Was Kerr a relative success?

[Kevin77]

I know hindsight is 20/20, but I am wondering if this question has been considered on here.

Think about it? 5-2 to Cyprus! Cyprus for Christ's sake.

When you look at the team's achievment's in the last World Cup Qualifiers (not great, I know - but they look a million miles from losing 5-2 to Cyprus - we actually beat them home and away). They drew in Paris to the eventual World Cup finalists (France), admittedly lost 1-0 at home - does this seem so bad compared to what might yet happen tonight? They drew twice with eventual World Cup quarter finalists Switzerland (they were boring in the world cup - but we'd take the quarter finals and I'd challenge anyone to say we have worse players on paper than the Swiss). The Israel results were arguably poor results (I'd argue we should have won both, especially the home leg), but it could also be argued we were fiercely unlucky.

Perhaps Kerr was an unlucky manager and had we hung on against Israel maybe that would have been us boring the World to tears against the Ukraine? Perhaps?

What I do know is that under Kerr we never lost 5-2 to feckin Cyprus. The lowpoint was the 2-0 in Basle and probably the Israel games. While we were killed by those results, we were never so utterly humiliated.

Are the players that much worse at his disposal? I'd argue no perhaps much of a muchness? He has lost Roy Keane and Cunningham who were becoming more and more ineffectual with age from the last campaign, but players like Richard Dunne, Stephen Reid, Kevin Doyle and Aiden McGeady have come along either fulfilled their potential or are approaching what we have hoped for.

I read an argument that while we are a team in transition, that is no excuse for losing to a side that equates to no more than a team equivelant to the best of the eircom league garnished with a couple of reasonable strikers that play Champions League football for Greek sides. Not just losing. Getting well and truly hammered.

So in hindsight, perhaps the sacking of Kerr was the worst to happen.

It reminds me of the situation at Newcastle when the fans were calling for Bobby Robson's head. Little did they know that once he was gone, things were going to get far worse under Graham Souness regime.

So what do you think? Did Kerr get more out of a mediocre group of players than we gave him credit for? Or is Staunton just really unlucky and this horrible result is a one off abberation (can we count the 0-4 friendly loss to the Dutch as further proof against him?)?

Anyone?

[paul_oshea]

NO!!!

and i only put in any exclamations in because a post has to have 5 chars min, a simple
No
would have been enough.

[galwayhoop]

he was. if your saying a relative success and that meaning relative to what we have now then most definately yes.

i have no axe to grind with stan but i have with the peoples who put hime there (we were promised a world class manager). here are the fact as i see them:

1. we were within a win in our 2 campaigns from qualifing for play offs at least.
2. in 1st campaign kerr took charge after we had already lost to the eventual two top teams.
3. he only had 1 full campaign and we were only a goal against the swiss from knocking them out.
4. the only team we lost to was the eventual WC runners up
5. granted we drew to israel twice when we should of won but nobody else in the group beat them and in fact they are the longest unbeaten team in european international football (maybe world football) having not lost in 3 years.
6. we never got hammered under him while we've lost 2 of our last 3 games by large margins.
7. while mostly our wins came in friendlies this was enough to keep our fifa rating up so by all this talk of 2010 we would be in a stronger position for that anyway.

i'm not saying he was bill shankly or anything but a hell of a lot better than what we have and from what i fear from what we will have. his major flaw was he was unable to motivate the players as his predessors had been able but if you listen the keane in relation to man united before he left this is rife in football in general nowadays. players prespective is gone out the window and are now immersed in a greed culture when the paycheck is more important than the winning. there are very few managers who seem to be able to get players to overperform on a regular basis. 2 i can think of are martin o'neill and sam alldaryce. if kerr was replaced with either of these it would be an improvement but to be replaced by a novice (and i bear no ill to stan) is a shambles and obviously in relation to this, yes, kerr was a relative success.

[Hibs4Ever]

Some great points there Galwayhoop, well said

[drinkfeckarse]

I was of the opinion that Kerr should go as I felt he didn't have the full dressing room and some of our performances were passionless.

Having said that, things have got worse under Stan so in that respect he's better than him. Two wrongs don't make a right though. Both were not cut out for it in my opinion.

[Calcio Jack]

IMO he was crap as well..... perhaps the question should be ; "Was Kerr a relative failure.."

[barney]

Kerr was a failure.

When was the last time, pre-Kerr that we failed to land second place in a group? 1985 under Eoin Hand. Thats eight campaigns.

How many top 70 teams did we beat under him in competition? None. Not Israel, not Switzerland and not Russia.

[ccfcman]

Well, I mean, Kerr at the time was a failure in many people's eyes, but people forget, we were going to the playoffs were it not for a wonder strike from Henry :/

Sure we had a few dodgy games vs Cyprus and points dropped against Israel, but we more than matched France, and were again rued by the ******* Swiss [clearly our #1 bogey team]

Looking back at it, we had a good man in Kerr, i would have expected him to pick up 5 points out of the Germany, Cyprus and Czech matches myself, whereas Stan is just picking up the pieces of a bloody disaster.

[tetsujin1979]

Success relative to what? To other Ireland managers? To Staunton, yes. To Mick, no - Mick never finished outside second spot. To Jack, no - qualified for 3 of the 5 qualifying series he was manager for.

[endabob1]

Kerr was a failure.

When was the last time, pre-Kerr that we failed to land second place in a group? 1985 under Eoin Hand. Thats eight campaigns.

How many top 70 teams did we beat under him in competition? None. Not Israel, not Switzerland and not Russia.

How many top 70 teams did we lose to? By tonight Stan will be level 2 in 4 years and 2 in 2 months!
How many teams outside the top 70 did we lose to? Stan is already ahead of the game here.

Kerr did lose his way and in particular against Israel and his refusal to accept that those 2 games were the ones when we should have grabbed the group by the nuts. I was only happy he was going because like millions of others I was led to believe we were getting someone better. What he gave is us a shambles that I wouldn't have imagined in my worst of nightmares.

[BaZmO*]

Relative to Stan's performances and results so far he was a rip-roaring success.

[BaZmO*]

Well, I mean, Kerr at the time was a failure in many people's eyes, but people forget, we were going to the playoffs were it not for a wonder strike from Henry :/
I'm sorry, but that's BS. You shouldn't be focusing on losing to France you should be focusing on not getting results for Israel and the Swiss.

[Dodge]

Relative to the crap standard of players he had. Yes. Charlton had McGrath then Keane, McCarthy had Kean 9in qualfying anyway). Kerr had nobody bar a world class keeper (who might get you draws but won't win you games). Kerr did exceptionally well to get within a goal of qualifying with these players and Staunton is proving that now.

And Before anyone starts, Keane was finished by the time Kerr got him to play

[Pablo]

Kerr wasnt given the time that McCarthy did. At least he knew how to organise a team :(

[eirebhoy]

I'm sorry, but that's BS. You shouldn't be focusing on losing to France you should be focusing on not getting results for Israel and the Swiss.
Sure, but at the end of the day a Thierry Henry goal was the only difference between us and France (our other 9 results were the exact same as France's). Israel, Switzerland, France and Ireland are teams that don't lose and especially at home. As someone has said Israel are doing very well and maybe this is their year to qualify for a major championships. Switzerland didn't concede a goal in the world cup while France didn't lose a match at the world cup.

Kerr was really unlucky imo. For the Euro 2004 qualifiers he decided to stick with Mick's players and hope for the best (he could have did a Stan and say he was rebuilding). This is the team that failed to beat Russia:
Given, Carr, O’Shea (Harte, 26), Cunningham, Breen, Holland, Healy, Carsley (Reid, 45), Kilbane, Duff, Morrison (Doherty, 73).

^ No Robbie Keane and a pretty mediocre team.

and the team that failed in Switzerland:
Given, Carr, Breen, O’Shea, Harte, Duff, Holland, Healy, Kilbane, Connolly, Keane.
Subs: Morrison for Connolly (58 mins), Kinsella for Holland, Finnan for Kilbane (75 mins).

^ No captain Cunningham.

