Petty Indo Anti-Kerr Campaign

**WeAreRovers** · 18/10/2005, 4:04 PM

Originally Posted by Marked Man

Never thought I'd stoop to defending the Fianna Fail rag, but wouldn't the point be that it suggests that Kerr hadn't really prepared for the possibility that he might have to substitute a striker early in the game?

See my "Media Studies" comment above - It'a Blueshirt rag FFS. The Independent group have 3 sworn enemies - FF, RTE, the Republican movement.

KOH

**Bald Student** · 18/10/2005, 4:08 PM

Originally Posted by Marked Man

Never thought I'd stoop to defending the Fianna Fail rag, but wouldn't the point be that it suggests that Kerr hadn't really prepared for the possibility that he might have to substitute a striker early in the game?

Kerr was making a point about team preperation which (post-Saipan) was one of his main targets for improvement. The indo twisted the wording around to criticise him for not playing Elliot. The two points are completly unrelated and it shows the shallowness of the indo's argument.

**Dodge** · 18/10/2005, 4:42 PM

Originally Posted by WeAreRovers

See my "Media Studies" comment above - It'a Blueshirt rag FFS. The Independent group have 3 sworn enemies - FF, RTE, the Republican movement.

KOH

And Biran Kerr obviously...

**eirebhoy** · 18/10/2005, 4:52 PM

KERR SAYS:
"It appears to me you don't have to have any qualification to write about and analyse games. Have they done the work that qualifies them to say things and analyse? They're out of touch, don't know what's going on."

What a bloody joke. Kerr said this:
"I'd talk to people who really understood it and were experts. It appears to me that you don't have to have any qualification to write about and analyse the games."

...when asked about not talking to the media. What has Giles, Brady and Dunphy got to do with this?

The 2nd sentence was Kerr talking about 6 journalists turning up for an information night with Kerr and O'Reilly.

The 3rd sentence wasn't even in the bloody Irish Times article.

KERR SAYS:
"It (the opinion of critics) changes with results. That's the line."

I'm being pedantic here but he never said "thats the line". They add it in to get their point across.

"And while we're at it, what about the switch against Israel at home. Ahead 2-0, you replaced a striker (Robbie Keane) with a midfielder (Graham Kavanagh) and the match turned. Stephen Elliott was left on the bench but four days later was a star in the Faroes.

eh, if you read the whole article he answered this question:

"In the week prior to the Israel match, two weeks before it, he wasn't in the Sunderland team. I spoke extensively with people at Sunderland who said he was struggling, he'd picked up a virus in the summer and hadn't come out of it strong.

"In training, when he came with us we were waiting for him to show us something. Robbie hadn't been playing much. We needed him but there was nothing there. It wasn't Stephen. So on the day we put Graham (Kavanagh) on and Duffer up front. They got a hold and you know the rest.

"In the Faroes we had a couple of sessions and something clicked with Stephen and we had virtually no choice though but to play him. It's fine-line stuff."

Just to add to the above, Kerr said he hadn't played in 2 weeks, more like one start in 2 months.

"The job (media work) deserves the time I give it. With the youths or Pat's there were very few people interested. I used to hustle to get a few lines."

Take out the bold bit and thats the exact quote. The bit in bold was part of a different thing.

**Marked Man** · 18/10/2005, 5:13 PM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

Kerr was making a point about team preperation which (post-Saipan) was one of his main targets for improvement. The indo twisted the wording around to criticise him for not playing Elliot. The two points are completly unrelated and it shows the shallowness of the indo's argument.

OK, from Eirebhoy's post, it's pretty clear that a lot was taken out of context. But still, how is team preparation completely unrelated to having a plan in place for substitutions? If Eliot wasn't fit to play (as the virus comment seems to suggest), why was he even on the bench? If he was fit to play, why didn't he (or at least a striker) come on for Keane? Seems to me like this is closely related to team preparation.
None of which is to defend the Indo (still a rag, even if I haven't got its party affiliation right); even a broken clock gets the right time twice a day.

**pete** · 18/10/2005, 5:13 PM

I think the Indo is bitter that not attend the press conference last week & jealous IT got the big interview this week.

I don't might papers having anti-whoever articles but could at least have someone writting Devils Advocate articles as the IT often does on serious debates.

I send email but be surprised if decent response.

**Bald Student** · 18/10/2005, 7:11 PM

They're not completly unrelated, Marked Man in that all parts of playing a game are related.

Kerr had a plan in place for substitutions. The journalist disagreed with that plan.

The point is that the journalist was unable to criticise Kerr on the point he was making so instead he twisted the words around to try to make them mean something else. It is an example of biased journalism (and a poor one at that).