Discuss.
Printable View
Discuss.
as has been stated, ad nauseum, on this site regardless of whether you thought that Kerr was good or bad he was a better option than flan, sorry I mean Stan.
Yes, but to go further, they should have made a big effort to hold on to Mick McCarthy in the first place.
Think back to the media's hounding of him after Israel and Switzerland, would it have got any better from him? I doubt it. I was fully behind him but the media wanted a change and they got Stan.
I thought a change was more than justified as Kerr was obviously out of his depth in senior International management. However, Staunton was the worst possible choice and I do believe Kerr would have done far better than him with this current squad of players though we probably still would have failed to qualify.
No the real problem started 30 years ago when Paddy Mulligan didn't get the job because some FAI official once suspected Mulligan of throwing a bun at him on the team bus.... and there you have the whole saga of the FAI's professional approach to appointing managers summed up
Yeah we probably wouldn't have qualified with Kerr either but we would probably be about 3 points better off, at least with Kerr I think the next 3 games would have some meaning
Crucial thing is we would not have started with 2 away games that is for sure. Getting rid of him without having a manager lined up was a mistake. Then getting a coach from Walsall with no experience was another one.
It's a hard one to call, I still think Kerr had to go, and we all believed at the time that a "World-class management team" would have been assembled. But it wasn't.
I guess the a better way of looking at it is: would the team under Kerr be in a better or worse position than they are now?
I don't think Kerr would have lost away to Cyprus, but equally I don't think he would have won both games in March in Croke Park.
Also Stephen Ireland would more than likely not be playing for us at the moment.
Just listening to Eoin Hand sing a song on the Radio, he has a very nice voice.
Sings like a pro.
We must have had damn good sing songs in those days.
Given the stories doing the rounds about this fella, is Kerr really to blame?Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Brian Kerr brought structure and discipline to the Irish team, which is something that we sorely miss. He was also very thorough and professional.
We were I felt outstanding in Paris and if we had won in Isreal the caution of our play would have been quickly forgotten. He also showed he could get results in places like Georgia and Cyprus, despite not always playing well.
With Kerr, we would have won in Cyprus and I'm confident we would have drawn in either or both Germany or Czech Republic.
The downside of Kerr was that some of the players obviously didn't like him (though that might say more about them) nor want to work with him. As already pointed out, Stephen Ireland would not be playing if Kerr was manager. He would be sorely missed, as he has shown how good he is in this campaign.
In summary, I liked Kerr and would have liked him to have been given another chance. With him, I feel we would be in with a very decent shot at qualification out of this group.
Agree with all of above except the quoted part. Ireland has scored 4 crucial goals but his inability to secure midfield, or our inability to accomodate him, has led to us being on the back foot especially in Cyprus & Slovakia. A proper tactician would work it out I reckon. I like to call him Lampard-lite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungle
Lampard - Lite :)
He is a player with ability who has to grow (in more ways than one)
IMO manager for 2 Qual campaigns is more than enough. Charlton for us was an exception, like FDR getting a third presidency.
Brian Kerr was a poor international manager.
He was the first manager not to get us a top two place in any qualifying group in 8 campaigns (since Eoin Hand). He did it twice. The second time we finished fourth in the group. And don't tell me that he took over when the first campaign was dead and buried. We would have qualified for the Euros if we beat Russia at home and drew with the Swiss away. In two spineless performances, particularly in Berne, we took one point from six.
He failed to beat any top 70 ranked team in competitive action in 8 attempts. We are talking France, Russia, Switzerland and Israel here not exactly world class opposition. He took 6 points from 24 in those games.
He didn't really blood anyone of any note, save for Andy Reid. At least Staunton has.
Kerr inherited a good team with World Cup experience. He had virtually the same side as McCarthy and still didn't do as well as McCarthy. That Stan was a dreadful appointment doesn't make Kerr's poor record any better.
it might be a silly question, and probably well known, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but whats the story here? is there some history between these two?Quote:
As already pointed out, Stephen Ireland would not be playing if Kerr was manager. He would be sorely missed, as he has shown how good he is in this campaign.
Kerr didn’t pick Ireland for an underage game in Cork where he had his family (all alive & well) come to watch him. He got the hump and vowed not to play for Kerr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomo
The media picked up on it very late despite being on soccercentral.ie ages in advance and used it against Kerr in the tail end of his tenure just as Ireland had broken through at City. The media put up some hysterical nonsense about one of our best young players maybe playing for England or Italy instead. In reality it was old news and Kerr would probably have called him up in due course anyway and Ireland would probably have played.
Given what we know of Ireland now Kerr was up against it with this young lad.
He spat his dummy out because BK didn't start him for an underage game in Cork that his mammy and daddy had taken the good time and trouble to come see him in his cute green top at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomo
Yes really ...I'm deadly serious.
As far as I know, it relates to an incident a few years ago when Ireland were playing an underage game in Cobh and Kerr told S.Ireland that he would be playing in front of his hometown crowd. Subsequently, Kerr changed his mind and S.Ireland walked out of the squad when he heard he wasn't playing.
Don't know if that's 100% correct but I think it's more or less what happened.
Well pointed out. S.Ireland reminds me of a young Frank Lampard at West Ham. I do think he needs to bulk out and like Giles I would agree that he needs to become more of a presence in midfield i.e demanding the ball etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
However, like you say, a good tactician would protect S.Ireland and ensure that he could work creativity. Very few teams (club or international) would expect a 20 year old to take on a Keane/Zidane fulcrum in a team.
I think losing Chris Hughton was bigger loss with the Kerr debacle.
I asked the question here numerous times during Kerr's tenure that surely Hughton must surely have been at least partly responsible for the tactical errors & poor substitutions? Nobody seemed interested in responding. Anyone care to do so now?
[QUOTE=barney;774184]Brian Kerr was a poor international manager.
He was the first manager not to get us a top two place in any qualifying group in 8 campaigns (since Eoin Hand). He did it twice. The second time we finished fourth in the group. And don't tell me that he took over when the first campaign was dead and buried. We would have qualified for the Euros if we beat Russia at home and drew with the Swiss away. In two spineless performances, particularly in Berne, we took one point from six.
He failed to beat any top 70 ranked team in competitive action in 8 attempts. We are talking France, Russia, Switzerland and Israel here not exactly world class opposition. He took 6 points from 24 in those games.
He didn't really blood anyone of any note, save for Andy Reid. At least Staunton has.
It was 6 points from 18. I agree that isn't particularly pleasant statistically but France with Zidane were a world class side and Russia and Switzerland are regular qualifiers. Israel are a very tough team to get a result against.
The Euro 2004 group was practically a no hoper by the time Kerr took charge, as to have any real hope we would have needed to win all our remaining games.
Yes, we finished 4th in the World Cup group, but there was only 2 points seperating 1st to 4th if I remember. That does put it into perspective a little.
The team Kerr inherited was suffering a world cup hangover (they had lost to Russia and Switzerland). Additionally, I believe many of the team were angered that Mick got the sack which made it harder for Kerr.
Yes, the biggest reason is because we know who replaced him.
No, simple as.
I'm not sure about the idea that the ability of the (unknown at the time) person who replaced him should play a part in answering this question.
Based on how Kerr himself performed, not comparing him to what came after, I'd say it was not a mistake to let him go.
In hindsight, it was a terrible mistake to hire Staunton, but I think they are (or can be) separate issues.
NOt really, I was happy enough with Kerr and I would have let him stay on but I understood why they might let him go if they had a world class replacment. Sadly they did not even have a high infants class replacment.
At the time I felt Kerr should go because the team looked bereft of ideas at times and certainly lacked the passion that we'd at the very least expect from an Irish team.
It is unfortunate for us that when we were crying out for a leader to take us forward and instill a bit of passion, the FAI delivered someone so out of his depth it made you cringe.
Kerr was certainly far better than Staunton but he had to go. He had lost the dressingroom and the media.
He was the architect of his own downfall. He was a different person once John Delaney took over as CEO and performances suffered because of it.
Do you think maybe Delaney was the architect of his downfall.
I think the fact that Kerr blooded so few young players has more to do with the fact that the conveyerbelt of talent seized up for them few years. Can you name me someone he should have blooded that he didnt? He can be 'credited' with blooding John O'Shea, Andy Reid and McGeady
Kerr's problem was that a large section of the squad resented his appointment from day one. He was on a loser from the start due to the lack of respect for him.
As far as I see it, Kerr's dismissal and Staunton's appointment are not seperate issues, they are completely interlinked. Kerr should only have been disposed of if the FAI knew they could attract someone of a higher standard. They should have put the research in before they pulled the trigger on Kerr.
Instead they jumped the gun and treated Kerr, a man who has done a great service to Irish football at all levels, in an utterly shameful fashion. And then they had the brawn to go and appoint Stan..... what a shower!
Delaney is the architect of everything within Merrion Square. He is the Irish football dictatorQuote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
I suggest he backed the wrong man in a very misguided belief that he wasn't getting enough support from within the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
Quote:
Originally Posted by gspain
I think its pretty obvious that Kerr's position was in jeopardy as soon as Delaney took charge. His undermining of his position and the fact he got rid of him at the earliest feasible opportunity is in stark contrast to his support for his own man.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
Possibly Ireland, although whether or not he would have played for Kerr is another debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ofjames
Lee Trundle - don't want to get into any debates about nationality and qualification but the facts of the matter were we were short on strikers, and creativity and he wanted to play for Ireland
Byrne should have been given more of a look in, regardless of whatever reaons he was given a cap.
Ditto Glen Crowe, he was still in good form when Kerr took over, and did well in the friendly against Greece.
Stephen Kelly was called into a few squads, I think he was on the bench against Brazil, but never played under Kerr
I asked what players got their first caps under Kerr before, eirebhoy answered with this post:Quote:
Originally Posted by ofjames
http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=580355&postcount=83
Quote:
Originally Posted by eirebhoy
I don't remember Michael Doyle's cap. Amsterdam? He'd be worth a look again now.
Yeah, that was it, late substitute: http://www.soccerscene.ie/sssenior/m...ils.php?id=402Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
came on for Andy Reid
Getting rid of Kerr was a correct decision, appointing stan wasnt.
Kerr had lost the team and the final performance of the campaign to the Swiss when a win wouldve seen us qualify for the play offs was one of the tamest Irish performances Ive ever seen. The tactical game he played in Israel cost us three points as did the home game where when Keane cost injured in the first half he brought on Kavanagh and went defensive.
Although not as shambolic as under Stan, we were fortunate to come away from Cyprus with a 1-0 win, only for Shay Given that night we probably wouldve lost. As little progress as I see we are making under Stan, I do think we were going backwards under Kerr. Compare the Cyprus and French results at the start of the campaign to the Cyprus, French and Swiss games at the end. Marked difference.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by elroy
There are more options other than Kerr or Stan. Kerr is better than Stan, but that doesn't necessarily mean we were wrong to get rid of him.
I don't think sacking Kerr was the right thing to do. He wasn't a brilliant manager, but he was competent and professional. When people were calling for his head I reminded everyone that John Delaney would be picking the new manager, and that could only be worse. At the time Delaney was making noises about Bryan Robson (another inept Staunton type manager).
Kerr finished fourth in a tight group and was only three points off the top. Pinger currently has us third, but eight points off the top (with still more humiliation to come, one would think.) I'll take Kerr's fourth place over Pinger's third place any day. He was also genuinely unlucky to get only two points off of Israel when we should have had at least four. We also had a goal wrongly disallowed in Basel for offside at 1-0 up. To say he came fourth and leave it at that hides how close he came, that's like saying we were crap in 1982 because we came third. We were in it right up until the final minute of the final match.Quote:
He was the first manager not to get us a top two place in any qualifying group in 8 campaigns (since Eoin Hand). He did it twice. The second time we finished fourth in the group.
The problem lies with the players. They don't take international football seriously enough. Kerr bored them to death with things like tactics and preparation. Pinger let's them get the pints in and have a bit of fun, but that doesn't cut in international football anymore. Charlton could get away with that because he had top players, but now we have a weaker squad and we need to get the most out of it. You can bet your bottom dollar that Otto Rehhagel's Greece had a professional approach to every match in 2004.
What we need is a take-no-prisoners enforcer type manager to kick our boys into shape. Somebody with Kerr's extensive professionalism, but with the fist of Brian Clough to match.