Monday Guardian article

Just had a read of the Guardian article written by Paul Doyle "A Bryan shame".
AFAIR this journalist never lets an opportunity drop when it come to pouring vitriol on Irish managers.

PD snip

"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. 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."

I missed that part of the game in Paris where Kerr decided to become negative. Possession stats at one stage in 2nd half were still 60/40.

PD snip
"His reasoning? Ireland would beat all three at home so there was no need to beat them away. That assumed his team had some kind of magical immunity to injuries, suspensions, bad referees and inspired opposition goalkeepers. And that France will be missing as many players in Dublin next September as they were in Paris last October. It's a woefully misguided policy."

Did anyone ever hear this reasoning from Kerr?
Doyle's statement that Kerr has a" woeful misguided policy" is based on a false assumption arising from his own speculation.

PD snip
"Kerr should simply have helped himself to away victories when they were offered to him on a plate. By declining, he ensured that Saturday's shambles was an accident waiting to happen. To reach Germany, Ireland now need to be flawless in their remaining four games. With Kerr in charge, they've no chance."

Tel Aviv maybe but I don't see that the swiss and french games were offered on a plate.


The tone for his articles articles usually personal and spiteful.
IMO if Duff had ducked in time at the corner post all this stuff about Kerrs tactics would have turned to hailing the substitution of (an ineffective?) Reid with Docherty as masterclass. G Kavanagh tried his best but he obviously cannot duplicate Roy K.
As for claims that Elliot should have been the substitute, so far he has shown very little in internationals that he would yet be a shoe-in replacement and a huge gamble in such a game when 2-0 up. Against the Faroes, circumstances might put him in the starting line up and thats fair enough,

Yes, this guy clearly has an axe to grind with Kerr. He had a dig at him after Israel too.

And yes there were a whole host of reasons why we failed to win this game, not all of them Kerr's fault by any stretch.

But I can't disagree at all with the tactical criticism. Our lack of action from the bench was inexcusable in Tel Aviv and the changes he did make in Dublin cost us dearly.

The only difference between my view of the last 2 games and Paul Doyle's is the tone. I still support Kerr and would love to see him recover from his errors as long as he learns from them. Chris Hughton has tons of experience and is very highly qualified. He oughn't be above criticism either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Just had a read of the Guardian article written by Paul Doyle "A Bryan shame".
AFAIR this journalist never lets an opportunity drop when it come to pouring vitriol on Irish managers.

PD snip

"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. 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."

I missed that part of the game in Paris where Kerr decided to become negative. Possession stats at one stage in 2nd half were still 60/40.

PD snip
"His reasoning? Ireland would beat all three at home so there was no need to beat them away. That assumed his team had some kind of magical immunity to injuries, suspensions, bad referees and inspired opposition goalkeepers. And that France will be missing as many players in Dublin next September as they were in Paris last October. It's a woefully misguided policy."

Did anyone ever hear this reasoning from Kerr?
Doyle's statement that Kerr has a" woeful misguided policy" is based on a false assumption arising from his own speculation.

PD snip
"Kerr should simply have helped himself to away victories when they were offered to him on a plate. By declining, he ensured that Saturday's shambles was an accident waiting to happen. To reach Germany, Ireland now need to be flawless in their remaining four games. With Kerr in charge, they've no chance."

Tel Aviv maybe but I don't see that the swiss and french games were offered on a plate.


The tone for his articles articles usually personal and spiteful.
IMO if Duff had ducked in time at the corner post all this stuff about Kerrs tactics would have turned to hailing the substitution of (an ineffective?) Reid with Docherty as masterclass. G Kavanagh tried his best but he obviously cannot duplicate Roy K.
As for claims that Elliot should have been the substitute, so far he has shown very little in internationals that he would yet be a shoe-in replacement and a huge gamble in such a game when 2-0 up. Against the Faroes, circumstances might put him in the starting line up and thats fair enough,

---

Well he woulld have against the Israilies.

I thought that much of the criticism was harsh, to be honest. You have to wonder why, oh why, he thought putting Duff up front would be a good idea when it has never once proved to be effective. That was a crucial decision. But the Israelis only got into the game through a great header and a rubbish penalty. I thought the team gave their absolute all. Gary Docherty won every ball that came his way, the Israelis couldn't touch him, we just didn't have the finishing touch.