agree the Granny Rule reference is a nonesense as Kerr did as much as any previous manager but the talent was not there. I thought it was a very simplistic and naive answer from Staunton and it does not fill me with optimisn with answers like that.

The experienced canddate I referred to was Venables. I would not have let Aldridge near the job. He has been proven as a failure...at least Staunton hasn't....YET

[NeilMcD]

self praise is no praise at all neil...

Its called defending my posts and my track record of posting. Do you do anything else other than **** stir on this have you ever put forward a post that was reasoned and well argued.

[Karlos]

biased? why? I just think we should be aiming to qualify for every tournament.. So does everyone else - I even went as far as saying that's what i bleieve we would aim for, so you wouldn't get that impression.


we shouldnt be writing them off because we have appointed a manager who has never managed before and he needs time to learn.he is either good enough now or is it not. There's writing someone off and then there's being realistic about a team that's failed to qualify or beat a team of note competitively since 2001 - two completely different ball parks. Why should we expect top 2 when we haven't done it in 4 years and have only done it a handful of times in our existance.


we already have people on here saying on the one hand they are optimistic about staunton and the other that they would be happy with finishing 3rd and making some "progress".now if thats not double standards what is?
What if we finished third yet the two top seads totally ran away with it and we are not in contention from early on? is that better than fourth with bein in with a shout til the last match? positions in the goup mean feck all outside of the top two. he should be sacked if his team are not in contention to qualify. cause that would just show he cant manage and shouldnt be persevered with.

I assume your having a pop at me here. Please explain to me how being optimitic about a new manager who I think will make acceptable progress in the job is double standards?? I mean if I said I'm optimistic but I think we'll finish bottom then I'd understand but this makes no sence whatsoever. I'm am optimistic that we will improve and develop as a team - that's progress in my eyes. I'll maintain that we for a number of year now have expectations far greater than our ability. As a 4th seed in the group we will face at least 3 teams considered better than us. I expect us to challenge all of them and have no doubts we will. I think a campaign where we play good football, develop the team and make progress will be vital even if it means we don't ultimately qualify and finish behind two World Class outfits. Why oh why can people only see progress in results. I said it two posts back and i'll say it again, I'd have kept Brian Kerr in his job if the team were making progress. I don't think our performances improved at all over the second part of his reign and I'm happy to see a new man try and take us forward..

What your suggesting is that a new manager comes in and the players are good enough so that's it - there's no reason why we shouldn't qualify and the manager should get saked if we don't. Football doesn't work like that and if it did we'd have saked every Manager that didn't qualify for a tournament (including Kerr & McCarthy) and would have had 20 managers at this stage and little to show for it. There's a whole load of work that needs to be done with this team. It's far from being a team like the one Kerr inherited as you appear to be suggesting in your Keane/Cunningham comparrisons. We'll have to blood new talent that has never played international football possibly in vital areas of the first team. It won't be a case like the last campaign where we threw someone like Elliot in because injury alone dictated it, it'll be a definate necessity this time around.

[klein4]

Its called defending my posts and my track record of posting. Do you do anything else other than **** stir on this have you ever put forward a post that was reasoned and well argued.
I amnt stirring. I would say I just disagree with you on most things but seeing as you sit on the fence on everything that cant be the case.