Was Kerr a relative success?

[youngirish]

Kerr was proven numerous times to be too poor a manager to be a success at the top level. He did know the basics on keeping the defence organised, however.

Staunton on the other hand is an absolute joke. The man's a dunce. He needs to go asap before he drags us into the mire for the next decade.

[Declan_Michael]

Kerr was a complete and utter failure. The writing was on the wall when we lost 2-0 to the Swiss in '03. Our qualifying group for the World Cup was relativly easy. Inability to take maxime points from Israel proved Kerr was not up to the job. He inherited a decent side from McCarthy - one with World Cup experience behind it. Half the point of appointing Kerr was to get Keane back in the fold and still we failed. If you blame 'wonder strikes' and injuries you shouldn't bother turning up.

We have Staunton now because no experienced manager if their right mind would take the job. Face it we are still picking up the pieces from Saipan. Knee jerk reactions (Sack McCarthy! Sack Kerr! Sack Delaney! Reinstate Keane!have ended 2 and a bit decades of punching above our weight on the international scence.

[Jerry The Saint]

Inability to take maxime points from Israel proved Kerr was not up to the job.

Would you consider an inability to take maximum points from Israel proof that Guus Hiddink isn't up to the job of Russian manager Similarly for Kuhn, Domenech?

[Billsthoughts]

Yeah Israel are by no means a crap team.
why do people still peddle this rubbish?
They trained on a weekly basis for that group and it showed in the way they battled and played as a team for every point. Surely wont be long before they reach a major finals.

[Declan_Michael]

You have to look at what we achieved under the supposedly inept McCarthy in the previous world cup campaign. Draws against Portugal and Holland (away). Also the victory against Holland. Kerr had a more experienced team we should have taken more than take 2 points off Israel and not even getting a play-off place. Have got nothing against Kerr but wiping the slate clean when he was appointed (ie end of the Charlton/McCarthy era) hasn't worked. Whose name is being called for now- Aldridge student of the Charlton age! 2003-06 has done terrible damage to the team there is more to this than blaming Stephen Staunton.

[el punter]

For me, success as an Ireland manager = qualifying for tournaments. It's black and white as far as I'm concerned - even if your only failing as a manager was not to be lucky enough.

[barney]

If Brian Kerr spoke with an English accent and came from Doncaster instead of Dublin, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

He should be judged on results, nothing else. He failed badly to live up to the standard that was set by the two men that went before him. There is no excuse for not beating France, Israel, Switzerland or Russia over eight games. The bad luck excuse only goes so far.

If his supposed skills and long term plans for the development of the game were as good as some of his supporters say, then maybe the FAI should have employed him in another role.

However, as manager of the senior team, he was in the results business, and he clearly failed to deliver results.

[Condex]

No....

[rambler14]

He was a chancer!

[Donal81]

I had a feeling this would happen once Stan didn't get the results...

I thought at the time that Kerr deserved another chance but that he didn't make it difficult for Delaney to decide against renewing his contract. He deserved as much time as McCarthy but some of his results were so poor and the style of play was so spirit-crushing that he didn't have that many fans to fight his corner and it was easy for Delaney.

I didn't think he was a crap manager and deserved another campaign. But when you drop points the way he did against the Swiss and Israel, fans don't sob when you get the chop.

I thought with plenty of the performances that it was the players that were at fault. I know that a manager has to take the hit for his team's performance but watching Ireland against the Swiss in the campaign's last game, it was clear that our team wasn't interesting in taking the game to the lame opposition, apart from Shay Given (and there wasn't much he could do about it).

Kerr suffered from what Stan suffered from last weekend - the players didn't seem that bothered. The manager is at fault, obviously, but so are the players who forget how to play.

[ccfcman]

I'm sorry, but that's BS. You shouldn't be focusing on losing to France you should be focusing on not getting results for Israel and the Swiss.

Read the rest of my post where it refers to those matches too :/

[DmanDmythDledge]

Kerr was a very good coach and was harshly hounded out of his job by pressure from the media and from fans.

In the Euro 04 qualifying campaign he got us one game away from the playoffs after we lost the first two games.

In the WC 06 qualifying campaign we were in the most tightly contested groups and only failed to qualify when the team switched off at the end in the Israel away game.

The only criticism I have of Kerr is that he failed to change things when we needed a goal against the Swiss. All he did was replace Clinton O'Morrison with the mighty Gary Doherty.

[Stuttgart88]

Read the rest of my post where it refers to those matches too :/

By the way, in reference to your first post, just to point out that even a draw (0-0 or 1-1) vs France would have left us outside the top 2 anyway. So Henry's wonder srtike as you put it wasn't as big a factor as you think. As it turned out, losing the game wasn't what put us out, it was not winning it.


Anyway, it's clear to all and has been for ages that you can put whatever spin you want on Kerr's tenure.

Is he a better manager than Staunton? Yes, probably.

Is he as stubborn as Staunton? Yes, probably.

Did he show any great tactical acumen? No.

Did he have the support of the players? Apparently not.

Which players didn't support him? Don't know, but one of them was Carr so no loss if we'd lost him.

Why did the players not support him?

And so on.

[eirebhoy]

By the way, in reference to your first post, just to point out that even a draw (0-0 or 1-1) vs France would have left us outside the top 2 anyway. So Henry's wonder srtike as you put it wasn't as big a factor as you think. As it turned out, losing the game wasn't what put us out, it was not winning it.

I just checked there and if we drew with France Israel would have actually topped the group on the following rule:

1. greater number of points obtained in matches between the tied teams
2. goal difference in matches between the tied teams
3. greater number of goals scored in matches between the tied teams
4. goal difference in all group matches
5. greater number of goals scored in all group matches
6. a play-off on neutral ground, with extra time and penalties if necessary

It's the first I knew of that. Israel scored 7 in their games against the other 3, Switzerland scored 5, we scored 4 and France just the 3. If we drew 0-0 or 1-1 with France they would have finished 4th.

[bennocelt]

yes if you are called norn iron or wales
no if you are the republic of ireland

[wws]

he earned a second full campaign on the basis of what mccarthy got (there was also a questionable bonus paid to McCarthy)

Anyone who cites the Israel matches as some sort of whip to beat him with inherently does not understand football, people using this argument should be shunned by society at large and re housed in the tiny islands that dot our beautiful coastline.
He earned is second shot at it (I do not rate his previous campaign as a full campaign as McCarthy had already fcked it up).

Managers - alack and alas dont win games, players do. And teh fact that our stars went from a 5-2 to cyprus to a 1-1 with the czechs (simply on the basis that they would have been tarred and feathered by the great irish public had they repeated their cyprus trick) shows you how petulant the attitude of the players is to the green jersey

[OwlsFan]

1. we were within a win in our 2 campaigns from qualifing for play offs at least.
2. in 1st campaign kerr took charge after we had already lost to the eventual two top teams.

Even after the two defeats we were going to be in with a chance of qualifying because we had all the minnows next and the others dropped points against them. We then only drew against ALbania under Kerr away and scored a last minute winner at home against them and then gave a splineless performance away to the Swiss in the last game. Rose tinted glasses for that campaign.

He only had 1 full campaign and we were only a goal against the swiss from knocking them out.

And we couldn't manage it.

the only team we lost to was the eventual WC runners up

Glass half full. The only teams we beat were Cyprus, who totally outplayed us in Cyprus, and the Faroes (only 2-0 at home). In 6 attempts against the other three sides, we drew 5 and lost 1.

granted we drew to israel twice when we should of won but nobody else in the group beat them and in fact they are the longest unbeaten team in european international football (maybe world football) having not lost in 3 years.

So not winning two games we should have won is a point in favour of Kerr. Hmmmm....

we never got hammered under him while we've lost 2 of our last 3 games by large margins.

We came close to being hammered in Cyprus but for Shay Given saving a peno etc etc.

while mostly our wins came in friendlies this was enough to keep our fifa rating up so by all this talk of 2010 we would be in a stronger position for that anyway.

This I agree with.

When Kerr's reappointment came up for discussion, I said he should only be replaced if we get someone better. We don't seem to have got someone better. I think we should have got someone better and not renewed his contract.

Rose tinted glasses are easy to wear when comparing his tenure to the few games Stan has had in charge. However, other than France away, there wasn't one performance from his teams in competitive games that are worth recalling and some were dire.

[youngirish]

Q. Was Kerr a relative success?
A. Relative compared to who?

[bennocelt]

Anyone who cites the Israel matches as some sort of whip to beat him with inherently does not understand football, people using this argument should be shunned by society at large and re housed in the tiny islands that dot our beautiful coastline.
He earned is second shot at it (I do not rate his previous campaign as a full campaign as McCarthy had already fcked it up).

Managers - alack and alas dont win games, players do. And teh fact that our stars went from a 5-2 to cyprus to a 1-1 with the czechs (simply on the basis that they would have been tarred and feathered by the great irish public had they repeated their cyprus trick) shows you how petulant the attitude of the players is to the green jersey

no, he had 2 campaigns, we had a poor russian team at home, we should have beta them well, we didnt, then the spineless performance against switzerland,
he had his second chance and blew it

managers dont win games! explain fergusons subsitutions in the CL final all those years ago, or what about martin O neill.........how he has turned around a team which shows on the pitch.i would say managers are extremely important to the perforamce of a team

oh by the way, that czech team are overrated as well,

[galwayhoop]

managers dont win games! explain fergusons subsitutions in the CL final all those years ago, or what about martin O neill.........how he has turned around a team which shows on the pitch.i would say managers are extremely important to the perforamce of a team

coincidence, luck!! united should have been dead and buried in that game but for woeful finishing by bayern, saves by schmeichel and they also hit the crossbar from about 6 yards. the fact the goals were scored by the subs is, i think, more of a coincidence than any great managerial excellence. an out stretched leg by sheringham an odd deflection or whatever. both goals came from corners and anyone in the box could of put them away. the winner came as bayern heads dropped as they were facing extra time in a game they should of won comfortably. i'm not one for pointing to individual scenarios as proof of a managers greatness or otherwise. is ferguson a bad manager now because his substitutes in the CL v benfica last year had no impact on the game and united bowed out tamely?

HOWEVER. the fact is that ferguson is a great manager but judge this on his last 20 years not a 3 minute freak show in barcelona. ditto o'neill who has proven time and again that there are few, if any, better at man management and getting the best out of average and limited players. however has o'neill got superb tactical acumen - that i don't know.

questions:
was kerr in the same bracket as these 2 men (o'neill and ferguson)? definately not - but then who is and if they are do you really think they would look to us to further their career.

was he relitively successiful in comparison to the beginning of the staunton regime?
definately yes.

should kerr of been replaced:
by a world class manager - yes
by an inexperienced reserve team coach with less than 6 months coaching - no