That link is interesting, why would he have to wait 6 months before taking up the job? Is the FAI trying to save money or wait as long as they can for MON to become available. I think the latter, and MON used the phrase 'foreseeable future' when saying he was not available at this time. I think the FAI has spoken to O'Neill and is willing to wait and see, I'm sure MON hasn't made any comittment other than saying - call me again in 6 months time.Originally Posted by eirebhoy
If true, dangerous game to play though on the fais part do ye not think? A big gamble (that may or may not pay off)
DAN CONNOR HATES CITY, HE HATES LANGERS
A big gamble that could see the inevitable "Givens-caretaker manager" spell run into the qualifiers.
Seriously, its getting to the stage where the likes of him will be throwing their hat in the ring.
City definetly have the best bands playing at half-time.
O'Bama - "Eerah yeah, I'd say we can alright!"
G.O'Mahoney Trapattoni'll sort ém out!!
Waiting for Moses Delaney to hear the word from the Lord and appoint a new leader to bring the green army to the promised land.
re trusty Troussier
"I refused Nigeria and Senegal, because they didn't give me enough guarantees".
That´s not what was reported at the time, the deal with Nigeria was done and dusted then he gave some excuse that he had to have surgery done on his knee.
"I was also in talks with Eire, but I had to wait six months.
What was reported that he said at the time of throwing his hat into the ring ´I would do a deal with the FAI and money would not be a barrier´.
The FAI are waiting six months so they can save the €250,000 or so they would have had to pay Brian Kerr and use that to pay the next guys first instalment of his salary.. we did not qualify for the World Cup and the FAI are f***ing broke and will be for the foreseeable future!
I don't know about you guys but maybe we should give the Israeli coach Grant the job, he's just become available.
John Delaney is a tool! He was a complete flute at Waterford United wasting IR£ 400,000 raised from the PLC floatation on having 33 signed players and no reserve team under Mike Flanagan's tenure. Next time he appears at a match we should all chant " you don't know what you're doing!"
Last edited by CollegeTillIDie; 29/10/2005 at 9:00 AM.
we know what kerr brought to the Irish set up a 3rd place finish and a 4th place finish at least with looking for a new manager we are trying to better that. It would only have gotten worse under Kerr. No mind change here although I've never been quite as despondant and I blame Kerr...
The groups Kerr had were a lot tougher than McCarthy's. The worst team in the Euro group was Georgia. Half the Georgian team would have got into our team and still probably would now. One "moment of magic" by Henry seperated the 4 teams at the top in the WC campaign. I know we wouldn't have qualified on goal difference but not many Irish teams would qualify for anything on g/d.
I'd put Kerr's Euro 2004 campaign on par with McCarthy's Euro 2000 campaign and Kerr's WC2006 campaign on par with McCarthy's WC98. Kerr averaged 1.7 points per game in the WCQ, McCarthy averaged 1.8 with Lithuania the only competitor for 2nd place. The team that Kerr took over for the Euros had Gary Breen at centre half, Gary Kelly at right back and Ian Harte at left back, Matt Holland and Kinsella in the centre, Jason McAteer on the right, Kevin Kibane on the left and Duff up front. With no time to experiment he had to stick with the core of that.
Last edited by eirebhoy; 29/10/2005 at 10:15 AM.
Let's not forget that Kerr started the 2004 qualifiers with a six point deficit.
Thats an interesting way of looking at it EB...and I can understand the realationship between the campaigns/managers but it seems to me you're looking for and have found the stats to back up your opinon but are missing the glaringly obvious ones. These are well documented and I'm sure you know them even if you choose to see them in a different way. Kerr would have taken us further downhill and the FAI and the majority of Fans knew that and thats why he went. We never took a risk in the whole of the campaign I'm glad were doing it now.
Right on, I just couldn't see any further progress under Kerr, we have without a doubt slipped even further back than we were at the start of his term.
The simple fact is we only managed to beat Georgia under Kerr, that's it. Period. End of story. Thank you and Good Night.
Brian Kerr not good enough
I cannot understand how some of you are trying to make excuses for Brian Kerr. Eirebhoy, that is absolute rubbish what you said about Kerr's Euro04 campaign being on a par with McCarthy's Euro2000 campaign. The best performace from Kerr's team in the 2004 qualifiers was a 2 nil home win against Georgia. We palyed some excellent football that night against what was a good Georgian team. However, we put in some desperate performaces at home to Albania and Russia, as well the soulless performace in Basel. In contrast, McCarthy's team beat Croatia 2-0 in Lansdowne (a team that had just come third in the World Cup). We also put in a vintage performace to achieve a 2-1 win at home to Yugoslavia, a team that included Mijatovic, Savicevic, Stankovic and Mihailovic (not sure about my spelling!). We missed out on automatic qualification because Macedonia got an equaliser with 12 seconds to go. We then went out on an away goal to Turkey (a penalty might I add). McCarthy and his team may have made some blunders during that campaign, but at least they were honest in the way they went about things. Brian Kerr and his team were certainly not honest. They failed to give the requisite commitment.
People keep saying that we don't have the players. What they forget is that for the majority of this campaign we had 11 Premiership players starting each game. We should have been more than good enough to get a play-off place. During Mick McCarthy's first qualification campaign, he was forced to use young reserve team players like Ian Harte and David Connolly, and a number of veterans. McCarthy didn't have the resources, but he at least managed to take us to a play-off in which we gave it everything against the Belgians. Even when we beat Holland in Lansdowne, we won with 10 men. We had Steve Staunton (an Aston Villa reserve) and a fat Richard Dunne in defence. We had Jason McAteer (a Blackburn Rovers reserve on the right wing). We still managed to beat a star-studded Dutch team. Under McCarthy, the Irish team was always greater than the sum of its parts. The same could not be said for Kerr's team. I'll always forgive a team and the manager when they give it everything and are showing signs of improvement. The same cannot be said for Brian Kerr and his team. He completely failed to motivate the players for any of the games, other than the French in Paris. That alone should not be enough to keep him in a job. We played against a considerably weakened French team, a result that both Israel and Switzerland also managed to pull off.
Like everyone on this forum, I wanted Brian Kerr to succeed. I supported him right to the end. I enjoyed the feel-good story that was Brian Kerr's rise to the top job in Irish football. I truely believed that he would do great things for us. However, that confidence was mis-placed. Kerr was out of his depth. After using the media to his advantage, he turned on them. I've heard a couple of stories of his dealings with the public, real football fans. It seems that like many Irish people who rise to power, Kerr let the position go to his head. He developed an ego and unlike McCarthy, failed to learn from his mistakes. When McCarthy realised that his 3-man defence wasn't working, he was man enough to change it. However, when it became clear after the Israel games that a cautious approach and negativity were costing us points, Kerr continued to adopt such an approach. Kerr strikes me as a completely stubborn individual. The fact that Ireland finished the must-win game against the Swiss with 6 recognised defenders on the pitch speaks for itself. One would have thought that Kerr would have gone for broke, even to save his job. Ultimately, his negative approach cost him and its hard to have sympathy for such a manager. While Kerr might have looked down and sniggered at the managerial tenures of Charlton and McCarthy, he is ultimately the joke.
Kerr had three years in charge of this team, yet he failed to leave his own mark. For that reason, Kerr's tenure will never be remembered as an "era". With the exception of Andy Reid, he didn't really bring any of his own players through. Stephen Elliott only got a few caps. This never became his team, and he only has himself to blame. Personally, I became sick of his cautious approach in friendly matches. It was like we would score a goal and sit back and defend for the rest of the match. The home friendlies against Croatia, Portugal and China spring to mind. Kerr might have thought it was great that we were maintaining our world ranking, while bringing on the odd fringe player for a cap after the 80th minute. For a man that built his reputation with the youth teams, he never gave the young players a chance.
I disagree with those who say we can't do better than Brian Kerr. While I recognise that it would be almost impossible to find someone who cares about Irish football as much as Kerr, we can certainly get a better manager. If Kerr had been kept on it would send out the wrong signal. It is simply not acceptable that Ireland finish fourth in a group. Kerr had his chance and he failed. If, like McCarthy, he had made the play-offs and there was a real sign of improvement, he would be well entitled to a new contract. However, I think he has left this team in a worse state than what he received it in. He didn't deserve a new contract and I have no sympathy for him.
Its still early days yet and we can speculate all we like but none of us know who will be the next manager. However, I think if we give it time we will find the right man.
"Love many, trust few, always paddle your own canoe." Dillo
Exactly. No change of mind here. Anyone with an attacking mentality who has an ounce of managerial talent is required. Kerr could've hacked it - he could've coped if he would ditch his conservative mentality. That is what got him sacked and it still remains the correct decision.Kerr wasn't up to scratch and didn't have the balls to go out and win games. Either that or he had little influence over the players. Tactically inept. Best result was a 0-0 draw away to a French reserve team in crises. Wake up people
The Model Club
Tell all the Bohs you know
that we've gone and won two-in-a-row
and it's not gonna be three
and it's not gonna be four
it's more likely to be 5-1.
I've changed my mind. I thought Delaney deserved a kick in the balls. Can I add a kick in the face to that.
Good post BTW P.M.
Not even neccessary to mention that Croatia and Yugoslavia were 40+ places above us in the rankings.
When statistics form the whole arguement then the statistics become the lampost that a drunk leans against while urinating, for support rather than illumination.
I've changed my mind. In September I felt he should only be replaced if there was somebody better to replace him. But after what I saw in early October I'm just as happy to have no-one at the helm than to have Kerr.
I posted in the run up to the Cyprus game that Kerr was a few shots over par but had a few holes left to play in which he could recover. Judge him when his round is over I thought. But sadly, he made a mess of the last few holes too. A pretty nasty mess.
The only time I felt Kerr was beginning to stamp his own mark on this team was after the France away & Faroes home games when we played with a crispness and tempo that told me that Kerr had realised what it takes to win at international level these days. I was waiting for a beakthrough performance in Israel but even the last minute equaliser papered over the cracks - we were p1ss poor. We played well for a while at home to Isreal, for about 75 minutes actually. But, let's face it, this was still the minimum you'd expect from eleven Premiership players.
The players are not responding to his style. Can anyone name one player from whom Kerr has got the best out of? Andy O'Brien was the only real success in my view. Most players underperformed for him. Only O'Brien played better for Kerr than you'd have thought he would do.
He never showed any imagination.
His team & squad selections were stagnant. Players no more deserving of an Ireland cap than me were in the squad whereas others with potential never got a look in. It took Paddy Kenny AGES to even make the squad when we had no credible goalkeeping cover. Underperforming players kept their places regularly.
I don't buy into the arguement that this is a poor squad. I said it on the "Ireland and Ireland" thread: there's enough in this squad and enough on the fringes to do something if we had an inspirational manager. Kerr just didn't fit the bill. He just wasn't good enough and when all the evidence is taken into account there's no sign he ever would have been. If asked the same when Mick had finished his second term, I honestly would have said he was probably worth one more shot.
No need to panic yet though.
Terry Venebles is now in the running. Wouldn't be a bad appointment at all, excellent coach who knows how to get the best out of players, plus plenty of international experience. And before anyone referes to his short tenure at Leeds, Jesus Christ himself couldn't have saved Leeds.
What about his tenure at Crystal Palace when he nearly bankruptd the club? For me, Venables has done nothing of note in management since winning the FA Cup with Spurs, even at Euro '96 he had a fantastic side and still couldn't get them to win at home.
Oh come on they lost on penalties in the semis, plus you had all of Ireland and Scotland praying they would fail. Anyway Venables isn't the guy we want.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks