Originally Posted by Irish Pride
Rubbis he made lots of dodgy subs, one in macedonia , one against portugal at home. Mc Carthy did a lot of what Kerr has been doing and making the conservative safe sub, which results on us sitting back and conceding late on. He also started the whole thing of Duff up front. Kerr was at fault for the subs on sat , but its wrong to say that his is Mr. Conservative and Mc Carthy is Mr Cavalier.
In Trap we trust
ah yeah, i know he made lots of dodgy subs but the 3 at the back and 3 up front was always going to back fire. It is hard to believe most of Duff caps have come as a striker. And whats even more amazing was Kilbane(the old sunderland kilbane) was playing ahead of him.
Why are people putting the substitution down to conservativeness? How did it make us more conservative?
If we fail to go to Germany...My overall memory and it will only be a memory of Brian Kerr will be him running to the side of the pitch hands upward gesturing to get back...We were 1 nil up against Israel in Tel Aviv and there was a three on two situation Roy Keane had the ball over to the right inside the Israeli half....did anyone else see this...??
Kavanagh for Keane was wrong cos it messed up the whole struture and made us think and play defensively....
Doc for Reid was the choice of person without choice and that was only ten mins into the second half...it forced into the panic situation of grab anything crap scrappy goals and forced us into having the match be decide by luck...There is no such thing as luck...and if Kerr is the sort of man who analyses everything a details man as it were he should have known that. I have never been convinced and he is making me very worried at the moment.
Elliott wasn't going to be risked. I don't know if that was down to confidence or whatever but a lot of the top managers are the same. If you weren't going to put on Elliott, who would you have put on? I don't think he was being defensive with his substitution. For some reason he didn't want to play Elliott and that is all that was wrong in that first half substitution.
I would scream at the TV when Martin O'Neill wouldn't bring on McGeady or whatever but what the hell do I know. Kerr seems to be an easy target for whatever reason but he knows much more than journalists of papers like the Guardian.
How do you know this and information do you have to back it up?
Personal I would have put anyone on that would have been a straight like for like swap. First choice would have been Elliot then Lee then the Doc.
These were they substitutes Berr Kerr chose now if he wasn't gonna be risked why put him there?
substitutes
12 Kenny
13 Steven Reid
14 Kavanagh
15 Elliott
16 Doherty
17 Miller
18 Lee
2 points on this:
My initial reaction to seeing Kavanagh coming on was that he was bringing on an EXTRA midfilder, going to 4-5-1. I think many people's reaction to this was that it was defensive / conservative. However that wasn't the case - Kavanagh simply accomodated a reoganisation of a 4 man midfield.
But not "risking" Elliott was definitely conservative. When will we have a better chance to get him involved? Why pair him with Morrisson in Glasgow if he wasn't prepared to play him if required? I honestly thought it was screamingly obvious at the time.
For whatever reason? Because his tactical ineptitude has cost us results?Come on eirebhoy, you've seen the evidence as much as the rest of us have. Paul Doyle had four parts right to every one wrong in his Guardian article on Monday. I only hope his conclusion proves to be a pessimistic one, rather than the expected reality.
PP
Semper in faecibus sole profundum variat
There's an article in the Irish Indo this morning saying that criticsm of Kerr is way off the mark. I'd say:
Yes - the players goofed up
Yes - their 'keeper was inspired & a cheat
Yes - the ref was inept & inconsistent
Yes - we missed 3 or 4 chances from within 4 yards
Yes - we did actually play really well for 80% of the game
Yes - we were downright unlucky
But also: Yes - we handed them back an initiative they should never have had & Kerr is at least partly responsible for that (100% responsible in my opinion). The dogs on the street know where Duff is at his most effective.
So it's the Indo that's off the mark in my opinion.
I often think the Irish are never happy unless we're complaining about something but I think there's a difference between our perpetual "the manager's crap" rants and objective criticsm of Kerr's tenure.
Personally I'm always in the "glass is half full " camp - I really hate knocking people unless it's blatantly warranted. McCrathy always had my support until I found out in late 2002 about the full extent of players getting drunk during match build ups & that type of stuff. The Indo's article should acknowledge this, and the fact that his assistant was a total no-mark not fit to be involved in an international set up in my mind.
Giving Kerr the job was 100% the right decision at the time but in my mind it's hard to even say -AT THIS POINT - he's even been a qualified success. I admit the really big games are still to come though.
After the desperately bad 2-1 win over Albania Kerr bemoaned the lack of tactical flexibility of Irish/British teams & I thought then he was about to offer something fresh and imaginative. But looking at this team's performances & selections I see nothing at all where Kerr has put his stamp on the team. His off-flield changes most defintely have to be commended though.
We've used a host of friendlies but at no stage have we ever done anything imaginative like trying Kilbane / Kennedy / Clarke at left-back. McGeady has played about 10 minutes in total, Jason Byrne was given a meaningless 2 minutes, Steven Reid was left out of the squad for a year, Richard Dunne for months. Kerr uses Duff upfront from time-to-time. Where has been Kerr's unique footprint? Andy Reid, John O'Shea & Andy O'Brien are about the only personnel changes since Mick, all being pretty obvious, though I commend the way he brought Keane back into the fold.
It's also not fair to say that things might be any better under Mick though the manner of our WC2002 qualification (24 points from a tough group)certainly looks to be a high water mark in recent history.
The glass is still half full but cop on Independent, we're allowed our say (and in many cases we actually do have more knowledge than playing Championship Manager on a computer you condescending so-and-so). We're only voicing our concerns because our recent mediocrity hurts.
If Kerr steers us through to Germany from this position I'll be the first to say well done. He'll deserve the credit.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 08/06/2005 at 8:47 AM.
It was a tatical mistake to move Duff up front imo. However, it's more not recognising that the rest of the team just give him the ball and expect him to do something as much as a striaght tatical fook up. In much the same way a big man up front leads to long balls, when it'd be better to still get crosses in from the wings. He should've gone for a straight swap for Keane.
Kav should've started in place of Holland imo too.
Think Kerr's fell into the trap of playing his best 11 available players rather than playing the 11 that fit best - i.e. playing people out of position. A lot of managers do. Imo McCarthy too often didn't even do that - he picked his 11 favourite players.
I personally think the critism of Kerr is harsh at this stage. People are comparing his first full campaign (before it's even ended ffs) to McCarthy's last full campaign.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
I'm not doing that Macy but I believe that so far Kerr has come up short. Four straight wins and I'll give him the credit that such a run, and all that goes with it, will deserve. I'm not sure that anything less is good enough, though.
Semper in faecibus sole profundum variat
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, not slating him for a substitution we (the glorious fans) think he should have made.
I'm going to keep bringing up Jose Mourinho because he is regarded as one of the best in the business.
(I'm going to put this in bold as I'm pretty certain Mourinho has done something similar plenty of times):
If Mourinho had Kezman and Tiago on the bench and Drogba up front with Gudjohnson. Lets say Chelsea were winning 2-0 and and Gudjohnson got injured after 25 minutes. Mourinho brings on Tiago for Gudy and puts Duff in a more forward role. Absolutely nothing bad would be said about him. I'd be actually really suprised if Mourinho never made a similar substitution to this about 10 times or more last season.
We don't know why Elliott is not going to start tonight (as the papers seem to suggest), or why he didn't come on on Saturday but Kerr knows more than any of us so lets give him the benefit of the doubt. Its all well and good us telling him to play Elliott when we hardly know the player.
And I don't think we lost that match because of the substitution. We lost or rhythm after 15 minutes. The substitution was made on 27 minutes. I don't see how if Elliott was put on we wouldn't have conceded a free kick and a penalty. Its not as if they were dominating possession. They got into our half twice and made something from it. Everyone takes the easy target and blames Kerr. If Kerr was in charge of Chelsea when they lost their 2 goal lead against Bolton he'd be taking the blame.
Last edited by eirebhoy; 08/06/2005 at 9:33 AM.
Why not bring on Elliot - inexperience ?
Robbie Keane played in three friendlies before earning his fourth cap v Croatia in a qualifier in 1998 at the age of 18.
Before you shout abuse - YES Robbie was playing 'second tier' football at the time with Wolves, same as Elliot with Sunderland.
There is no difference, he should have come on.
I manage an amatuer team and if I put a midfielder up front while I had two strikers on the bench there would have been trouble.
You're spot on in your assessment, stojkovic. As for your last point, you can understand why Jonathan Macken might have put up with David James going on up front the other week rather than causing a fuss when you think of the manager that made that particular decision...
Semper in faecibus sole profundum variat
We don't know. He's probably not going to play tonight either. Should Kerr have his job on the line because we don't know why he won't play Elliott? All we can do is guess but I seem to be the only person giving him the benefit of the doubt.
You have to remember that Elliott could not get into the Sunderland team at the end of the season while Duff is well capable of playing up front for the best team in England.
Elliott has 2 fairly established strikers in front of him, who are scoring at the moment. When Keane came through, Quinn and Cascarino were in the latter stages of their careers, and the jury was still out on Connolly (still is to some degree), we needed to try new players, I don't know if that need is there right now.
Need ?
Our two strikers can't get their game at their clubs.
They will elsewhere though.
But 2-0 up against a poor side what better way to make an appearance up front. We are not talking about a centre half here.
It's not about Elliott though, is it? It's about killing something that was in rude health. Snatching near-defeat from the jaws of victory, not for the first time either recently. And that's what hurts.
Why does the spotlight fall on Elliott? Becasue we know that he can fill the hole left by Keane to some extent, which would therefore mean we could play in the same way as we did for twenty-five glorious minutes on Saturday afternoon.
We also know where Duff's best role is for Ireland, and so indeed does he, as he declared publicly only yesterday. The fact that Kerr entertains other notions marks him out at best as an alternative thinker. And that's why I for one am becoming more worried. It's not over yet by a long chalk, but that's down to the inconsistency of others rather than any efforts on our part. The jury's still out.
Semper in faecibus sole profundum variat
PP - I'm repeating myself in 2 threads here but anyway.Elliott had not started a game for Sunderland since the 2nd of April (1 game since mid March). He was on the bench for Sunderland's last 6 games. He didn't do very much against Celtic.
We didn't lose those 2 goals because of that substitution. We hadn't been playing well since the 15th minute. Holland tackled someone 40 yards out and Given mis-kicked the ball which led to a peno. Its not as if we fell apart as soon as Duff went up front. We hadn't been playing well since the 2nd goal.
You cannot be serious? Show me where I'm wrong in my replies to the sections of his article:
Quote:
The man in black denied Ireland a clear penalty, handed one to Israel for a non-existent foul
No Paul, we can admit when its a bloody clear foul by O'Shea.
Quote:
Instead of applying a plaster - replacing Keane with another striker - Kerr attempted to perform major surgery.
What striker would that be? A centre half in Dohery that couldn't make the Norwich bench? Elliott who had started 1 game since mid-March and was on the bench for all the rest? Alan Lee? Or someone that could get his game up front for Chelsea, in Damien Duff.
Quote:
His decision to unleash Graham Kavanagh, a hard-working midfielder who, despite his unerring set-piece deliveries, is simply not an international class player
Go watch a bit of bloody football Paul. He is a better central midfielder than Holland or Kilbane so if Kav isn't international class we haven't got much choice.
Quote:
meant moving Damien Duff from the left flank, where he had been bamboozling the visitors
bamboozling? He was really ineffective out there because of the amount of players on him. In fact, Kilbane was probably more effective when put on the left wing.
Quote:
These changes unbalanced Ireland and gifted the initiative back to Israel who, in fairness, had the wherewithal to grab it, albeit with the assistance of a referee who awarded a penalty against John O'Shea for neglecting to stop a forward from falling.
Well I thought we went downhill after 15 minutes to be honest. But anyway, are you saying that if we put Elliott on up front Holland wouldn't have tackled (and clearly won the ball) someone 40 yards out? Or Given wouldn't have miskicked the ball and gave it to the opposition which led to the penalty? They hardly dominated as soon as Duff went up front. They had 2 set pieces and took them.
Quote:
but it was plain for all to see that if Doherty (or Stephen Elliot) had been on the pitch since the 23rd minute, Ireland would certainly have had a third, at least.
Oh come on. If Doherty came on and we conceded those 2 goals you’d be putting the blame on Kerr again. Doherty is a centre half and at best last resort for a goal.
Quote:
Away to Switzerland and Israel, a full-strength Irish side swaggered into an early lead only for Kerr to become negative, concede territory and ultimately settle for draws.
Unless Kerr is lying, he told the players at half time to go out, push up and create more. Is he lying? Obviously he told the players that possession is the most important thing but he hardly told them to sit on the 1-0 lead.
Quote:
Against injury- and suspension-ravaged France in Paris, a full-strength Irish side were in the process of delivering one of their most accomplished away performances and outclassing their illustrious hosts, only for Kerr to become negative, concede territory and ultimately settle for a draw.
Now its getting ridiculous. Kerr is to blame because we didn't win in France? Cop the hell on Paul.
Quote:
Kerr should simply have helped himself to away victories when they were offered to him on a plate.
Ah no. I would have done the same. I would have told the Israeli's to score in injury time. He never once said his policy was to get away draws. He said that teams usually win the group with away draws and home wins. He said this after the draws, not before the matches and it was basically to keep his players heads up. He hardly told his players to go out and play for a draw. They were all devastated after the Israel match. Roy even told the players to keep their heads up after we failed to win in Paris. Hardly like they felt they did a job well done.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks