Printable View
"and while we are on the subject how many internationals have your teams produced??? Did you lose one game this season??? then I think its time you stepped aside and let a better man in. Results dont lie. Possibly someone from Accross the sea.they do things so much better over there....."
The above was said in a jokey way in a referance to the people clamouring for kerr to be fired on the basis of his "terrible" results.....surely you recognised that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But I dont think Karlos was clamouring for Kerr to be fired
Fair point, and in hindsight, I didn't mean to refer to it as such. Apologies all round.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
All them FAI avators look the same!!!!!:) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
and of course you recognised the irony in my 'haven't coached international players yet' statement.......................the rest however is the truth!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by klein4
For what it's worth, initially I felt it would be wrong to appoint Kerr on the basis of his reults and trophies at youth level (if indeed that was the case). However, he deserved a shot for his excellent development work and unfortunetly it didn't work out for a number of reasons - the players being a big one.
It's difficult to make the step up and that's not just for Kerr........see Peter Taylor, Domenech etc as examples. It's a results game at the top top level - sometimes it's luck as much as anything that can do you out of a job but for me and in my humble opionion looling back on his reign, i didn't feel we really progressed in the way we played, the players that were brought through or in fact the results that we had with McCarthy - not all Kerr's fault but he knew the score when he took the job, the buck stops at the boss and the job was made easy for the FAI. I think whoever had been boss would have got the boot, not just Kerr.
I think we need a shake-up either way - wheter that's with a new boss or new players is open to debate....the best outcome is probably a bit of both.
I agree some of the names being associated with the job and their track records aren't the most convincing but sometimes that works in your favour.......I'm sticking however with my choice of Pat Rice with assistant Liam Brady - two excellent coaches - Rice to deal with our 'star' players and brady to replace 'Givens' and act as number two.
hard to argue with a lot of that but my problem is I think we dont have anyone credible lined up to replace him and I do think we will have to go thru the inevitable settling in period under whatever new manager comes in ....effectively dismissing the next tournament...I think we should have given kerr two more years(which only would have made 4 in all!)
I wouldnt have thought a couple of the performances were anything but muck(cyprus away how are ya!) but a lot of the performances under macarthy were pretty sub standard as well whenever Roy Keane wasnt involved.I thought first 25 minutes against israel at home we played some of the best football we have ever played...( and I know FiFa dont have 25 minute matches to get thru to world cups) but it wasnt all as terrible as people are making out...
Steady on there Neil and Karlos. Those sound suspiciously like well balanced and thought out opinions on the matter:) . Surely that can't be possible from two guys with Ireland avitars;)
It must be the drugs I just took!! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotsy
Jesus :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry The Saint
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry The Saint
as opposed to whelan managing who exactly ?
I agree with alot of what your saying here too.....it's a bit of catch 22 in some ways. If we Leave him in charge and we fall on our face again and we've wasted a year.....then we have to then write off the next campaign too and your looking at 3 major tournamants missed. Of course I'm talking worst case scenario here.Quote:
Originally Posted by klein4
In some ways and don't shoot me......the fai couldn't actually do anything right in this instance as either way, the fans or the media were going to get at them. Support does generally seem to be split amongst the fans and it was gonna bite them in the ass if it didn't work out either way.
If and it's a big IF, they have made this descision based soley on believeing that Kerr cannot take this team any further then I'm reltively ok with that provided they honestly feel that way. All in all it shouldn't be forgotten that it's quite possible we could go on and qualify first time with a new man in charge......it's doesn't feel that way for some and history doesn't suggest it but football is a strange one. Back in Paris in October last year I was full sure we'd win that group......look where that one ended up.
The only other questionable thing for me from this campaign was the return of Roy. I don't want to get started on a Roy debate but I'm not sure this helped Kerr in the end. He had a chance to bring through new blood and mould the team if he wanted. If we were sitting here qualified it would have been a master stoke but it didn't exactly work out like that.......I don't think Roy produced anything like he had under McCarthy (alot due to age of course). Just wondering how the return of Roy made certain board members feel and if that coupled with lack of qualification made it easy to remove Kerr on what appear justifiable grounds as far as results go.
I know Brady was of the view that it was a negative bringing Roy Keane back. However I am have not heard in concrete terms how bringing Roy Keane back was a bad idea or how it could have a negative effect on the squad. A lot of the squad talked an awful lot about how much they learnt from him etc. However I do agree that he did not produce anythingnear the perormances of the 2001 campaign. However I top he was top class against France at home and had a shaky 20 minutes againsts Switzerland away. Israel he was decent. I do think that if we had of had him and Duff against teh Swiss at home we would have won.
I agree with you......I'm not sure it had a negative effect on the team as such but wondering more if it had a knock on effect on Kerr's position as manager. I'm not totally sure if there's some original members of the saipan fun and games still about in the FAI who mightn't have been too hot on the idea in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
In fairness to Roy and I'm not one of his biggest fans, he played as well as anyone else did over the campaign. Duff however was a disapointment for me - maybe expecting too much from him but i haven't really seen hm deliver competively in a long while.
I thought it was the right thing to do to bring keane back. Small country,Limited resources, pick your best players available.I think Brady should be a legend in this country after his playing career but he just comes accross as such an unlikeable bitter person.what about his assertion that the next manager should be keane after him saying all along that he should never have been allowed back to play for them? now he thinks he should be manager...bit of P.R. from liamo.....
I don't agree that Brady is a bitter man. He was one of our all time best players, gave everthing for his country when he played and was denied the chance to play in a major finals by a combination of suspension/injury. I think his feeling about the Saipan incident was that Roy should have held fire until after the finals. Brady would have given his right arm to play in them and i think he feels Keane should have put that before any other consideration at the time. Brady used to come home from Italy and play in every mickey mouse friendly that was organised at a time when it took alot more effort and time to make the journey. He would have still got his game even if he hadn't bothered to turn uop for the friendlies. I don't necessarily agree with his opinion on Keane coming back to play but he at least calls it as he sees it, not like some. The issue of Keane as manager is a different issue. I think the fact that Brady thinks he would be good as manager shows he isn't bitter and doesn't hold grudges.
the article in last weeks tribune were he says he wants keane to be manager was so dripping in back handed compliments it was unreal....he is always very negative when it comes to the irish team as well no matter who the manager is..giles always calls it as he sees it but he isnt a bitter oul fart about it like brady..
I was in a pub recently and Brady had a pint of Stout so I can confirm that he is not a Bitter man
I will get my coat
I don't think Brady is negative. He's just honest about what is a very poor team.
I have alot of time for Giles also.
On the question of the new FAI logo, needless to say I like it. It amalgamates the FAI into Ireland and the football is in the shape of the shamrock. It's quite clever and distictive. I don't actually have a jersey with the new logo which I suspect is harder for counterfeiters to copy but I do have a jersey with the old logo, which is my Avatar, but which I bought in the last few years - they were selling old replica jerseys and it has no sponsors name across the chest. However, the old logo is very simplistic and easily copied and non distictive.
It is the logo worn by the national team which plays its football under the auspicies of the FAI. For all those "I hate the FAI heads", it doesn't mean you support the FAI when you wear the logo. I've been at many club football games with fans chanting "sack the Board", with those fans wearing the logo of the club on their jerseys.
Some people suffer from Faiphobia.
I didn't respond to your recent comment on another thread that there's a lot of good in the FAI, especially at grass roots level. I agree totally. But their lack of control over & investment in the senior game & their perpetual incompetence in governing the national sides is unforgivable.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
Form a purely visual point of view, the new logo is vile in my opinion. It reflects everything bad about the way the broad media industry has taken hold of people's psyches over the last decade. The whole Alastair Campbell / Big Brother / Heat magazine / Murdoch / Richard Keyes / Sky ethos that promotes style over substance is reflected in this logo if you ask me (not that i expect anyone is doing!).
It's being clever for the sake of being clever, I hate it and it's an embarassment. I've worn it to the pub several times on match day and my non-Irish mates ask me "what the *** is that?" Why does our logo have to signify anything in some subliminal intangible artistic message connecting our history & our future? Some smartarse with a pencil incorporates footballs, shamrocks and rising stars into a clever drawing. Whoopy bleedin' ding.
It shows how out of touch the FAI is with the essence of the national team & the most basic outward image of the national team: its jersey. I dreamt as a kid of wearing a green shirt with a shamrock on it. The 1988/1990 era crest was just about acceptable but the last two have been horrendous.
Bring back the simple shamrock. How I envy the IRFU their crest.
Paul Le Guen to be new rangers manager....so he is out of running