Mick McCarthy

[Slash/ED]

I'm talking more about the fact that with McCarthy gone people hoped K***e would return with a massive parade down O'Connell St, a statue erected in Cork as well him achieving a united Ireland and winning Euro 2004 on his own.

You seem to be completley blinded by your anti-keane bias to be honest. McCarthy wasn't sacked over Keane, though it did add to the pressure undoubtabley, he was sacked because he wasn't good enough. He can win the champions league with Sunderland and it wont change the fact he wasn't good enough when he was here, imo.

Being the second best manager we had doesn't say alot, apart from Jack Charlton we've had failures, each and every one of them, due to either having poor sides or not being good enough.

[pineapple stu]

Being the second best manager we had doesn't say alot, apart from Jack Charlton we've had failures, each and every one of them, due to either having poor sides or not being good enough.

If you think Charlton was a better manager than McCarthy, then you really are talking nonsense. Compare the two teams, and then add in the fact that McCarthy matched Charlton's qualifying position in every single group. Charlton did wonders for the national team, but with the best Ireland squad ever. McCarthy had reduced qualification, Division One and reserve players and our best player pulling a hissy fit and yet we still held our own against some of the best teams in the world (Portugal, Holland, Germany, Spain, etc.)

[Slash/ED]

If you think Charlton was a better manager than McCarthy, then you really are talking nonsense. Compare the two teams, and then add in the fact that McCarthy matched Charlton's qualifying position in every single group. Charlton did wonders for the national team, but with the best Ireland squad ever. McCarthy had reduced qualification, Division One and reserve players and our best player pulling a hissy fit and yet we still held our own against some of the best teams in the world (Portugal, Holland, Germany, Spain, etc.)

We had great players before Charlton and achieved nothing. He got us to our first major tournament, beat our biggest rivals in our first match, got us to our best ever finish at a world cup and equalled McCarthys only achievement with an ageing squad four years later.

McCarthy had two qualification campaigns of failure, one decent world cup campaign, and a rubbish start to his fourth campaign in charge. He also had some quality players (Not that he ever used them right) in his team aswell.

[Declan_Michael]

You seem to be completley blinded by your anti-keane bias to be honest. McCarthy wasn't sacked over Keane, though it did add to the pressure undoubtabley, he was sacked because he wasn't good enough. He can win the champions league with Sunderland and it wont change the fact he wasn't good enough when he was here, imo.

Being the second best manager we had doesn't say alot, apart from Jack Charlton we've had failures, each and every one of them, due to either having poor sides or not being good enough.

If Mick wasn't up to the job people would have said so in 1996. We had two qualifying failures but Mick still kept his job. Finally we qualify for a tournament playing more attractive football than we ever did under Charlton. Lets face it he was hounded out in the hope that Keane would return. Two bad results did not justify him leaving if that was the case he should have went in 97 or 99.

[Slash/ED]

If Mick wasn't up to the job people would have said so in 1996. We had two qualifying failures but Mick still kept his job. Finally we qualify for a tournament playing more attractive football than we ever did under Charlton. Lets face it he was hounded out in the hope that Keane would return. Two bad results did not justify him leaving if that was the case he should have went in 97 or 99.

People did say so in 1996. Yeah, he should have went earlier, I was very suprised when he didn't leave after the euro 2000 qualification. When he left it was partly influenced from the pressure of the Keane saga, no doubt, but that isn't the sole reason he left, and believe it or not, there are people who don't like Keane and just plain think McCarthy wasn't good enough as a manager.

[Declan_Michael]

People did say so in 1996. Yeah, he should have went earlier, I was very suprised when he didn't leave after the euro 2000 qualification. When he left it was partly influenced from the pressure of the Keane saga, no doubt, but that isn't the sole reason he left, and believe it or not, there are people who don't like Keane and just plain think McCarthy wasn't good enough as a manager.

I like McCarthy, think he did reasonabley well and like to remember him for WC2002. What disappoints me is when I here comments about him 'we'd be 5-0 down if McCarthy was still in charge' or the jeering I heard when Mick was shown on the big screen during the Brazil game. Mick gave his all for Ireland both as a player and a manager yet some think more highly of a guy who'd rather walk his dog than play for Ireland.

[Slash/ED]

He's in third in the league with two games in hand. He's in the FA Cup semi-final, and he's done all that with the shattered ramains of a team that came very near to setting a new record for most games lost in a row. I'd argue that he couldn't possibly be asked to be doing more.

He's fourth, in the middle of the play offs. He's in a cup semi final having faced one side from outside the nationwide league ffs, a cup semi final and more then likely a final appearence on paper sounds fantastic but when you look at the run the luck of the draw has been the main reason behind it. Given the side he has, that's about what he should be expecting to do. When Sunderland went down they only shed the players who simply weren't preforming any more. I'm sorry, but Phillips was poor, very poor, in his last season for whatever reason. Kilbane was a joke for them, Gray was the same.

The players he's brought in who were previously ignored for reasons unkown at Sunderland and from outside have in the most part been better. Phillips is the only one who hasn't really got a proper replacement yet. Look at Gray and Kilbane, McCartney and Arca is a far far better left side then that. He's got Breen in, who's preformed at a world cup and has proven he's more then capable of playing at that level, and Poom in, who's at least Sorensons equal.

If you look at the squad of players Sunderland have, and compare them to a first division that this season seems to be lacking sides the caliber of Man City, Fulham, Portsmouth ect that it usually has, what he's achieved has been pretty decent, but hardly amazingly world beating like some people would have you believe. The humble pie can be saved until we see what McCarthy can do with Sunderland in the premiership, should he get them there.

[Slash/ED]

I like McCarthy, think he did reasonabley well and like to remember him for WC2002. What disappoints me is when I here comments about him 'we'd be 5-0 down if McCarthy was still in charge' or the jeering I heard when Mick was shown on the big screen during the Brazil game. Mick gave his all for Ireland both as a player and a manager yet some think more highly of a guy who'd rather walk his dog than play for Ireland.

I fully agree with that. As a bloke, McCarthy is fantastic. As a player and as a manager he always gave 100%, was open and honest and showed passion for the cause, he also had guts, which you have to admire. I thought it was absolutley fantastic when he showed up in Lansedown road against Brazil, as it showed he had no hard feelings and still wants to see us do well, as a person I think he's fantastic. You can't compare him as a bloke to Keane, who refuses to play for his country as it'd be too many matches then jets off to America on promotional tours. However, I will say, imo he was a limited manager not good enough to manage us, but that's just my opinion.

[tetsujin1979]

and Poom in, who's at least Sorensons equal.

Pretty sure Poom was already there when Mick was appointed, just Sorensen was the number one. At one point they had at least 4 recognised first team keepers. Just the rest of the team was ****e

[Ozymandias]

McCarthy signed poom from Derby...sorenson was there but had been earmarked as oneof the players that he would sell.

[pineapple stu]

We had great players before Charlton and achieved nothing.

Eh...that means that Charlton was a better manager than what went before. Doesn't mean he was a better manager than McCarthy, which was the whole point. You can't possibly compare the two teams in terms of quality - Charlton had Bonner, Lawrenson, McGrath, Moran, O'Leary, Brady, Keane, Aldridge, Stapleton, Houghton, even McCarthy himself, all playing for top English teams and many playing abroad. McCarthy has the two Keanes, Given, Duff and that's about it in terms of really good players, of whom only Given and Roy Keane have consistently been with the top teams. So what if Charlton did what hadn't been done before - does that mean that by default, there can be no better manager than him because no-one else will qualify for the World Cup or Euros for the first time? McCarthy was only a penalty or two away from equalling Charlton's Quarter-Final achievement against with a much weaker squad.

McCarthy's first two qualification campaigns were as much a failure as most of Charlton's - McCarthy can't be blamed for the goalposts being moved (i.e. one automatic place compared to two) and, in Charlton's time, would have qualified for every tournament. Charlton's Ireland beat England in Euro 88 - so did everyone. McCarthy's Ireland played Germany of the park, scored against them and held them to a deserved draw - no-one managed that until the World Cup Final. McCarthy played decent attractive football, Charlton played hoof and hope. McCarthy's man-management skills were far better than Charlton's (yes, there was the Keane affair, but then Charlton had the O'Leary affair as well, which was the exact same) and he managed to bring out the best in many players.

Charlton was handed his team, made a couple of additions (Aldridge, Houghton, etc), whereas he left an ageing team to McCarthy who had to rebuild completely.

Charlton was a great manager, but to say that he was our only good manager, and that everyone else was a "failure" is just stupid.

[Slash/ED]

Eh...that means that Charlton was a better manager than what went before. Doesn't mean he was a better manager than McCarthy, which was the whole point. You can't possibly compare the two teams in terms of quality - Charlton had Bonner, Lawrenson, McGrath, Moran, O'Leary, Brady, Keane, Aldridge, Stapleton, Houghton, even McCarthy himself, all playing for top English teams and many playing abroad. McCarthy has the two Keanes, Given, Duff and that's about it in terms of really good players, of whom only Given and Roy Keane have consistently been with the top teams. So what if Charlton did what hadn't been done before - does that mean that by default, there can be no better manager than him because no-one else will qualify for the World Cup or Euros for the first time? McCarthy was only a penalty or two away from equalling Charlton's Quarter-Final achievement against with a much weaker squad.[/b]

Charlton started the ball rolling is the point. It was him who got people supporting the team and argubley got a new generation of players interested in football. Charlton did not have Brady or Lawrenson from that list in any major tournament, and by 1994 had an ageing squad that either didn't have people on that list or had them as shades of their former selves, and still got to the second round, as far as McCarthy got, beating the world cup finalists, rather then just drawing with them for that matter. Ireland needed someone like Charlton to get our group if individuals playing as a team, Charlton instilled that in us, before that we had people like O'Leary, allegedly, trying to run the dressing room and a squad of great players achieveing nothing. He had far more to do then you give him credit for and achieved more then McCarthy. He had a more talented squad, but he also had alot more to do with them to get them to where they were.

McCarthy's first two qualification campaigns were as much a failure as most of Charlton's - McCarthy can't be blamed for the goalposts being moved (i.e. one automatic place compared to two) and, in Charlton's time, would have qualified for every tournament. Charlton's Ireland beat England in Euro 88 - so did everyone. McCarthy's Ireland played Germany of the park, scored against them and held them to a deserved draw - no-one managed that until the World Cup Final. McCarthy played decent attractive football, Charlton played hoof and hope. McCarthy's man-management skills were far better than Charlton's (yes, there was the Keane affair, but then Charlton had the O'Leary affair as well, which was the exact same) and he managed to bring out the best in many players.

Style of football is irrelevent. I'd rather achieve something with hoofball then be the nearly men with attractive football, as a general point. McCarhtys man managment skills were poor imo, one of his weaknesses, ignoreing Keane, he forced Dennis Irwin to retire and was incapable of seing beyond certain players no matter what. Charlton had to deal with McGrath, who was an unpredictable alcoholic, and still kept him in the squad and preforming like he did in 1994 on his last legs

Charlton was handed his team, made a couple of additions (Aldridge, Houghton, etc), whereas he left an ageing team to McCarthy who had to rebuild completely.

This is one argument that, not just here but in general, I find the most unbelivebley daft I've ever seen. McCarthy didn't rebuild at all, he's an interntional manager ffs. He got the players he was given. Mccarthy had absolutley nothing to do with the emergence of Duff, Keane and the young generation that came through, he simply put them in the team, which was hardly rocket science was it? In international football the players simply land on you or don't. Charlton, if anything, did more in this regard, as he had to stop certain personalitys trying to control the dressing room and instill team spirit and belief into the side, something which we still have to this day, that's far harder then picking some players who happen to have emerged at clubs in England.

[b]Charlton was a great manager, but to say that he was our only good manager, and that everyone else was a "failure" is just stupid.

I said the people before him were failures, and he was better then McCarthy.

[Beavis]

the jeering I heard when Mick was shown on the big screen during the Brazil game.

Tell me this did not happen please!!

This is one argument that, not just here but in general, I find the most unbelivebley daft I've ever seen. McCarthy didn't rebuild at all, he's an interntional manager ffs. He got the players he was given. Mccarthy had absolutley nothing to do with the emergence of Duff, Keane and the young generation that came through, he simply put them in the team, which was hardly rocket science was it?

Granted a good player is a good player ,but I also think that international experience cannot be overestimated.Big matches which determine the outcome of the last 2 years effort,matches infront of hostile supporters,matches in war torn countries,matches where national pride and not money is at stake,are not common place in club football.It's also a different game and a different setup,all which take time to mould into.
Brian Kerr has inherited a team which has hit the highs and lows of international football and has seen it all.Mick had to break in the youngsters,who yes clearly had talent,but bring them onto the international scene and have them reproduce it.Can you honestly admit that Mick started out with an objective as straight forward as Brian Kerr's current one?


I can admit he made mistakes (don't all managers?) and hope I would not have the blinkered view that Mick walks on hallowed ground,but in this case you'll find it's near impossible to argue that Mick hasn't done a decent job.

[pineapple stu]

Charlton started the ball rolling is the point.

So what? So he was lucky enough to come along first. Doesn't mean he was better than McCarthy.

Charlton did not have Brady or Lawrenson from that list in any major tournament

His own fault he didn't have Brady. Lawrenson played a major part in qualifying for Euro 88 (scoring against Scotland), and so Charlton would have finished second in the group and not qualified otherwise and so, by your standards, been a "failure". Both count on the list of quality players he had and, with or without them, his list still greatly outnumbers McCarthy's list.

By 1994 had an ageing squad that either didn't have people on that list or had them as shades of their former selves, and still got to the second round, as far as McCarthy got, beating the world cup finalists, rather then just drawing with them for that matter.

You've glossed over my point that we played Germany off the park, whereas we were on the back foot against Italy for most of the game. Both were great result, but Germany was the better performance. To bring out a better level of performance in a weaker team surely indicates better management. The result could go either way on the day and has more than a bit to do with luck, which neither can control.

He had far more to do then you give him credit for and achieved more then McCarthy. He had a more talented squad, but he also had alot more to do with them to get them to where they were.

I'm giving Charlton every credit for what he did. The difference is that I'm also giving McCarthy credit for what he did.

Style of football is irrelevent.

I disagree, although it's a minor point. To kick lumps out Holland and get a draw is one thing, to play them at their own game and draw is another. You mentioned how much Charlton did for the game as being important to his managerial quality - I'd argue that performances like Holland in Amsterdam or Portugal in Lisbon did as much, if not more.

I'd rather achieve something with hoofball then be the nearly men with attractive football, as a general point.

Again, ignoring the point that, under Charlton's qualification criteria, we'd have qualified every time. If McCarthy's a nearly man, so is Charlton.

McCarthy's man managment skills were poor imo, one of his weaknesses, ignoring Keane, he forced Dennis Irwin to retire and was incapable of seeing beyond certain players no matter what.

McCarthy had Keane (not his fault, in my opinion, but that's another thread) and Irwin, maybe McGrath and Aldridge; Charlton had O'Leary (definitely his fault) and Waddock (disgraceful treatment). Both were brilliant at bringing out the best in the players, but McCarthy seems to get judged on Keane alone. Again, going by the players available to McCarthy, I'd have to say that he brought out more in them than Charlton did with his players.

This is one argument that, not just here but in general, I find the most unbelivebley daft I've ever seen. McCarthy didn't rebuild at all, he's an interntional manager ffs.

Again, missing the point completely. Charlton only added Aldridge and Houghton - both relatively experienced club players - to his squad and they beat Brazil, won the first ever senior trophy we've ever won and came from nowhere to qualify for Euro 88. McCarthy had to discard a lot of older players and then decide which youngsters to bring through. This process takes time, both in seeing which players are up to it or not and also in getting those who are up to it up to speed with the international game. Such was the changes he had to make that it took something like six or seven games to record a win. The team McCarthy took over therefore wasn't as strong as the one Charlton inherited. It takes time to blood so many players, and yet you regard not qualifying for France 98 as a failure.

I said the people before him were failures, and he was better then McCarthy.

No you didn't - you said "apart from Jack Charlton we've had failures, each and every one of them, due to either having poor sides or not being good enough." Seems to imply you think McCarthy was a failure.

You stlil haven't answered the point of McCarthy matching every qualifying position bar one Charlton got, yet McCarthy was a failure for finishing second in a group where one qualify whereas Charlton wasn't for finishing second in a group where two qualify.

Yes, Charlton did a great job and brought the game on a long way in Ireland. Yes, McCarty made mistakes. But I still think that to call him a failure is far over the top.

[Slash/ED]

So what? So he was lucky enough to come along first. Doesn't mean he was better than McCarthy.

He didn't come along first, that's the whole point. He inherited a squad that had the players but had never done it before, he took that squad which was mis managed before and turned it into a success. It's all well and good saying he had the players, but so had others, without Charlton the Irish team could very well be no better then the Eoin Hand days of half filled stadiums and good players without achieveing anything other then the odd hard luck story. You can say others could have done it with that squad, but they didn't, he did.

His own fault he didn't have Brady. Lawrenson played a major part in qualifying for Euro 88 (scoring against Scotland), and so Charlton would have finished second in the group and not qualified otherwise and so, by your standards, been a "failure". Both count on the list of quality players he had and, with or without them, his list still greatly outnumbers McCarthy's list.

It was not his own fault he didn't have Brady in 1988, he was both injured and suspended, and by 1990 was a spent force anyway. There were two automatic qualification spots back then alright. Your argument is all built on ifs and buts, the fact is Charlton did get us qualifyed, no ifs buts or maybes about it.

You've glossed over my point that we played Germany off the park, whereas we were on the back foot against Italy for most of the game. Both were great result, but Germany was the better performance. To bring out a better level of performance in a weaker team surely indicates better management. The result could go either way on the day and has more than a bit to do with luck, which neither can control.

I couldn't care less if we played them off the park to be honest. Italy in 1994 were a better side, and we beat them, that's what matters. Preformances aren't put down in the history books. There's alot to be said for teams able to get results that they seemingly don't deserve, Germany have argubley made a traditon of it. That goes down to good management, it's not all luck. Look at McCarthys regin overall, filled with last minute goals, penalty shoot outs, hard luck stories. Charlton got results.

I'm giving Charlton every credit for what he did. The difference is that I'm also giving McCarthy credit for what he did.

As am I, McCarthy was a decent enough manager, but limited imo and not good enough at the end of the day. Still, our second best manager ever, not that that says anything what so ever.

I disagree, although it's a minor point. To kick lumps out Holland and get a draw is one thing, to play them at their own game and draw is another. You mentioned how much Charlton did for the game as being important to his managerial quality - I'd argue that performances like Holland in Amsterdam or Portugal in Lisbon did as much, if not more.

No diffence imo. A result is a result. Id you draw by playing someone off the park or draw by kicking them off the park at the end of the day you still get a point, style of play is often mentioned about the Charlton era but it was never something that concerned me in the slightest, it's a results business, nothing else.

And yeah, I agree with your second point, though if you remember rightly the 'preformance' in Lisbon wasn't really anything to write home about, battered for 89 minutes aside from a wonder goal equaliser, though as I said, it's not something that bothers me, but it seems to be a concern for you Holland away was fantastic though, but again it's a game we could have won in the end which we drew, there was all too many of them under McCarthy for us (Though I'd of taken a draw before the match! )

Again, ignoring the point that, under Charlton's qualification criteria, we'd have qualified every time. If McCarthy's a nearly man, so is Charlton.

Rubbish. You work with the system your given. Charlton got us qualifyed through the system he was given to work with more times then not, that's what matters. Again, it's all ifs and buts, ultimately the same can't be said about McCarthy.

McCarthy had Keane (not his fault, in my opinion, but that's another thread) and Irwin, maybe McGrath and Aldridge; Charlton had O'Leary (definitely his fault) and Waddock (disgraceful treatment). Both were brilliant at bringing out the best in the players, but McCarthy seems to get judged on Keane alone. Again, going by the players available to McCarthy, I'd have to say that he brought out more in them than Charlton did with his players.

Ignoreing Keane McCarthys man management was poor. What he did to Irwin was farcial, the fact that he simply could not drop certain players no matter what is something that also reflects badly on him, he certain players who he was loyal to no matter what they did on the pitch or on a cop car, they'd get picked in the squads more often then not. Charlton also had his faults here, but the way he dealt with McGrath can't be underestimated, also if rumours are true about O'Leary and that he basically tried to undermine the manager and run the dressing room on his own under Eoin Hand, then Charlton was right to leave him out in the cold more often then not.

Now, maybe my memorys a bit hazy, but I'd be amazed if the 1994 squad was better then the 2002 one, and if it was it wasn't by a long shot. It was a mix of some promosing players, some average players, and some past it players, and it got as far as the 2002 team did, while actually managing to get a win against the world cup finalists in the group stages. You can use the players available excuse for 1988 and 1990 but for me it doesn't wash when you look at 1994.

Again, missing the point completely. Charlton only added Aldridge and Houghton - both relatively experienced club players - to his squad and they beat Brazil, won the first ever senior trophy we've ever won and came from nowhere to qualify for Euro 88. McCarthy had to discard a lot of older players and then decide which youngsters to bring through. This process takes time, both in seeing which players are up to it or not and also in getting those who are up to it up to speed with the international game. Such was the changes he had to make that it took something like six or seven games to record a win. The team McCarthy took over therefore wasn't as strong as the one Charlton inherited. It takes time to blood so many players, and yet you regard not qualifying for France 98 as a failure.

It's not exactly rocket science though. Anyone with half a brain could see the likes of Robbie Keane were better then the people we had at the time, it's not exactly difficult to tell him to walk onto the pitch and play football just because he's young. He had no other options at the time, bringing in new players is hardly an achievement, what else could he do? He inherited an ageing squad, a new generation emerged, he picked them. It took a bit of time for them to settle in, but no more then a few matches, McCarthy didn't qualify for a major tournament until 2002. Even if we write off 1998 as a transition period, which isn't something I'd agree with but for the sake of argument, there was still no excuse for 2000, none what so ever.

No you didn't - you said "apart from Jack Charlton we've had failures, each and every one of them, due to either having poor sides or not being good enough." Seems to imply you think McCarthy was a failure.

If you want to take the quote out of context you may aswell make it up. Someone was saying something like McCarthy is our second best manager ever, I said it doesn't say alot because of all the managers you can compare him to the only one who wasn't a failure was Charlton. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.

You stlil haven't answered the point of McCarthy matching every qualifying position bar one Charlton got, yet McCarthy was a failure for finishing second in a group where one qualify whereas Charlton wasn't for finishing second in a group where two qualify.

That doesn't matter, it's more ifs and buts, if second got us qualified under McCarthy we would have qualified for more tournaments but it didn't, it was a different system he was working under. Bottom line is, Charlton got us qualifyed more times then not, McCarthy did not.

Yes, Charlton did a great job and brought the game on a long way in Ireland. Yes, McCarty made mistakes. But I still think that to call him a failure is far over the top.

I never called him a failure, I've said he was a decent enough but limited manager. He'd brought us as far as he could in 2002 and we need someone better who can achieve more with the side we have now. Weather Kerr turns out to be any better, time will tell, at the moment as far as I'm concerned the jurys still out on him.

[pineapple stu]

He deserves nothing but our contempt.

At least Slash/Ed is trying to make some points...

[Slash/ED]

At least Slash/Ed is trying to make some points...

I hold nothing against the man personally myself and would love to see him do well with Sunderland, despite his limitations (imo of course) he deserves nothing but respect from the Irish fans for being our captain and always been up front, honest and commited as our manager.

[pineapple stu]

Closing arguments time methinks...this is going on a bit long now...

[/b]He didn't come along first, that's the whole point.

Still don't see what the point is. So Charlton's better than McCarthy because he came along first? Most of the players then were playing at the top of English football - never having qualified before may give Charlton an extra feather, but with the players we had, there's no need to attach such a huge weight to it.

It was not his own fault he didn't have Brady in 1988, he was both injured and suspended, and by 1990 was a spent force anyway.

He never got on with Brady and he was never really a part of his team. Brady had four years at the top after Charlton took over, was a bit unlucky with injuries/suspensions alright, but was around for long enough to make the list of great players Charlton had, which is still longer than McCarthy's.

Rubbish. You work with the system your given. Charlton got us qualifyed through the system he was given to work with more times then not, that's what matters. Again, it's all ifs and buts, ultimately the same can't be said about McCarthy.

So McCarthy is a worse manager than Charlton because, though he achieved almost identical qualifying results, UEFA changed the qualifying rules? Nonsense. You judge qualifying campaigns by where we finish, not by what rule UEFA have in force at the present time.

Now, maybe my memory's a bit hazy, but I'd be amazed if the 1994 squad was better then the 2002 one, and if it was it wasn't by a long shot.

1994 -
Bonner (Celtic)
Irwin (Man Utd)
McGrath (Villa)
Babb (Coventry, but moved to Liverpool pre-season)
Phelan (Man City)
Townsend (Villa)
Sheridan (Sheff Wed)
Keane (Man Utd)
Houghton (Villa)
Staunton (Villa)
Coyne (Motherwell)

All the above were at the time playing in either the English or Scottish Premier (when the Scottish Premier was still a decent league, and Coyne and Bonner among the top players in it - Coyne in fact was the top scorer outside one or two players from the Old Firm). There were subs like Kelly (Leeds), Cascarino (Chelsea, went to Marseille), Kernaghan (Man City), Moran (Blackburn) and even McGoldrick (Arsenal) - all top-flight players.

McCarthy 2002 had -
Given (Newcastle)
Kelly (Leeds)
Harte (Leeds)
Breen (Coventry, moved to West Ham pre-season)
Staunton (Villa)
Holland (Ipswich)
Kinsella (Charlton)
McAteer (Sunderland)
Duff (Blackburn)
Keane (Spurs)
Kilbane (Sunderland)

So one First Division player, and the subs bench had fairly few Premier Division players too - Kelly (Blackburn), Kiely (Charlton), O'Brien (Newcastle) and Quinn (Sunderland) being about it. Cunningham (Wimbledon), Morrison (Palace), Reid (Millwall), Connolly (Wimbledon), Carsley (Derby), Finnan (Fulham) and the likes were all First Division players.

Charlton's team was probably marginally better (Irwin v. Harte, Babb/McGrath v. Breen, Keane and Townsend v. Holland and Kinsella), but the overall squad had far more players at the top level, so certainly wasn't better by a long shot as you say. And the Italy game aside, the 94 World Cup was a fairly poor performance. If you want to just stick to history book facts, yes, they both went as far, but the 94 team scraped through the groups, doing nothing after beating Italy, while the 02 team qualified comfortably and went out on penalties. Better performances - better management. You've knocked Sunderland's achievement in qualifying for the FA Cup Semi Final by knocking the teams they've had to face, but you're quite happpy to ignore all other factors apart from how far they got when comparing the 94 and 02 World Cups.

Even if we write off 1998 as a transition period, which isn't something I'd agree with but for the sake of argument, there was still no excuse for 2000, none what so ever.

We missed out on qualifying by 10 seconds in a group where our fixture list was screwed around due to war. We then went out on away goals in a play-off. For all your waffle about ifs and buts, you can't say Charlton's second-places were better than McCarthy's because the rules were changed.

If you want to take the quote out of context you may as well make it up. Someone was saying something like McCarthy is our second best manager ever, I said it doesn't say a lot because of all the managers you can compare him to the only one who wasn't a failure was Charlton. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.

Hmmm...the quote indicates clearly that every manager apart from Charlton was a failure, but I suppose it can be interpreted as above, though it isn't very clear at all.

But your arguments for Charlton being a far better manager than McCarhy seem to cover a few bizarre points -

1) Charlton was manager before McCarthy.
2) Charlton's second-placed group finishes are much more impressive than McCarthy's because of something niether could do anything about. And when you consider how much stronger the international game has become in recent years (with the split of Yugoslavia and the USSR into a few decent teams, and with the 3-foreigner rule gone allowing players from any country play in the top leagues far easier), then I'd argue that McCarthy's qualifying positions were more impressive than Charlton's.
3) Charlton was luckier than McCarthy. There's no doubt which was a more impressive performance between the 94 and 02 World Cups, but whereas Charlton's team lived on beating Italy and went down very tamely to Holland, McCarthy's team were unlucky to go out on a penalty shoot-out, which is pretty much the luck of the draw. And both squads were of similar strength, with the 94 one probably shading it.

There's nothing there which can say that Charlton was as far ahead of McCarthy in the managerial stakes as you make out. He was easily his equal, if not a better manager. Have to agree to disagree methinks!

[Slash/ED]

Have to agree to disagree methinks!

What's the fun in that?

Still don't see what the point is. So Charlton's better than McCarthy because he came along first? Most of the players then were playing at the top of English football - never having qualified before may give Charlton an extra feather, but with the players we had, there's no need to attach such a huge weight to it.

I disagree. Charlton had to do alot to get those players to qualify, there was a poor spirit in the dressing room and egos needed to be sorted (allegedly) and he had to instill the team spirit that we sitll have to this day. It's not as aeasy as taking an obviously talented bunch of players and getting them to qualify, there was alot of problems he needed to stamp out first. That in itself deserves respect. You could argue that McCarthy may have done the same but we'll never know, the fact is Charlton did do it, and if you want to talk about luck and nearly stories, we were within a queer bounce of a ball from getting to the semi finals at least at euro '88.

it's because of all the extra work he had to do to take a country that had achieved nothing before as a result of him coming in when he did that deserves respect. It's all well and good talking about players, but we had the same players for the most part under previous management, and we did nothing.

He never got on with Brady and he was never really a part of his team. Brady had four years at the top after Charlton took over, was a bit unlucky with injuries/suspensions alright, but was around for long enough to make the list of great players Charlton had, which is still longer than McCarthy's.

For that era the list of great players was better yes, but if you look at our best achievement, the 1990 world cup, it was done without Brady, he never played in an international tournament for us. While he never got on with Brady, he would never have played in Euro 88 no matter what, and by 1990 was a shadow of his former self.

So McCarthy is a worse manager than Charlton because, though he achieved almost identical qualifying results, UEFA changed the qualifying rules? Nonsense. You judge qualifying campaigns by where we finish, not by what rule UEFA have in force at the present time.

It's all about qualifying. Charlton played into that system because second was enough, who's to say if we needed to finish first he wouldn't have changed a few things, gone for wins when he went for draws? It would be like having a go at McCarthy for loseing to Iran in the second leg of the world cup play offs, imo.

1994 -
Bonner (Celtic)
Irwin (Man Utd)
McGrath (Villa)
Babb (Coventry, but moved to Liverpool pre-season)
Phelan (Man City)
Townsend (Villa)
Sheridan (Sheff Wed)
Keane (Man Utd)
Houghton (Villa)
Staunton (Villa)
Coyne (Motherwell)

All the above were at the time playing in either the English or Scottish Premier (when the Scottish Premier was still a decent league, and Coyne and Bonner among the top players in it - Coyne in fact was the top scorer outside one or two players from the Old Firm). There were subs like Kelly (Leeds), Cascarino (Chelsea, went to Marseille), Kernaghan (Man City), Moran (Blackburn) and even McGoldrick (Arsenal) - all top-flight players.

McCarthy 2002 had -
Given (Newcastle)
Kelly (Leeds)
Harte (Leeds)
Breen (Coventry, moved to West Ham pre-season)
Staunton (Villa)
Holland (Ipswich)
Kinsella (Charlton)
McAteer (Sunderland)
Duff (Blackburn)
Keane (Spurs)
Kilbane (Sunderland)

So one First Division player, and the subs bench had fairly few Premier Division players too - Kelly (Blackburn), Kiely (Charlton), O'Brien (Newcastle) and Quinn (Sunderland) being about it. Cunningham (Wimbledon), Morrison (Palace), Reid (Millwall), Connolly (Wimbledon), Carsley (Derby), Finnan (Fulham) and the likes were all First Division players.

Well, for a start, Finnan was not only a premiership player at that stage but had been voted by his fellow premiership players as the leagues finest right back. Why in gods name Kelly was picked for that match I will never know, really never ever understood that decision but that's another discussion. Also, the fact that Cunningham, Morrison, Carsley and Breen all moved up to the premiership that summer should be taken into account, you can't dismiss them as being first divison players at the time, more then likely alot of them already had their deals to move sewn up.

Charlton's team was probably marginally better (Irwin v. Harte, Babb/McGrath v. Breen, Keane and Townsend v. Holland and Kinsella), but the overall squad had far more players at the top level, so certainly wasn't better by a long shot as you say. And the Italy game aside, the 94 World Cup was a fairly poor performance. If you want to just stick to history book facts, yes, they both went as far, but the 94 team scraped through the groups, doing nothing after beating Italy, while the 02 team qualified comfortably and went out on penalties. Better performances - better management. You've knocked Sunderland's achievement in qualifying for the FA Cup Semi Final by knocking the teams they've had to face, but you're quite happpy to ignore all other factors apart from how far they got when comparing the 94 and 02 World Cups.

I would call the squads about equal, given the age of alot of Charltons players aswell. The 94 preformance certinaly wasn't outstanding, but if you look past all the hype about 2002, neither was it. We couldn't beat a poor Cameroon side, played well against Germany, beat the worst team at the tournament and couldn't beat a Spain side notorious for underachieveing at world cup despite having a numbers advantage for most of the match and getting a few fortunate decisions, like Duffs penalty that never was and one of Spains disallowed goals was onside. The 94 team also only had one good match really, but it was better then the class of 2002. We beat, rather then drew, with the world cup finalists, a better side then the German 2002 side anyway. You can dismiss the preformance, but I actually think differently there anyway. It was an amazing defencive preformance, McGrath played absolutley unbelivebley and the team defended fantastically throughout. Also, didn't Sheridan hit the bar and iirc, should have scored. I for the life of me can't see why the 2002 world cup can be seen as a much bigger success then 1994, both weren't great imo.

As for Sunderland, the semi final, well fair play to McCarthy for making the semi final and more then likely the final. Obviously, he went and got there and that deserves respect, but the teams he faced have to be taken into account, he only faced one side from outside of the nationwide, it's hardly a massive massive achievement with the side he has.

We missed out on qualifying by 10 seconds in a group where our fixture list was screwed around due to war. We then went out on away goals in a play-off. For all your waffle about ifs and buts, you can't say Charlton's second-places were better than McCarthy's because the rules were changed.

We missed out on qualifying by 10 seconds against Macedonia. There is no excuse for that, that's not a hard luck story, that was a national embarassment. We should have walked past them, there's no other way to look at it, to even give them a chance by only be leading 1-0 and have our backs against the wall in the last few seconds is inexcusible. Charltons second places were better because they got us qualified, he could have played for second because second was good enough, you can't compare the two for second place finishes. Bottom line about 2000 was, we went to play a bunch of no hopers and all we had to do was win, McCarthy wasn't capable of getting us that win, if you don't see that as failure I don't know what is.

your arguments for Charlton being a far better manager than McCarhy seem to cover a few bizarre points -

1) Charlton was manager before McCarthy.
2) Charlton's second-placed group finishes are much more impressive than McCarthy's because of something niether could do anything about. And when you consider how much stronger the international game has become in recent years (with the split of Yugoslavia and the USSR into a few decent teams, and with the 3-foreigner rule gone allowing players from any country play in the top leagues far easier), then I'd argue that McCarthy's qualifying positions were more impressive than Charlton's.
3) Charlton was luckier than McCarthy. There's no doubt which was a more impressive performance between the 94 and 02 World Cups, but whereas Charlton's team lived on beating Italy and went down very tamely to Holland, McCarthy's team were unlucky to go out on a penalty shoot-out, which is pretty much the luck of the draw. And both squads were of similar strength, with the 94 one probably shading it.

1) I explained why that was important.
2) No offence, but it's laughable to claim the Macedonia debacle is more impressive then any of the campaigns Charlton actually got us qualified with.
3) We should never have gone to penaltys. Spain were, as ever, bottling it and we had the numbers advantage, we should have beaten them but under McCarthy we lacked the killer instinct we had under Charlton, that's down to management. It's not all luck, the last minute goals and hard luck stories under McCarthy, there were too many of them to be down to luck. Alot of teams are seemingly 'lucky' but it's down to killer instinct, the Germans have made careers of it, Man U in '99 was a prime example of another, that's not all down to luck. I don't see the 02 being any better then 94, I thought the 02 world cup got hyped up out of proportion, when you look at it, it was alright, but could and should have been so much better.

[Slash/ED]

There's nothing there which can say that Charlton was as far ahead of McCarthy in the managerial stakes as you make out. He was easily his equal, if not a better manager.

Charlton did more and started the ball rolling. He had his flaws, but he was exactly what we needed to get the ball rolling and in that did his job brilliantly. Imo, McCarthy was limited, and should have achieved more at the 2002 world cup, we lacked killer instinct under him and he misused the players he had badly, but he undoubtabley had his qualities aswell. I still say he had to go, and that Charlton did more then him. He wasn't crap, but I hope that Kerr can prove to be better at least.