I'm sorry but it really annoys me when people scoff at Staunton's time in charge. We turned out some very good performances against some top sides, and anyone starting out in a new job is going to make the odd mistake or ill-advised decision.
And I'd like to see anyone else here try to do a decent job at organising and motivating a temperemental group of people when almost literally the entire country is undermining your every move. After that game in Cyprus, Stan never had a chance, despite the fact that a large part of the reason we lost was down to individual mistakes from players you would normally expect not to make them. Staunton couldn't control that, but the media crucified him for it.
I think the Irish performances in the games against the Czechs, Germans and a very decent Slovakian side show that Staunton does have what it takes to be a good manager, when he gets more experience. I believe Staunton thought that as well, and the reason he didn't walk away from the job was because he thought he still had a lot to contribute to the international side, not because he was waiting for a payout as has been suggested.
And as for the allegations that there were dodgy dealings going on to get Staunton the job within the FAI, can you show me any proof of that?
I'd tend to agree with you but for one single fact you seem to have forgotten, before the Cyprus debacle and before the media got on Stan's back so to speak we had already had two shocking performances against the Dutch and the Chileans.Originally Posted by peadar1987
Last edited by youngirish; 23/06/2009 at 12:46 PM.
The above has to be the most ridiculous post I've read on this site. In fact I am starting to believe that you are a wind up merchant as the post is so ridiculous
Cant believe anyone is still trying to defend Stauntons time in charge
Its really not that complicated!!!
He was working with Gary McAllister at Leeds and was an utter disaster, the defence was non existent under his coaching and that's an area you'd hope he could manage at League One level.
Your last post on the thread is borderline madness to be frank.
Stan was a legend as a player and fair play to him for that but he is never management material in a million years. The players actually liked him and did want to play for him but tactically he was a clown and it's mostly down to him rather then them that the results were so bad. Have you forgotten the madness of left backs playing right back and vice versea?? And that was just the start of it, I could go on all day about elementary errors made during his tenure.
That's a - one size fits all comment - for the vast majority of managers who get sacked/forced resignation.
Results are 99.9%
All the experts would be queueing up to slate Trap for ditching Andy Reid, playing 2 shaky novices in a holding role at central midfield, playing Keogh out wide, persisting with McShane at RB, KK at LB, conceding the pitch to Cyprus at home, going all jelly like when a goal up, outplayed by Bulgaria at home,
IF we didn't get a result.
But it does reflect well on the manager when the results do come
ding! well said. stan reminded me of bush. a lot.Results are 99.9%
All the experts would be queueing up to slate Trap for ditching Andy Reid, playing 2 shaky novices in a holding role at central midfield, etc.
IF we didn't get a result.
But it does reflect well on the manager when the results do come
zombie/thread killer..
In a big contrast with Staunton, the essential aspect of Trap's reign so far has been 'team-building', i.e. resisting the urge to make wholesale changes, not panicking, keeping faith with a preferred system, and replacing like-for-like in the event of an injury. That's the way to build a settled side, not just throwing players in on a whim and hoping they'll adapt (i.e. Alan O'Brien).
Staunton used 33 different players in 11 competitive games. He was apt to make several unforced changes from game to game, and move players into uncomfortable positions. That smacks of panic, indecision and short-sightedness. It didn't seem as if he trusted his own judgement. Also, his attitude to the media was deplorable, as he lacked the communication skills to explain his decisions. He strook me as a characterless, undignified and quite immature man for his age (albeit a decent footballer in his day). If he had a smidgen of Trapattoni's dignity, Charlton's honesty, or McCarthy's self-effacing humour, he might have fared better.
On the other hand, you can look back and see that the team was obviously in need of rebuilding, after the retirements of Roy Keane, Holland, Kavanagh, Breen and Cunningham. He wasn't helped by injuries to Steven Reid and Duff at important times either. It was clear that we needed an experienced manager to weather the storm. The FAI were obviously to blame, and deserved every criticism for the appointment. However, even Brian Kerr showed more common-sense and tactical aptitude in his tenure than Staunton, despite only having LoI and youth experience. So did Eoin Hand, in his time, with little or no experience.
Maybe Staunton has learned from his experiences, and maybe he'll surprise us in his future career. But I seriously doubt it.
Last edited by Supreme feet; 23/06/2009 at 8:08 PM.
I think the term you were looking for to describe the post was "Comedy Gold"
"A silent mouth is sweet to hear"
Inclined to agree.
Your last post on the thread is borderline madness to be frank.
Stan was a legend as a player and fair play to him for that but he is never management material in a million years. The players actually liked him and did want to play for him but tactically he was a clown and it's mostly down to him rather then them that the results were so bad. Have you forgotten the madness of left backs playing right back and vice versea?? And that was just the start of it, I could go on all day about elementary errors made during his tenure.
There's a stat out there -I don't have it to hand I'm afraid, that shows Leeds average goals conceded per game rose pretty much from the day he arrived.
I'm a Leeds supporter and I really, really wanted it to work out for him. But it didn't. I wish him well and I hope he gets a gig somewhere he can learn his trade but if I'm being honest I think the board of Motherwell or any other SPL club would want to be dedicated, unreformable glue-sniffers to take a punt on him.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
Nail on the head here. He really didnt help himself with his manner, particularly with his dealings in the media. The only post match interview where I think he admitted he may have not had tactics rights etc was after the Cyprus away game when his time was up. What used to wreck my head was his silly comments about the games against San Marino and also how he kept going on about the four year plan when everyone could clearly see the team was going backwards at an alarming rate.
Obviously he demands a high level of respect for what he achieved in the game as a player but, at the end of the day, Stan doesn't have the personality to be successful in management - it's as simple as that.
As has already been pointed out this must be a wind up but if not then I have two words for you 'San Marino'.
This post was about the Motherwell job and not about Steve Staunton as Irish manager. I think he has been dragged through enough mud at this stage and im asking for this thread to be locked. Think there has been enough said about Staunton over time.
Why are people who "need no introduction" always introduced?
Wrong it was about Steve Staunton's suitability (or lack thereof) for the vacant managerial position at Motherwell something that can't be discussed without mentioning how he fared in his single previous attempt (I use the word lightly) at managing (thanks for that John Delaney).
If it was solely about the Motherwell job it wouldn't be in the Ireland forum.
Are you for real? dragged through enough mud? why all the sympathy for him?In fairness I don't think he'll be too bothered. After all he clung on to the Irish job long enough when he should have gone and I'm sure he was getting enough abuse then
As for asking for the thread to be closed? get a life
Believe me i have a life. Not so sure about you.
Whether you agree or disagreed with Stauntons tenure ITS OVER..yes read that again, ITS OVER..move on lads, Trappatoni is now our manager
And furthermore its not sympathy I have for him. I wouldnt have been his greatest fan as a player and most definitely not when he was manager.
Why are people who "need no introduction" always introduced?
Why post on a thread about him so and request for it to be locked?Believe me i have a life. Not so sure about you.
Whether you agree or disagreed with Stauntons tenure ITS OVER..yes read that again, ITS OVER..move on lads, Trappatoni is now our manager
And furthermore its not sympathy I have for him. I wouldnt have been his greatest fan as a player and most definitely not when he was manager.
Because everything that is been said now has been said already. Move on.
Why are people who "need no introduction" always introduced?
It's a message board ffs, people can discuss his history when talking about his suitability for a new job.
If you don't like it ignore it, it's not rocket science.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks