Who would we have liked as Manager?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

Mick McCarthy showed after his first 2 campaigns which were just as successful/unsuccessful as Kerr's that you can improve a lot in your 3rd term. I think Kerr would definitely be a better option now than Staunton but Delaney didn't want Kerr and I'll reserve my judgement on the new appointment for a while. With the players we have coming through now I'd have liked to see how Kerr would do as the only players to come through during his time in charge was Andy Reid and Liam Miller.

---

Kerr had a lot more to work with than McCarthy. The team was improving under McCarthy. They consistently got to the playoffs, i.e. at least 2nd in a group. Kerr finished 4th.

I'm totally with Colster on all this. Kerr had his chances and took none of them. I saw no signs of encouragement in this campaign since Paris. I thought we were a bit unlucky to lose to France at home but tight games can go either way. I really don't think you can give Kerr much credit for XI top flight footballers putting in a decent performance at home either though. That's the minimum you'd expect. I liked Kerr and would have loved him to succeed but so many of our competitive games under Kerr were painful. I'm glad the Kerr era is over. Or as The Tribune said in October "The End of an Era: McCarthy's Era".

We do have the players. I've seen so many interntational sides with nothing other than a peppering of quality added to mediocrity do well and I see no reason why we shouldn't aim for the same.

Thev FAI should never have suggested they were aiming big or they'd never have provoked the public expression of disappointment. I have concerns over Staunton but he may be able to rectify some of the flaws from Kerr's tenor. Robson, if he's allowed, potentially has plenty to offer. This might work you know. But it will never excuse how this has been handled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by colster

Kerr had a lot more to work with than McCarthy. The team was improving under McCarthy. They consistently got to the playoffs, i.e. at least 2nd in a group. Kerr finished 4th.

---

First of all, you say there was no dissenting voices from the FAI. They're hardly going to slate the manager in public. There were no voices at all from the FAI when there should have been. They came out and publicly backed McCarthy and should have done the same with Kerr.

Kerr did not have a lot more to work with than McCarthy. The team McCarthy left with was the worst team in his time in charge by far. Kerr had to work with that for the first campaign as there was only 1 friendly against Scotland before his first competitive match so no time for dramatic change. McCarthy had better players to work with than Kerr, no question. Maybe Kerr had better strength in depth, I don't know. McCarthy had 8 friendlies before his first competitive. McCarthy had only 1 decent team (Romania) in his first qualifying group and finished 10 points behind them. McCarthy averaged pretty much the same amount of points in his first 2 campaigns as Kerr. If there's 1 thing I'm going to be completely stubborn on and never back down on its that McCarthy's first 2 campaigns were no better than Kerr's given the circumstances. If people think otherwise then IMO they're blinded by McCarthy's excellent 3rd term.

[QUOTE=eirebhoy]First of all, you say there was no dissenting voices from the FAI. They're hardly going to slate the manager in public. There were no voices at all from the FAI when there should have been. They came out and publicly backed McCarthy and should have done the same with Kerr.[QUOTE]

For an organisation that is renowned for infighting it's funny that they had one voice as far as Kerr was concerned.

Quote:

---

Kerr did not have a lot more to work with than McCarthy.

---

I'm comparing the sqaud McCarthy had when he took over compared with the one Kerr had.
When McCarthy took over he had to rebuild an ageing team with very little coming through.

It amazes me how people still jump to the defence of Kerr even know. The fact is he hadn't a clue how to manage a senior international team and he f**ked up all our chances of being at this years WC. The best team he beat in a competitive match in 3 years in charge was Albania. He was given more than enough chances. McCarthy at least always made it to the play-offs. He finished second in each of his 3 campaigns and that's a lot better than Kerr's positions of third and fourth in his two qualifying campaigns.

I'm not overly optimisitc at the appointment of Staunton/Robson but anything is better than letting Kerr f**k up another qualifying campaign. At least we are taking a gamble that might pay off. Sticking with Kerr was guaranteed to lead to humiliating failure again. Fourth in a group containing Israel and Switzerland. Says it all.