The campaign Kerr presided over was certainly a much tougher one than than Traps last one. France, Switzerland and Israel being the standout teams.Originally Posted by Crosby87
That French side was in disarray and only qualified because they called Zidane, Makalele and, I think, Thuram out of retirement. The Swiss were no great shakes and we threw away two wins against Israel. The only thing that stopped us qualifying for that World Cup was the inability to close out a game.
Yeah but the fact remains that they were there, Thierry Henry's wasn't a bad player at that time if I remember correctly. Switzerland and Israel were much better sides than Estonia, Macedonia, Slovakia or Armenia were. That was my point it was a more difficult qualifying campaign.
What did Israel do after that campaign? They were no better than Armenia. Switzerland were probably marginally better than Slovakia, or at least more clinical an outfit. The Russia team we played was vastly better than the French team we played in the first leg, and I'd say still superior to the Zidane/Henry-inspired team that beat us.
Superior to the team that lost the following World Cup final on penalties,
I'd have to strongly disagree. I'm not saying Israel were exceptional I'm just saying they were superior to Armenia, Slovakia and Macedonia which they were. My point is still that Kerr had a more difficult qualifying campaign than traps last one.
In that particular game, yeah. They were a side in disarray that played very little fluid football. Luckily for them, the senior players froze the manager out at the World Cup and used their talent to get to the final in spite of him.
I really don't know how you could consider that Israel side superior to Armenia. We comfortably outplayed them twice and conceded stupid goals to draw the games. Armenia offered an attacking threat they never did.
The irish side that lost to France in the playoff was lauded for producing a great performance. It could be argued that that French side was completely dysfunctional considering their performances that followed and actions of the players. That Russian side did nothing in the World Cup. However I would have no problems had we lost both games as the Russians were a much better side than Ireland. My point is the inept displays against the other opponents who we are stronger than which were far from convincing and that's followed on. Brian Kerr in my opinion was much more ruthlessly judged in results and performances in a group that I feel was much stronger than what trap faced. Yes I definitely do think that Israeli side was superior but I give credit to that irish side for the way the played against better opposition.
I think you're taking me up wrong. I completely agree the France side we faced in the playoff were dysfunctional and we should have beaten them. I was talking about the groups as the only direct comparison since Kerr didn't reach the playoffs.
Well Kerr was more ruthlessly judged because, regardless of whether the opponents were weaker or stronger than what Trap faced, he didn't get results. He didn't get to any playoffs and he didn't qualify for anything.That Russian side did nothing in the World Cup. However I would have no problems had we lost both games as the Russians were a much better side than Ireland. My point is the inept displays against the other opponents who we are stronger than which were far from convincing and that's followed on. Brian Kerr in my opinion was much more ruthlessly judged in results and performances in a group that I feel was much stronger than what trap faced.
You think that Israel side was better than Ireland? Even though they finished ahead in the groups... no way.Yes I definitely do think that Israeli side was superior but I give credit to that irish side for the way the played against better opposition.
no I don't think that Israeli side were better than Ireland, fully agree that we let those games slip, but I do think that they were superior to most teams we faced in the last campaign.
the problem I have with the way Trapattoni is judged is either you analyse the performance of the Irish team taking into account the quality of the opposition and circumstances or you just say purely and simply on results. In the case of Brian Kerr he got one campaign was pretty unlucky, came down to as you said failure to hold on to leads, didn't qualify and was sacked. I thought he did a reasonable job with the team and could see positives but if its a results business pure and simple then sack him.
Trappattoni failed to get us qualified in his 1st campaign so you could argue that he should have walked. People will say the team was poor etc but if you judge it on just results he should walk.
I believe that the analysis should be based on all the relative particulars of a campaign, quality of team, opposition etc. My problem with Trapattoni is over the last campaign we played very average teams using outdated tactics. I believe we could have qualified playing a better brand of football that would have also set us up to be more equipped to play the likes of Spain, Croatia and Italy. Would we still have lost? Most probably but I believe we would have had a far better chance of getting somethin rather than the embarrassment we suffered.
do we have the players to play like Spain? No. But we also don't have the players to play A 4-4-2 against teams that out number us and who we like to hand possession to. The problem is he hasn't altered his thinking in the slightest when lets be honest some things have to change.
Hes been a great manager but he's enjoyed luck I've never seen before (Russia) (drawing Estonia). The time has come now to apply the criteria for judgement, is it results based that we have decided is the be all and end all? If so he has to go based on the euros and really what's come since.
I think that campaign was Israel's high water mark, they were unbeaten v France and v Switzerland if I remember correctly. Switzerland were very very solid back then and regularly qualified. And France went on to the World up final that campaign.
I think Kerr's WC2006 group was significantly harder than Trap's two full campaigns. I don't see how anyone could doubt that, particularly the Euro2012 group. Comparing the teams' FIFA rankings at the times would give an objective measure,if someone looked it up.
IMO we are at a Stan-like level of disarray and incompetence and GUBU at the moment under Trap. I think it really is that bad.
Last edited by p2011; 08/02/2013 at 11:44 PM.
This is my point, under Kerr it was considered not good enough even though we played strong sides. Under Trap the attitude seems to be we're Ireland we're crap thanks very much for working miracles Giovanni. I disagree completely. Kerr had a stronger squad I accept that but I don't believe that Trap has made nearly enough of the group he has available to him.
Another point I've heard made against Kerr was he lost the dressing room. When players speak about Trap all you hear is players should just get on with it.
This is miserable nonsense.
Brought upon I believe, by a young person wanting instant gradification via a myth.
Stan vs Wales......
No Somos muchos pero estamos locos.
Genuinely no idea what you're trying to say here (young? myth? what?), but it doesn't sound constructive. Debate the issues, don't attack the poster please.
Last edited by p2011; 09/02/2013 at 7:28 AM.
Kazakhstan could easily have been Trap's equivalent of the 2-5 in Cyprus but for Kevin Doyle* creating one and scoring another. And we're getting players played out of position and mad "rabbit out of hat" promotions to the team. And a general feeling of a manager under siege doing and saying anything to survive... All Stan-like to me.
*But now Sammon is ahead of Doyle & others? It's farcical.
Last edited by p2011; 09/02/2013 at 7:28 AM.
Indo's campaign against Trap continues...
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-29057912.html
The big issue here is communication. Clearly Trap is not good at it. This is just another case in a long run of needless fall outs with players. There is one common denominator.
I agree with others that no player is entitled to throw a tantrum over not getting in the team, no player is entitled to expect a starting place. However, I do think the likes of Kelly, the likes of Gibson who turned up for many a squad, deserve some sort of communication every now and then as to what they need to do to get in the team, why they arent etc. I particularly think Gibson deserved to be taken aside and explained why he got no game time at the Euros even though Trap specifically asked him to join the training squad early and then gave game time to players like Green who were touch and go to make the squad.
Finally, a manager who communicates well would deal with any issues in house, even if they are reported in the media. Replying as he does in this manner only fuels the flames.
It's not Delaney being lined up for the job, it's Lord Reilly of INM towers, or formerly of INM towers. Directions were given to INM journos to go after the FAI and Trap when the battle began for control of INM, it's continuing to play out now. And we all just play along. Of course the FM2011 heroes will reckon they know more than everyone, along with the meeja and talking heads. It's like a long drawn out Joe Duffy, only less funny and more embarrassing.
The same paper that "learned" about the managers imminent sacking from a senior FAI source. They're worse than Cosmo with their surveys.
The Indo and others do have an agenda and Duffy is a cringeworthy rabble-rouser, but that doesn't stop us judging the evidence of our own eyes and ears making up our own mind ... and possibly deciding Trap is a liability.
Last edited by p2011; 09/02/2013 at 10:39 AM.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks