Printable View
Correct. However, the facts don't tend to get a look in with people who's only view of McCarthy comes from peeking out of Roy Keane's hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by irishfan86
Personally I think hiring McCarthy again would be too divisive and a backwards step but on his record in comparison to other candidate we could do worse.
Duplicate post
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenerased
not to mention bringing on Matt Holland for his debut just as we were about to walk away from Macedonia with 3 points and automatic qualification for Euro 2000....
Forget Saipan, that's what I'll never forgive McCarthy for....
That was keith O'Neill not Holland. If we finished in second spot in this group everyone would be delighted. McCarthy got us to a stage that we needed that win to qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Ogba
I know it was Keith O'Neill on the post but the fact of the matter is that we were cruising in that match and looked more likely to score again until he brought on Holland to "protect" the lead which gave Macedonia the confidence to attack us....utterly shocking tactics and also a repeat of the ultra-defensive line-up he put out against Croatia (God knows how we held out till the 92nd minute in that game!) only a few days after playing Yugoslavia off the park in Lansdowne.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
Just a couple of examples of his baffling team-selections over the years!
your rebutal is ..your missing my point lad..duff was playing well, but he was playing on the left wing for blacburn not as a striker...harte had a torrid time at left back for the whole qualifiers and was the obvious week link in the team.ina bitter turn of irony knocked us out of the world cup...when he choked for the penalty....he also chose gary kelly ahead of finnan...Quote:
Originally Posted by irishfan86
Cant remember too much upheaval about that at the time , I am open to correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenerased
Did Kelly not play on the right instead of McAteer? Even still, Finnan vs Kelly was a close call at the time. It's only relatively recently that Finnan has built recognition from Irish fans I think.
Criticism of selecting Harte in Japan has to be in the context that Harte had a trapped nerve in his foot during the tournament. His form was dreadful out there. If fit, nobody would have queried his place in the team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eekers
Realistically, the only one still "within the game" is Don Givens (With Howe ceasing to be influential sometime in the last century, and Houghton, with his footballing days long behind him is fundamentally now, 'friend to the stars' & an amiable television guest. Many would say not even a particularly insightful one ) and imho; for The FAI to allow Don Givens, whether qualified to do so or not, to have a say in picking the man who ultimately will decide Don Givens' future employment prospects is bizarre, and 'impartial' only in John Delaneys dictionary.
To say "the process shouldn't be judged on the length of time it is taking, but on who we see appointed at the end of the day" is sadly another FAI oxymoron, as who we see appointed at the end of the day will very much depend on how long this buffoonery takes. (I mean, for better or worse, It wont be Hodgson or Haan now will it? )
A headhunting process fronted by real footballing brains, and a proper Gordon Gekko style businessman who would sell the job was what we required.
Not Inforrmal chats that drag on the length of an Arctic Winter.
These interviews are embarrassing to proper candidates. They suggest that we're ignorant of their qualifications, and frankly are only of benefit to the likes of Howard Kendall & Terry Venables, who, when interviewed alongside real candidates, then have the time to go to Outer mongolia or Eritrea's F.A. and say "Well, I need an answer quickly, lads, The Irish are interested. I was interviewed you know..."
The interviews, in their current format, only serve to offer credibility to the freakishly incredible.
Harte was joint top scorer in the qualifers along with Robbie Keane and had also weighed in with assists. He was weak defensively so Kilbane was required to give cover which Duff wasn't able to give. A lack of options up front meant pushing Duff inside although he was still given freedom to roam. Yes, he'd have been better as an out and out winger then Kilbane but the combination of Harte and Kilbane with Duff up front was a better option then Harte and Duff with AN Other up front. Sometimes players have to move for the good of the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenerased
Kelly was ahead of Finnan on merit at the time, more international experience and had been playing at a higher club level for far longer. Your argument doesn't stand up and is typical of the rewriting of history engaged in since 2002.
Bang on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
he certainly had....Quote:
had also weighed in
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondvillain
its already been noted the likes of kendall, venables and dalglish arent being interviewed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
the thing is that Kelly wasn't ahead on merit at the time. Kelly was a fading force (remember his performance at home against Holland?)and Mick was shown up in his selection of Kelly in the first game by the fact that Finnan came on after 45 (granted for McAteer) and then started the rest of the games...I remember being quite surprised at the time that Kelly was picked to start as he had done nothing to deserve starting...
Who are we interviewing then? I haven't been keeping up with the process in the last few weeks (got depressed about it) but I can't think of many viable candidates out there at the moment who have had a job in the last few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by eekers
so pick on one performance where kelly struggled against a top class dutch attack. kelly was very influential in that wc squad and was very good in much of that campaign and finals. we could all pick on individual selections but overall mick got us to the wc where we performed well above ourselvesQuote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Ogba
the performance epitomised how poorly he was playing for us. he should never have been picked for that game and Finnan, when he came on, dealt with Overmars far more comfortably. Kelly just looked lost just as he did when he started against Cameroon.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
But anyway, Kelly is just an example of various poor selections of Mick's over the years and also shows how overly-loyal/stubborn he was with picking some players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eekers
Even if that comment was made earnestly by a committee member, money on, theres someone in the FAI sniggering up their sleeves at the innocence of it.
The appointment still depends on who's unemployed at the time the interview truck grinds to a halt.
Absolute nonsense, Kelly had been playing well for Leeds and Finnan had only had one season ion the EPL for Fulham under his belt. Finnan came in for McAteer and Kelly also started the rest of the games so how was 'Mick shown up in his selection of Kelly'. Kelly had one of those days against Holland but had a good World Cup by anyone's standards. More rewritting of history.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Ogba
I have no doubt in my mind that Finnan was the better player at the time (a quick wikipedia search shows that he was named in the PFA team of the year 01/02). It is you, sir, that is rewriting history - Kelly wasn't even a first team regular with Leeds at the time (there was a lot of chopping and changing with Danny Mills).Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
Finnan was the up-and-coming player at the time and Kelly was most definitely on the way out. Don't know how you can say he had a good world cup as he was substituted in every match and offered absolutely nothing as either a full-back or winger....
Anyway...................