I think it's really unfair to take anything from those qualifiers. He can obviously be judged by the WC qualifiers and on paper it was a definite failure. It wasn't his fault we didn't beat Israel at home though. That was the unluckiest Ireland performance I can remember. We conceded a header from outside the bloody box and then a penalty. We should have won by 5 goals and 99 times out of 100 we would have.

After that morale just dropped and when a decent performance against France resulted in nothing it was at rock bottom. The crucial Switzerland match comes along and our only creative player, Duff, is injured. We never looked like scoring.

I don't think Kerr was a relative success as we didn't even get to a playoff but I rate him highly as a coach. If I bought a club and I was looking for a manager he'd be the first person I'd be after. :)

As others have said it's a very vague question.

[theworm2345]

Yes, one goal/3 points away from the World Cup Playoff is a relative success

[BaZmO*]

Sure, but at the end of the day a Thierry Henry goal was the only difference between us and France (our other 9 results were the exact same as France's). Israel, Switzerland, France and Ireland are teams that don't lose and especially at home. As someone has said Israel are doing very well and maybe this is their year to qualify for a major championships. Switzerland didn't concede a goal in the world cup while France didn't lose a match at the world cup.
I just think it's too simplistic a view to say that the "only" reason why we didn't qualify was purely down to 2 seconds of genius by Henry.



Sure, but at the end of the day a Thierry Henry goal was the only difference between us and France (our other 9 results were the exact same as France's). Israel, Switzerland, France and Ireland are teams that don't lose and especially at home. As someone has said Israel are doing very well and maybe this is their year to qualify for a major championships. Switzerland didn't concede a goal in the world cup while France didn't lose a match at the world cup.

Kerr was really unlucky imo. For the Euro 2004 qualifiers he decided to stick with Mick's players and hope for the best (he could have did a Stan and say he was rebuilding). This is the team that failed to beat Russia:
Given, Carr, O’Shea (Harte, 26), Cunningham, Breen, Holland, Healy, Carsley (Reid, 45), Kilbane, Duff, Morrison (Doherty, 73).

^ No Robbie Keane and a pretty mediocre team.

and the team that failed in Switzerland:
Given, Carr, Breen, O’Shea, Harte, Duff, Holland, Healy, Kilbane, Connolly, Keane.
Subs: Morrison for Connolly (58 mins), Kinsella for Holland, Finnan for Kilbane (75 mins).

^ No captain Cunningham.

Ah now, I think you're being very selective there. Cunningham wasn't good enough to get us the win against Russia but somehow he was the missing saviour against the Swiss?

[eirebhoy]

Ah now, I think you're being very selective there. Cunningham wasn't good enough to get us the win against Russia but somehow he was the missing saviour against the Swiss?
I think we're seeing now with our current defence how big a part Cunningham played. A Breen-O'Shea partnership would be doing really well to keep a clean sheet against any team. :)

[dfx-]

Ridiculous early hindsight here...

We'd actually need a actual manager to succeed him to be able to compare whether he was a relative success. We haven't had that yet.

[Metrostars]

I just think that we (as fans) underestimated Switzerland and Israel. We expected to beat them, at least at home. Just look at how well the Swiss did in the World Cup. And it is also interesting to note that Huddink and his Russian side couldnt beat Israel last Saturday.

We are very much on the same level as Switzerland and Israel(who have not lost a competitive match for almost three years ). We still had a great chance until the last day to get to the playoffs. We just did not have enough quality/killer instinct/luck to get it done on the day.

[youngirish]

Kerr was proven numerous times to be too poor a manager to be a success at the top level. He did know the basics on keeping the defence organised, however.

Staunton on the other hand is an absolute joke. The man's a dunce. He needs to go asap before he drags us into the mire for the next decade.

[Declan_Michael]

Kerr was a complete and utter failure. The writing was on the wall when we lost 2-0 to the Swiss in '03. Our qualifying group for the World Cup was relativly easy. Inability to take maxime points from Israel proved Kerr was not up to the job. He inherited a decent side from McCarthy - one with World Cup experience behind it. Half the point of appointing Kerr was to get Keane back in the fold and still we failed. If you blame 'wonder strikes' and injuries you shouldn't bother turning up.

