Brian Kerr Documentary

[Paulie]

Some of the performances under Mick, particularly in his first campaign, were poor. The squad, due to age, lost a number of players from the previous campaign. I realise that generally this happens at the end of a campaign, that some players will call it a day, but this really was the end of an era. On top of this, there were several players that stayed on who were clearly past their best (Aldridge, Houghton, Townsend etc). I am not mentioning these players to criticise them for staying on, more to highlight that even at the age that these guys were at we still didn’t have anyone better coming through to take their place. Despite all this we still managed to get 2nd in the group and qualify for the play-offs going out by 1 goal over the two legs to Belgium.

In his next campaign we were very good at home beating Croatia and Yugoslavia but our away form cost us as we again lost out in the play-offs, this time on the away goals rule, having been only seconds away from topping the group outright. We all know how well his final campaign went. The point I’m really trying to make is that I think Mick lost a lot more in terms of players and experience than Brian Kerr did when he took over. Crucially Mick seemed to learn from his mistakes and made efforts to change things when he realised he was wrong i.e. when he initially took the job he tried 3 at the back but it didn’t work so, admittedly after a couple of shocking performances, he reverted to 4 at the back, after the Euro 2000 campaign he changed to playing 2 up front away from home and we went from carrying literally no threat to any half decent team away from home to being a dangerous attack minded team. Brian just did not seem to be able to get decent performances from the players and he didn’t seem to learn from his mistakes going back to his defensive tactics once Ireland took the lead. It gives me no pleasure in saying it but I don’t think that anyone can regard the performances of the team in the majority of competitive games under Brian Kerr as acceptable.

[eirebhoy]

While I agree normally with Eirebhoy I have to disagree about Kerr having us playing some lovely stuff. We played well in France, average at home to Cyprus and that was about it IMO.

We played some great football in the friendlies. I know, they're only friendlies but he showed that he knows what good football is. If we could find out why they couldn't convert that to competitive but I think its psychological. It was psychological reasons that we played so well in Paris imo. We weren't expected to even get a draw so there was nothing to lose. I bet if we went 0-1 down after a minute in every match we would have played some great football. Kavanagh said it wasn't a conscious effort by the players to sit back in matches, it just happened. That's the brain forcing them to do the number one priority of defending a lead.

Maybe you could put it down to Kerr's motivational skills.

[geysir]

So who did we play well against in McCarty's first 2 campaigns? Liechtenstein, Macedonia (h), Croatia (h), Malta (h). Any more?

Yugoslavia (h), Romania (a), I can't remember Yugoslavia (a),
Belgium (a) at least was better than loosing to Swiss (a).
There is some case for argueing Kerr favorably with McCarthy. But you still would need a good lawyer. We might still have to sacrifice Brian as an honor killing.

[eirebhoy]

Belgium (a) at least was better than loosing to Swiss (a).

How is that?

[pineapple stu]

What is the definition of "best football"?

Apologies. Eirebhoy's exact phrase was "style" of football, which is what I was referring to. Obviously, winning is the important thing, but if you're just talking style, then Kerr was below McCarthy.

We really couldn't have done much better against France at home tbf. We played better in that match than we did at home to Holland 4 years ago. Macedonia x2, Iceland, Lithuania, Romania, Belgium, Turkey. None of them had us sitting comfortable in our chairs. We finished 10 points off Romania from a group filled with minnows and players like Irwin, Cunningham, Staunton, Keane, Houghton and Townsend. Ian Harte was playing well at the time as was Mark Kennedy and Gary Kelly.

So who did we play well against in McCarty's first 2 campaigns? Liechtenstein, Macedonia (h), Croatia (h), Malta (h). Any more?

Kerr is getting way too much critisism when his time in charge was no worse than McCarthy's first 2 campaigns.

Ummm...almost none of that has to do with the point I raised. It's just random McCarthy bashing. Kerr's campaign was quite maesurably worse than McCarthy's first two - we finished in a lower position with fewer points against arguably poorer opposition (let's be honest - Israel, Cyprus and the Faroes were poor, and even the Swiss weren't world beaters; McCarthy's second group had two quarter-finallists from the World Cup just finished) and came out of it with very little to be positive about, to be honest.

It was our performances in friendlies and when we weren't trying to protect a lead that I liked under Kerr.

And when you come out with comments like that, I think it's time to say goodbye to this thread...

[eirebhoy]

Kerr's campaign was quite maesurably worse than McCarthy's first two

No it wasn't. I'm not bashing McCarthy, I'd love him to go on and win a major title.

McCarthy averaged 1.8 points in his world cup group containing Romania, Lithuania, Macedonia, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Kerr averaged 1.7 with France, Switzerland, Israel, Cyprus and Faroe Islands in the group. McCarthy didn't seem to do any better than Kerr there. If anything, Kerr's was better considering the quality of teams in the groups.

McCarthy averaged 2.0 points in a Euro group containing Yugoslavia, Croatia, Macedonia and Malta. That's fairly good. Kerr averaged 1.83 in a group containing Switzerland, Russia, Albania and Georgia. McCarthy did better there but Kerr had 1 friendly before his first competitive, McCarthy had 8.

Ummm...almost none of that has to do with the point I raised.

You're bringing up our bad performances under Kerr, I'm showing you that there was just as many in McCarthy's first 2 campaigns.

And when you come out with comments like that, I think it's time to say goodbye to this thread...

Don't be silly PS. I'm pointing out that Ireland usually played well when they didn't go in front. Its defending a lead that we had problems with. If Kerr could only have sorted that out. In saying that, in McCarthy's first 2 qualifying campaigns we lost just as many leads and failed to win. McCarthy got a 3rd campaign and he was not measurably better than Kerr in the first 2.

[pineapple stu]

McCarthy averaged 1.8 points in his world cup group containing Romania, Lithuania, Macedonia, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Kerr averaged 1.7 with France, Switzerland, Israel, Cyprus and Faroe Islands in the group. McCarthy didn't seem to do any better than Kerr there. If anything, Kerr's was better considering the quality of teams in the groups.

I agree those groups are rougly similar (though don't forget Iceland weren't far away from getting to the play-offs in 2000 or 2002 - they had a handy little team). However, you're comparing McCarthy's first campaign with Kerr's second, which is unfair.

Kerr averaged 1.83 in a group containing Switzerland, Russia, Albania and Georgia.

Kerr didn't have to play Russia away or Switzerland at home though. If you take away Croatia away and Yugoslavia at home, McCarthy averaged 2.17 points per game. Over a 10-game campaign, that's 3 points in the difference. Which is a big difference. The difference betwen qualifying and not, at our level. The difference between being a good and a not so good manager.

You're bringing up our bad performances under Kerr, I'm showing you that there was just as many in McCarthy's first 2 campaigns.

I don't think there were. But more importantly, let's compare good performances. Kerr - France away...Cyprus at home...that's about it? McCarthy - Liechtenstein home and away, Portugal home, Holland home and away, Macedonia home, Malta home, Germany (WC), Spain (WC) - McCarthy wins hands down. OK, some are against minnows, but you need to be able to play well against them as well. I don't think either game against the Faroes was particularly impressive at all, and we all know what happened away to Cyprus and Albania.
Actually bad performances - Kerr had Albania (H and A), Georgia (A), Russia (H), Switzerland (A), Switzerland (A), Israel (H and A), Cyprus (A) and you can throw in one of the Faroes games as well, probably the away one. That's nine in 16. McCarthy had Iceland (H), Macedonia (A), Lithuania (H), Macedonia (A), Croatia (A) and Turkey (H). Six in 22.

Don't be silly PS. I'm pointing out that Ireland usually played well when they didn't go in front. It's defending a lead that we had problems with.

Oh well that's alright so- Kerr was a world class manager when we were losing. Well that's a great help. That's his single biggest deficiency and you're turning it into a positive? Are you Kerr himself?

In saying that, in McCarthy's first 2 qualifying campaigns we lost just as many leads and failed to win. McCarthy got a 3rd campaign and he was not measurably better than Kerr in the first 2.

Factually incorrect. For a start, I think I've proven that McCarthy was measurably better than Kerr in his first two - on points, placing, points per game (in fact, you did the calculations) and standard of opposition. You even tried comparing Kerr's second campaign against McCarthy's first and still showed McCarthy to be better. I really don't know how else you can measure whose campaigns were better.

Secondly, Kerr threw away leads and subsequently failed to win against - Russia (H), Israel (H and A) and Switzerland (A). McCarthy did it against...Macedonia (A twice), Turkey (H), Belgium (H). The same number of times, but as a percentage of competitive games in the period (obviously a more reliable measure), that's four times in 16 games for Kerr versus four times in 22 for McCarthy. Again, a big difference.

I like Kerr. I wanted him to get the job when McCarthy was ousted. However, by no stretch of the imagination was he as good a manager as McCarthy and, in my opinion, he simply did not do enough to warrant a third campaign.

[eirebhoy]

I don't think there were. But more importantly, let's compare good performances. Kerr - France away...Cyprus at home...that's about it? McCarthy - Liechtenstein home and away, Portugal home, Holland home and away, Macedonia home, Malta home, Germany (WC), Spain (WC) - McCarthy wins hands down. OK, some are against minnows, but you need to be able to play well against them as well.

Kerr - France away, Cyprus home, Georgia home.
McCarthy - Leichtenstein x2, Macedonia home, Malta home. The rest were after the 2nd campaign.

You even tried comparing Kerr's second campaign against McCarthy's first and still showed McCarthy to be better.

I compared both Euro's and both WC's. I compared Kerr's first with McCarthy's 2nd too obviously.

Anyway, back off to watch the rest of this.

[Mayo Red]

Whatever else about how it all panned out in the end, watching the antics of that w@nker Dudu Awat still disgusts me!

[JimmyP]

Watching that documentary just stung...
revisting all that belief and optimism was a lot more painful than I thought it'd be.

I know there was a lot of expectation that the show would just be Brian Kerr trying to deflect all the blame and vindicate himself, but if anything, I'm more sure than ever than we need the change.

[pineapple stu]

Kerr - France away, Cyprus home, Georgia home.
McCarthy - Leichtenstein x2, Macedonia home, Malta home. The rest were after the 2nd campaign.

Georgia at home was average at best. A win, but nothing spectacular. Of the same standard as the 1-0 win over Macedonia.

I compared both Euro's and both WC's. I compared Kerr's first with McCarthy's 2nd too obviously.

Doesn't make any sense to do it that way though. If you'd've put Kerr's campaigns the right way around, you'd've seen the very important fact that Kerr's second campaign was worse than his first. McCarthy learned and improved. Kerr blamed everyone else and disimproved.

Must say Kerr came across as an awful moaner in the documentary. Everything was someone else's fault. He had some views which were held by himself alone - e.g. arguing that the team were very positive during the Israel away game?!

Never heard the French national anthem on telly though (was in the middle of it) - unbelievable stuff!! Can't believe I camped out in that Faroese weather either!

Nice to see a cameo from Schloomp after the home game against Israel. Thought I glimpsed a UCD scarf in Paris, but not sure. Any other foot.ie-ers make it on?

watching the antics of that w@nker Dudu Awat still disgusts me!

Incredible. And to think there was one Irish poster (no names!) who said the first challenge on Keane wasn't a penalty and that Awat was geniunely injured to the extent of blood running out of his nose! The pictures (again, at the match, so first time seeing it on telly) completely refuted that!

[klein4]

dont think he did himself any favours with a couple of the comments...
On the macarthy v kerr thing....you cant quote macarthys stats without taking into account a top of his game keanes contribution to some of them big games.(croatia,holland,portugal) we always struggled without him in the team. and Ireland were terrible against spain in the WC. anyone who remembers differently must have had the beer goggles on. I dont see how anyone looks at macarthys time as some golden era when we were playin great football.it just wasnt the case at all. making Iceland out to be some world beaters is a bad joke!

[eirebhoy]

Kerr should really have taken more of the blame in that documentary. I do agree with him that we just weren't good enough though. The last game of the qualifiers our best players were in and out of the Spurs team, Morrison was 4th choice at Birmingham, Kilbane wasn't getting his game for Everton, Harte was playing in the Spanish 2nd division. He should take the blame for having players like Doherty in the bloody squad though, never mind putting him on.

[dfx-]

I don't need to watch a rerun of the qualifiers. I saw the matches (except Israel (h) as I was abroad). It is blatently clear that Kerr was not capable of directing the Republic of Ireland any further. Comparing results to what France and Switzerland got - at the Faeroes, for example. "Ah well look at us, the plucky Irish up against far better teams". We were arguably the best team in that group and we threw it away. There is no excuse for the players were playing in the Romanian third division. We had the group for the taking. It was in our hands Not anyone else and when it came down to it, Kerr did not have the capability to clinch it. The players had given him the top of the group in June. He had 5 games to change it. After the farce away at Israel where he spotted we were defensive and did **** all about it except make it 4-5-1 in the last 10 minutes, despite saying he tried to make the players attack, he wanted to hold the result. He wanted to hold the result in Cyprus. We should have annihilated Cyprus, we ripped them open in the first 9 minutes and then shut up shop. We scored in Israel after 4 minutes and shut up shop again. Against Switzerland away he was determined to settle for a 1-1. We were lucky with a 1-1 draw then when Switzerland were tehre for the taking.

I am sick and tired of Ireland rating itself as a plucky country fighting above its weight. It has not changed in years - the 1-1 draw in Macedonia under McCarthy was identical - 0-1 in the first twenty minutes and tehn defend when we were going to finish top.

Seven years later and we are doing exactly the same thing. Nothing has changed. No progress had been made. And if no progress is made then it is again time for a change. I have heard he said that after the Israel game away, the attitude of the FAI changed to him - personally I would've sacked him there and then. Why wait for five games of exactly the same to do it?

The most annoying thing is the idea that we could've walked that group. We should've won in Switzerland and France and Israel. We could even have afforded to lose at home to France had we beaten Israel. The fact that France and Switzerland got the same results against Israel has nothing to do with us - except underlining how easy this group should have been.

At the crux of the issue about Kerr was that it was down to him and him alone to change it and walk us through the group that we led halfway with our toughest matches out of the way and he was not up to the task. Therefore adios.

I don't particularly remember any competitive match where we played as well as we could. Albania at home was pulling teeth. Albania away was a godsend of a draw. Israel at home and particularly away were to quote a phrase, a fumbling disgrace.

How anyone can seriously still claim that Kerr is good enough given the events of the qualifiers of the last two years is quite seriously beyond me.

He was not good enough, maybe his replacement won't be good enough, but I'd rather the chance of improvement rather than the staid monotony of underachievement.

We are far better than the last qualifiers showed. Time for someone else to show it to us.

[Slash/ED]

Don't be silly PS. I'm pointing out that Ireland usually played well when they didn't go in front.

Due to Kerrs conversatism.

Same as with friendlys, we did well for one simple reason. We took them seriously. The teams we played did not. Which frustrated me no end, rather than try new players he played them like competitive games then bemoaned lack of experience for certain players. Nothing irritated me more about Kerr than his attitude towards friendlys actually.

[geysir]

How is that?

You asked the question about games in which Ireland have performed well in, under Mick.
Belgium (away) at least was a better performance than loosing to the Swiss (away) ECQ.
Surely that statement does not need further explanation.
I think you (silently) agreed to adding Yugoslav (h) and Romania (a) to the list.

Was that not Kerr out on Landsdowne pitch with the lawnmower?

[finlma]

The documentary was tough to watch but I thought it was very well put together. I feel Kerr should have taken some of the blame for the poor performances - especially the Cyprus game and the last game against the Swiss.

Still, he's a nice guy and you'd have to feel a bit sorry for him.

[Tenderloins]

The program was hard to w3atch, especially as we knew the ending. Brian Kerr did not come out well from it. His voice even started to annoy me at the end.
Then this "No Regrets, other than the results..." ****e. No regrets other than the results? stupid thing to say.
Glad hes gone now, way too conservative a manager.

[oconghc2]

obvious kerr loved managing the country, seemed gutted, like all of us - didnt get it right though on too many occasions! i liked the bit about stephen elliot not being on form in training before the israel home game, therefore was not brought on!

Did he just happen to find his touch in the next day or 2 after that game so he was then considered for Faroes game!!

Disappointed that Kerr didnt really once take it on the chin! played the béal bocht a few too many times!

Anyway - time to move on - gonna be interesting if nothing else!!

[Dotsy]

So we know now what the problems were-

- the crap arrangments made by the previous regime for the first match in Switzerland (but it seems the arrangements for the away matches in Georgia and Albania were OK or at least didn't rate a comment)
- the players
- the FAI
- the media


At least Brian got everything right . The most telling comment he made IMO was that we were only behind for 20 minutes in the whole campaign and somehow that was an indication of how close we came and how unfortunate we were. Fact is even if we had drawn against the French in LR ( and we never looked like beating them on the night) we still would not have qualified. We failed because of two poor performances against Israel for which Kerr has to take some of the blame.

His refusal to acknowledge that he made mistakes makes me so glad he is gone. With that kind of attitude we were never going to improve under him.