Staunton on the Late Late tonight

**eirebhoy** · 26/01/2006, 2:30 PM

klein4 - most people will know I was pro-Kerr but in your case I think its just bias.

"3rd ,4th or last the end result is the same....seems what was unacceptable a month or so ago is now suddenly acceptable..."

Lets reverse that and say, failing to qualify for two tournaments under Kerr was acceptable, failing to qualify for one under Stan will be unacceptable?

I'll give Staunton until the end of his contract unless he really fecks the place up which I doubt is going to happen.

**klein4** · 26/01/2006, 3:08 PM

biased? why? I just think we should be aiming to qualify for every tournament. we shouldnt be writing them off because we have appointed a manager who has never managed before and he needs time to learn.he is either good enough now or is it not. its pretty much the same team as kerr had minus keane who was injured and off form for a lot of the qualifiers and cunningham who is very much replaceable.if anything we have some good players coming thru.we already have people on here saying on the one hand they are optimistic about staunton and the other that they would be happy with finishing 3rd and making some "progress".now if thats not double standards what is? What if we finished third yet the two top seads totally ran away with it and we are not in contention from early on? is that better than fourth with bein in with a shout til the last match? positions in the goup mean feck all outside of the top two. he should be sacked if his team are not in contention to qualify. cause that would just show he cant manage and shouldnt be persevered with.

**Den Perry** · 26/01/2006, 3:17 PM

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

You hit the nail on the head there Karlos. Quotes are have been attributed to Steve Staunton to get a point across. Yet there is no source for these quotes. How can we trust or believe the argument been put across if we have no reference point. That is what I find boring and to me comes across as more of a rant against Staunton really. There are many reason for criticising the FAI or Stauntons credential but they should be backed up by hard evidence. If that happens well then I would have no problem with the post.

As Karlos has backed up I have no problem disagreeing with people and then at a later date agreeing with that same person about a different point.

Such as the hard evidence used by Delaney in proving Staunton's credentials and for the most important job in Irish football??

**NeilMcD** · 26/01/2006, 3:21 PM

That is just one sentence there why not put a clear argument with clearly argued points why you think that Staunton is not ther right man for the job and where that we are giving up on qualification to Euro 2008.

**klein4** · 26/01/2006, 3:24 PM

because it only took one sentance to dismiss your latest "novel" as rubbish...?

**NeilMcD** · 26/01/2006, 3:35 PM

Which novel is that now Klein. YOu will find that I put forward a lengthy piece on Staunton which was balanced and based on fact but also had a bit of opinion contained in it. Several people who do not agree with me on several issues said it was a good post or a well argued post. All I am saying is that I look forward to reading interesting posts that are balanced and contain facts but also have good amount of opinion contained in the argument. One line smart comments or rants with not factual back up are boring to me. That is why I will read posts by posters like Eirebhoy and Stuttgart and Karlos and Tired and Emotional. All of them have varied range of opinions on Kerr and Staunton but none of them tend to rant on this forum.

**Den Perry** · 26/01/2006, 3:37 PM

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

That is just one sentence there why not put a clear argument with clearly argued points why you think that Staunton is not ther right man for the job and where that we are giving up on qualification to Euro 2008.

Is this clear enough for you?
1. The only "managerial experience" he had was as assistant coach at WALSALL
2.Far more experienced candidate with proven success
3. After publicly humiliating his captain at World Cup 2002, many players would find it hard to trust him
4.He refers on National television to "the Granny rule". While this in itself is not a crime, it is highly embarrassing for the manager of our national team to use such phraseology....it sets the tone that we shall be going back to the give it a lash ideology .....

**NeilMcD** · 26/01/2006, 3:42 PM

Fair enough Dan you are getting better at this.

I agree he does not have any managerial experience. I do not think he should have got the job. However now that he does I am not going to shoot him down before anything has begun. One could also argue that Van Basten, Hughes Klinsmann, did not have any experience before they took over their country.

Who was the more experienced candidate with proven success. Are you refering to Also I say fair enough I would have preferred Aldridge and he should have at leat got an interview.

I think point 3 you are on dodgy ground as many players took the same side that Staunton did which was to play on and not say anything in favour of Keane at the time or since and they supported Mc Carthy just like Staunton did.

I agree the Granny Rule reference is a nonesense as Kerr did as much as any previous manager but the talent was not there. I thought it was a very simplistic and naive answer from Staunton and it does not fill me with optimisn with answers like that.

**klein4** · 26/01/2006, 3:47 PM

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

Which novel is that now Klein. YOu will find that I put forward a lengthy piece on Staunton which was balanced and based on fact but also had a bit of opinion contained in it. Several people who do not agree with me on several issues said it was a good post or a well argued post. All I am saying is that I look forward to reading interesting posts that are balanced and contain facts but also have good amount of opinion contained in the argument. One line smart comments or rants with not factual back up are boring to me. That is why I will read posts by posters like Eirebhoy and Stuttgart and Karlos and Tired and Emotional. All of them have varied range of opinions on Kerr and Staunton but none of them tend to rant on this forum.

self praise is no praise at all neil...

**Den Perry** · 26/01/2006, 3:47 PM

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

Fair enough Dan you are getting better at this.

I agree he does not have any managerial experience. I do not think he should have got the job. However now that he does I am not going to shoot him down before anything has begun. One could also argue that Van Basten, Hughes Klinsmann, did not have any experience before they took over their country.

Who was the more experienced candidate with proven success. Are you refering to Also I say fair enough I would have preferred Aldridge and he should have at leat got an interview.

I think point 3 you are on dodgy ground as many players took the same side that Staunton did which was to play on and not say anything in favour of Keane at the time or since and they supported Mc Carthy just like Staunton did.

I agree the Granny Rule reference is a nonesense as Kerr did as much as any previous manager but the talent was not there. I thought it was a very simplistic and naive answer from Staunton and it does not fill me with optimisn with answers like that.

The experienced canddate I referred to was Venables. I would not have let Aldridge near the job. He has been proven as a failure...at least Staunton hasn't....YET

**NeilMcD** · 26/01/2006, 3:55 PM

Originally Posted by klein4

self praise is no praise at all neil...

Its called defending my posts and my track record of posting. Do you do anything else other than **** stir on this have you ever put forward a post that was reasoned and well argued.

**Karlos** · 26/01/2006, 3:58 PM

Originally Posted by klein4

biased? why? I just think we should be aiming to qualify for every tournament..

So does everyone else - I even went as far as saying that's what i bleieve we would aim for, so you wouldn't get that impression.

Originally Posted by klein4

we shouldnt be writing them off because we have appointed a manager who has never managed before and he needs time to learn.he is either good enough now or is it not.

There's writing someone off and then there's being realistic about a team that's failed to qualify or beat a team of note competitively since 2001 - two completely different ball parks. Why should we expect top 2 when we haven't done it in 4 years and have only done it a handful of times in our existance.

Originally Posted by klein4

we already have people on here saying on the one hand they are optimistic about staunton and the other that they would be happy with finishing 3rd and making some "progress".now if thats not double standards what is?
What if we finished third yet the two top seads totally ran away with it and we are not in contention from early on? is that better than fourth with bein in with a shout til the last match? positions in the goup mean feck all outside of the top two. he should be sacked if his team are not in contention to qualify. cause that would just show he cant manage and shouldnt be persevered with.

I assume your having a pop at me here. Please explain to me how being optimitic about a new manager who I think will make acceptable progress in the job is double standards?? I mean if I said I'm optimistic but I think we'll finish bottom then I'd understand but this makes no sence whatsoever. I'm am optimistic that we will improve and develop as a team - that's progress in my eyes. I'll maintain that we for a number of year now have expectations far greater than our ability. As a 4th seed in the group we will face at least 3 teams considered better than us. I expect us to challenge all of them and have no doubts we will. I think a campaign where we play good football, develop the team and make progress will be vital even if it means we don't ultimately qualify and finish behind two World Class outfits. Why oh why can people only see progress in results. I said it two posts back and i'll say it again, I'd have kept Brian Kerr in his job if the team were making progress. I don't think our performances improved at all over the second part of his reign and I'm happy to see a new man try and take us forward..

What your suggesting is that a new manager comes in and the players are good enough so that's it - there's no reason why we shouldn't qualify and the manager should get saked if we don't. Football doesn't work like that and if it did we'd have saked every Manager that didn't qualify for a tournament (including Kerr & McCarthy) and would have had 20 managers at this stage and little to show for it. There's a whole load of work that needs to be done with this team. It's far from being a team like the one Kerr inherited as you appear to be suggesting in your Keane/Cunningham comparrisons. We'll have to blood new talent that has never played international football possibly in vital areas of the first team. It won't be a case like the last campaign where we threw someone like Elliot in because injury alone dictated it, it'll be a definate necessity this time around.

**klein4** · 26/01/2006, 4:07 PM

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

Its called defending my posts and my track record of posting. Do you do anything else other than **** stir on this have you ever put forward a post that was reasoned and well argued.

I amnt stirring. I would say I just disagree with you on most things but seeing as you sit on the fence on everything that cant be the case.