We have Staunton now because no experienced manager if their right mind would take the job. Face it we are still picking up the pieces from Saipan. Knee jerk reactions (Sack McCarthy! Sack Kerr! Sack Delaney! Reinstate Keane!have ended 2 and a bit decades of punching above our weight on the international scence.

[Jerry The Saint]

Inability to take maxime points from Israel proved Kerr was not up to the job.

Would you consider an inability to take maximum points from Israel proof that Guus Hiddink isn't up to the job of Russian manager:confused: Similarly for Kuhn, Domenech?

[Billsthoughts]

Yeah Israel are by no means a crap team.
why do people still peddle this rubbish?
They trained on a weekly basis for that group and it showed in the way they battled and played as a team for every point. Surely wont be long before they reach a major finals.

[Declan_Michael]

You have to look at what we achieved under the supposedly inept McCarthy in the previous world cup campaign. Draws against Portugal and Holland (away). Also the victory against Holland. Kerr had a more experienced team we should have taken more than take 2 points off Israel and not even getting a play-off place. Have got nothing against Kerr but wiping the slate clean when he was appointed (ie end of the Charlton/McCarthy era) hasn't worked. Whose name is being called for now- Aldridge student of the Charlton age! 2003-06 has done terrible damage to the team there is more to this than blaming Stephen Staunton.

[el punter]

For me, success as an Ireland manager = qualifying for tournaments. It's black and white as far as I'm concerned - even if your only failing as a manager was not to be lucky enough.

[barney]

If Brian Kerr spoke with an English accent and came from Doncaster instead of Dublin, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

He should be judged on results, nothing else. He failed badly to live up to the standard that was set by the two men that went before him. There is no excuse for not beating France, Israel, Switzerland or Russia over eight games. The bad luck excuse only goes so far.

If his supposed skills and long term plans for the development of the game were as good as some of his supporters say, then maybe the FAI should have employed him in another role.

However, as manager of the senior team, he was in the results business, and he clearly failed to deliver results.

[Condex]

No....

[rambler14]

He was a chancer!

[Donal81]

I had a feeling this would happen once Stan didn't get the results...

I thought at the time that Kerr deserved another chance but that he didn't make it difficult for Delaney to decide against renewing his contract. He deserved as much time as McCarthy but some of his results were so poor and the style of play was so spirit-crushing that he didn't have that many fans to fight his corner and it was easy for Delaney.

I didn't think he was a crap manager and deserved another campaign. But when you drop points the way he did against the Swiss and Israel, fans don't sob when you get the chop.

I thought with plenty of the performances that it was the players that were at fault. I know that a manager has to take the hit for his team's performance but watching Ireland against the Swiss in the campaign's last game, it was clear that our team wasn't interesting in taking the game to the lame opposition, apart from Shay Given (and there wasn't much he could do about it).

Kerr suffered from what Stan suffered from last weekend - the players didn't seem that bothered. The manager is at fault, obviously, but so are the players who forget how to play.

[ccfcman]

I'm sorry, but that's BS. You shouldn't be focusing on losing to France you should be focusing on not getting results for Israel and the Swiss.

Read the rest of my post where it refers to those matches too :/

[DmanDmythDledge]

Kerr was a very good coach and was harshly hounded out of his job by pressure from the media and from fans.

In the Euro 04 qualifying campaign he got us one game away from the playoffs after we lost the first two games.

In the WC 06 qualifying campaign we were in the most tightly contested groups and only failed to qualify when the team switched off at the end in the Israel away game.

The only criticism I have of Kerr is that he failed to change things when we needed a goal against the Swiss. All he did was replace Clinton O'Morrison with the mighty Gary Doherty.

[Stuttgart88]

Read the rest of my post where it refers to those matches too :/
By the way, in reference to your first post, just to point out that even a draw (0-0 or 1-1) vs France would have left us outside the top 2 anyway. So Henry's wonder srtike as you put it wasn't as big a factor as you think. As it turned out, losing the game wasn't what put us out, it was not winning it.


Anyway, it's clear to all and has been for ages that you can put whatever spin you want on Kerr's tenure.

Is he a better manager than Staunton? Yes, probably.

Is he as stubborn as Staunton? Yes, probably.

Did he show any great tactical acumen? No.

Did he have the support of the players? Apparently not.

Which players didn't support him? Don't know, but one of them was Carr so no loss if we'd lost him.

Why did the players not support him?

And so on.

[eirebhoy]

By the way, in reference to your first post, just to point out that even a draw (0-0 or 1-1) vs France would have left us outside the top 2 anyway. So Henry's wonder srtike as you put it wasn't as big a factor as you think. As it turned out, losing the game wasn't what put us out, it was not winning it.
I just checked there and if we drew with France Israel would have actually topped the group on the following rule:

1. greater number of points obtained in matches between the tied teams
2. goal difference in matches between the tied teams
3. greater number of goals scored in matches between the tied teams
4. goal difference in all group matches
5. greater number of goals scored in all group matches
6. a play-off on neutral ground, with extra time and penalties if necessary

It's the first I knew of that. :) Israel scored 7 in their games against the other 3, Switzerland scored 5, we scored 4 and France just the 3. If we drew 0-0 or 1-1 with France they would have finished 4th.

[bennocelt]

yes if you are called norn iron or wales
no if you are the republic of ireland

[wws]

he earned a second full campaign on the basis of what mccarthy got (there was also a questionable bonus paid to McCarthy)

Anyone who cites the Israel matches as some sort of whip to beat him with inherently does not understand football, people using this argument should be shunned by society at large and re housed in the tiny islands that dot our beautiful coastline.
He earned is second shot at it (I do not rate his previous campaign as a full campaign as McCarthy had already fcked it up).

Managers - alack and alas dont win games, players do. And teh fact that our stars went from a 5-2 to cyprus to a 1-1 with the czechs (simply on the basis that they would have been tarred and feathered by the great irish public had they repeated their cyprus trick) shows you how petulant the attitude of the players is to the green jersey

[OwlsFan]

1. we were within a win in our 2 campaigns from qualifing for play offs at least.
2. in 1st campaign kerr took charge after we had already lost to the eventual two top teams.

Even after the two defeats we were going to be in with a chance of qualifying because we had all the minnows next and the others dropped points against them. We then only drew against ALbania under Kerr away and scored a last minute winner at home against them and then gave a splineless performance away to the Swiss in the last game. Rose tinted glasses for that campaign.


He only had 1 full campaign and we were only a goal against the swiss from knocking them out.

And we couldn't manage it.


the only team we lost to was the eventual WC runners up

Glass half full. The only teams we beat were Cyprus, who totally outplayed us in Cyprus, and the Faroes (only 2-0 at home). In 6 attempts against the other three sides, we drew 5 and lost 1.


granted we drew to israel twice when we should of won but nobody else in the group beat them and in fact they are the longest unbeaten team in european international football (maybe world football) having not lost in 3 years.

So not winning two games we should have won is a point in favour of Kerr. Hmmmm....


we never got hammered under him while we've lost 2 of our last 3 games by large margins.

We came close to being hammered in Cyprus but for Shay Given saving a peno etc etc.


while mostly our wins came in friendlies this was enough to keep our fifa rating up so by all this talk of 2010 we would be in a stronger position for that anyway.

This I agree with.

When Kerr's reappointment came up for discussion, I said he should only be replaced if we get someone better. We don't seem to have got someone better. I think we should have got someone better and not renewed his contract.

Rose tinted glasses are easy to wear when comparing his tenure to the few games Stan has had in charge. However, other than France away, there wasn't one performance from his teams in competitive games that are worth recalling and some were dire.

[youngirish]

Q. Was Kerr a relative success?
A. Relative compared to who?

[bennocelt]

Anyone who cites the Israel matches as some sort of whip to beat him with inherently does not understand football, people using this argument should be shunned by society at large and re housed in the tiny islands that dot our beautiful coastline.
He earned is second shot at it (I do not rate his previous campaign as a full campaign as McCarthy had already fcked it up).

Managers - alack and alas dont win games, players do. And teh fact that our stars went from a 5-2 to cyprus to a 1-1 with the czechs (simply on the basis that they would have been tarred and feathered by the great irish public had they repeated their cyprus trick) shows you how petulant the attitude of the players is to the green jersey


no, he had 2 campaigns, we had a poor russian team at home, we should have beta them well, we didnt, then the spineless performance against switzerland,
he had his second chance and blew it

managers dont win games! explain fergusons subsitutions in the CL final all those years ago, or what about martin O neill.........how he has turned around a team which shows on the pitch.i would say managers are extremely important to the perforamce of a team

oh by the way, that czech team are overrated as well,

[galwayhoop]

managers dont win games! explain fergusons subsitutions in the CL final all those years ago, or what about martin O neill.........how he has turned around a team which shows on the pitch.i would say managers are extremely important to the perforamce of a team


coincidence, luck!! united should have been dead and buried in that game but for woeful finishing by bayern, saves by schmeichel and they also hit the crossbar from about 6 yards. the fact the goals were scored by the subs is, i think, more of a coincidence than any great managerial excellence. an out stretched leg by sheringham an odd deflection or whatever. both goals came from corners and anyone in the box could of put them away. the winner came as bayern heads dropped as they were facing extra time in a game they should of won comfortably. i'm not one for pointing to individual scenarios as proof of a managers greatness or otherwise. is ferguson a bad manager now because his substitutes in the CL v benfica last year had no impact on the game and united bowed out tamely?

HOWEVER. the fact is that ferguson is a great manager but judge this on his last 20 years not a 3 minute freak show in barcelona. ditto o'neill who has proven time and again that there are few, if any, better at man management and getting the best out of average and limited players. however has o'neill got superb tactical acumen - that i don't know.

questions:
was kerr in the same bracket as these 2 men (o'neill and ferguson)? definately not - but then who is and if they are do you really think they would look to us to further their career.

was he relitively successiful in comparison to the beginning of the staunton regime?
definately yes.

should kerr of been replaced:
by a world class manager - yes
by an inexperienced reserve team coach with less than 6 months coaching - no

[galwayhoop]

1. Even after the two defeats we were going to be in with a chance of qualifying because we had all the minnows next and the others dropped points against them. We then only drew against ALbania under Kerr away and scored a last minute winner at home against them and then gave a splineless performance away to the Swiss in the last game. Rose tinted glasses for that campaign.

2. So not winning two games we should have won is a point in favour of Kerr. Hmmmm....

3. We came close to being hammered in Cyprus but for Shay Given saving a peno etc etc.



1. the old saying is you beat your opponents at home and draw with them away. we had lost to eventual top teams one at home and one away. we drew away with the swiss but we only drew with the russians at home. however each of these countries had a 6 point head start on us at the start. not an easy task so don't think this campaign can be put down to kerr.

2. i was merely pointing out that the israelites have not been defeated in 3 years and went undefeated through the group. not a point of favour with kerr but he is not alone in not beating them.

3. are you having a laugh. granted we dodged a bullet by getting 3 points and were well out played, played useless and deserved to lose. but to say we were a saved penalty from being hammered!
actual score: cyprus 0 - republic of ireland 1
score if penalty scored: cyprus 1 - republic of ireland 1 ... i can see the headlines: ireland hammered 1 all in cyprus.:eek:

[wws]

no, he had 2 campaigns, we had a poor russian team at home, we should have beta them well, we didnt, then the spineless performance against switzerland,
he had his second chance and blew it

managers dont win games! explain fergusons subsitutions in the CL final all those years ago, or what about martin O neill.........how he has turned around a team which shows on the pitch.i would say managers are extremely important to the perforamce of a team

oh by the way, that czech team are overrated as well,

Totally incorrect.
1) He did not have two full campaigns. Totally Incontravertable so stop being silly.

2) The Russians are 'poor' are they? There is no relevant evidence in our comparable football histories or infrastructures and player pools to suggest we have any right to term the Russians "poor". Again stop being silly .

3) "explain fergusons subsitutions in the CL final all those years ago, or what about martin O neill" Galwayhoop gave you a perfectly basic introduction to football 101 in his previous post. Read carefully please. Nothing further to add m'lud.

4) Martin O Neill hasn't 'turned it around at Villa' - he's done well in the short term - the only balanced view of his impact will come when he's managed them for a comparable period to his predecessor. Its called judging like with like - I've no doubt he will in time show he's better than the last guy - but that cant be said at this juncture - its called 'jumping to conclusions'


oh and the swiss perform at a level far in advance of our players over the last 4 years - again completely incontravertable

[youngirish]

Kerr's time in charge was an absolute disaster as far as Ireland are concerned. We went backwards under him after a reasonable period of success under McCarthy. He had better players to work with than McCarthy but got nothing out of them. When he was let go I for one was glad to see the back of him.

Unfortunately Staunton is by all accounts a poorer manager than Kerr and I always believed his appointment would prove to be a disaster. That doesn't mean I want to see Kerr back. I'd much rather someone with a half decent managerial record were given the job. The FAI have f**ked the appointments up twice in a row. Maybe it'll be third time lucky though I doubt it somehow.

[Noelys Guitar]

Why isn't he manager at even a mediocre club or country team now? His handlers and friends in the media have been touting him around since his contract wasn't renewed. Still no takers. Hand (who at one stage was managing the Aer Lingus team while manager of Ireland!), McCarthy, Kerr and Staunton should never have been appointed as managers of Ireland.

[wws]

Why isn't he manager at even a mediocre club or country team now? His handlers and friends in the media have been touting him around since his contract wasn't renewed. Still no takers. Hand (who at one stage was managing the Aer Lingus team while manager of Ireland!), McCarthy, Kerr and Staunton should never have been appointed as managers of Ireland.


most peoplE associated with the Ireland fiasco dont prosper elsewhere....bit of a stigma attached to anyone whos been subjected to association with the FAI

[galwayhoop]

noelys,

lets get this straight, according to you the reason that we are only a mid division european team is down to:

bad managers and nothing to do with players?

nothing to do whatsoever to the fact we have a population of approx. 4 million people, do not have a fully professionall domestic league and also have our sportspeople spread accross gaelic games, rugby, soccer, athletics, and name any other sport you want.

the only good manager we have had in 25 years was jack charlton (he of the long ball game)!

[OwlsFan]

3. are you having a laugh. granted we dodged a bullet by getting 3 points and were well out played, played useless and deserved to lose. but to say we were a saved penalty from being hammered!
actual score: cyprus 0 - republic of ireland 1
score if penalty scored: cyprus 1 - republic of ireland 1 ... i can see the headlines: ireland hammered 1 all in cyprus.:eek:

Selective memory. The performance in that 0-1 game was almost as bad and but for Given (who wasn't playing in the 5-2) it might have been a similar scoreline. Have a look at the thread on that game. RTE described the team performance as "shapeless and leaderless":

http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=30144

[bennocelt]

coincidence, luck!! united should have been dead and buried in that game but for woeful finishing by bayern, saves by schmeichel and they also hit the crossbar from about 6 yards. the fact the goals were scored by the subs is, i think, more of a coincidence than any great managerial excellence. an out stretched leg by sheringham an odd deflection or whatever. both goals came from corners and anyone in the box could of put them away. the winner came as bayern heads dropped as they were facing extra time in a game they should of won comfortably. i'm not one for pointing to individual scenarios as proof of a managers greatness or otherwise. is ferguson a bad manager now because his substitutes in the CL v benfica last year had no impact on the game and united bowed out tamely?



ok i get what you are saying, but he still had those match winners on the bench!

[galwayhoop]

Selective memory

its hardly selective memory as i siad:
'granted we dodged a bullet by getting 3 points and were well out played, played useless and deserved to lose.....'

we could easily of drawn or even lost that game but the fact is we didn't get hammered.

if you want to go down that line about results we got but we could of lost due to saves, last ditch tackles and a rub of the green look no further than holland in sept 2001 where we could of been 3 down inside 20 mins and they should have been awarded a penalty when given tried to get a piggy back off their striker. and also v england (euro 88) but for bonner that day we would of been hammered.

the fact is we bet cyprus in 2005 (albeit very luckily) and got stuffed in 2006. we were not a penalty save from being trashed in 2005 as you stated but we were trashed 10 days ago.

[razor]

i think Kerr got shafted, he deserved more time.
He then sees the defensive coach at Walsall come in and lose 5-2 to Cyprus.
Gauling ain't the word for it.