Benchmarks.

[osarusan]

If and when we get our new manager, what kind of benchmarks would you be looking at when considering if the new manager has been a success or not?

I know that it depends on the players available, and the group we're in, and the former will change for every match, as will the quality of our opposition, but are there any constant benchmarks you feel the new manager must achieve?

[Bondvillain]

Initially, the first benchmark should be possibly a more substantial CV than:

1.Played loads of times for Ireland.
2.Handed out training bibs after being hired as a tax dodge for an also-ran Manager at an also-ran 'battling' club.
3. John Delaney likes me.

Not rubbing the press up the wrong way in his first couple of weeks would be good too, as well as having the words "I may have been wrong" in his vocabulary.

Other than that, Im ok with whoever gets it. As long as it's not Dave O Leary. Or Telly Vegetables.

[Superhoops]

If and when we get our new manager, what kind of benchmarks would you be looking at when considering if the new manager has been a success or not?

I know that it depends on the players available, and the group we're in, and the former will change for every match, as will the quality of our opposition, but are there any constant benchmarks you feel the new manager must achieve?

If this campaign is anything to go by the only benchmark is whether we qualify for finals or not.

We were a third seed and look like finishing third, yet we sack our mananger because he failed.

Would it have really mattered if say instead of losing three games we only lost one and won the other two. Even though we would have only lost one game in a 12 game group, we would have still finished at least three points behind the top two. Would Staunton have still been a failure?

[shakermaker1982]

[QUOTE=Superhoops;818564]We were a third seed and look like finishing third, yet we sack our mananger because he failed. [QUOTE]

we were 4th seeds, the Slovaks were in pot 3 if I recall correctly.

[Kingdom]

If this campaign is anything to go by the only benchmark is whether we qualify for finals or not.

We were a third seed and look like finishing third, yet we sack our mananger because he failed.

Would it have really mattered if say instead of losing three games we only lost one and won the other two. Even though we would have only lost one game in a 12 game group, we would have still finished at least three points behind the top two. Would Staunton have still been a failure?

I get the feeling you're implying that removing Staunton was the incorrect thing to do? if so are you serious man ?

[kingdomkerry]

If we get a group simular to the last one, we are good enough to qualify. Thats the yardstick.

P.S Whens the draw?

[Colbert Report]

If we're in there with a shout right up until the last qualifying game in 2009, I'll be happy.

[Kingdom]

If we get a group simular to the last one, we are good enough to qualify. Thats the yardstick.

P.S Whens the draw?

Sunday.

[irishfan86]

I want to see good performances, that's the yardstick.

If we put in a good performance and lose to the Czechs or the Germans, that's fine.

But if we can't perform against the likes of Cyprus or San Marino that's just unacceptable.

Personally the two away games against the Czechs/Slovaks were not the trouble for me, it was the games against Cyprus and San Marino.

[Superhoops]

...we were 4th seeds, the Slovaks were in pot 3 if I recall correctly.

You're right. Does that make finishing 3rd in the group a successful campaign?

I get the feeling you're implying that removing Staunton was the incorrect thing to do? if so are you serious man ?

No, I wasn't implying that at all. I was simply responding to the point made about benchmarks and what constitutes success.

I want to see good performances, that's the yardstick.
If we put in a good performance and lose to the Czechs or the Germans, that's fine.

But if we can't perform against the likes of Cyprus or San Marino that's just unacceptable.

Personally the two away games against the Czechs/Slovaks were not the trouble for me, it was the games against Cyprus and San Marino.

That surely cannot be the case.

Lets say we had put in good performances against Cyprus and San Marino, got a hatful of goals and taken twelve points from the pair of them instead of the seven we actually got, we would have still been at least four points behind both Germany and Czech Republic. Add in if we had held on to our lead against Slovakia, then we would have been only two points of the top two, would that have been deemed a successful campaign? and good enough for Staunton to stay in the job?

[irishfan86]

You're right. Does that make finishing 3rd in the group a successful campaign?


No, I wasn't implying that at all. I was simply responding to the point made about benchmarks and what constitutes success.


That surely cannot be the case.

Lets say we had put in good performances against Cyprus and San Marino, got a hatful of goals and taken twelve points from the pair of them instead of the seven we actually got, we would have still been at least four points behind both Germany and Czech Republic. Add in if we had held on to our lead against Slovakia, then we would have been only two points of the top two, would that have been deemed a successful campaign? and good enough for Staunton to stay in the job?

I'm no fan of Staunton, but if we beat the teams that are worse than us, and perform well against the teams that are better than us (win or lose), that's what I'm hoping for.

Ties against the Czechs and Slovaks away from home are nothing to be ashamed of, especially with out away records.

[Stuttgart88]

• Take points away off the top seeds
• Put away the lower ranked teams
• To get 2 points per game on average
• A decent away win
• Be in contention right to the end

If we still only come third or fail to qualify having come second then so be it as long as most of the above are satisfied.

[Stuttgart88]

Would it have really mattered if say instead of losing three games we only lost one and won the other two. Even though we would have only lost one game in a 12 game group, we would have still finished at least three points behind the top two. Would Staunton have still been a failure?

I think if we hadn't lost by a cricket score in Cyprus and had actually won instead, if we hadn't just about drawn at home to Cyprus, scraped a 95th minute win against the worst team in Europe, hadn't squandered late leads, hadn't made dumb substitutions, hadn't tried young players out of position and selecting them indiscriminately, hadn't stubborny left good players out of the squad, hadn't allowed a disharmonoius dressing room to develop, had actually shown some understanding about suitability of certain players for required roles and shown an understanding of team formation I think it's fair to say we might have viewed Stan's performance differently.

[Noelys Guitar]

When we qualified for 90/94 and 02 world cups we did'nt beat any ot the top sides away. And as Scotland just proved beating a top side away means nothing if you lose to the weaker teams. The most important thing to do in qualifying is to beat the 4th/5th/6th/7th ranked teams both home and away. That is what the new manager must instill into the team. And not losing to the top 2 ranked sides. We have become obsessed about winning away against a top ranked team. Why? Great if we can sneak a win against either to ranked team or preferably both. But being realistic what we need more than anything is to win all of our games against the teams ranked below us in our group.

[citizenerased]

our home record has been poor in this campaign..we really have to beating the czech and the germans at home if we want to qualify not to mention the cypriots!!

[Stuttgart88]

We have become obsessed about winning away against a top ranked team.

Just in case there was any misunderstanding, I'd have categorised a win in Slovakia or Israel before that as a "decent" away win. In fact Israel would have been a very good away win. Still fuming...

[CollegeTillIDie]

Okay people are looking for benchmarks.

Losing away to Cyprus by the odd goal would have been bad
Losing away to Cyprus by three goals , when they should have beaten us by even more, is embarrassing.
Barely scraping past San Marino away , effectively mugging a team of amateurs , is unacceptable.
If you want really need to know why Staunton had to go, those are the two performances/ results there which cost him his job!
On the basis of requirements posted earlier by others, those would have been a banker six points from two games. We ended up with three.

Our international team are highly paid professionals. I'd have been embarrassed if a team representing Ireland made up of part-timers from the First Division here had got those results to be honest!Two more points were dropped away to Slovakia and another two points dropped in Cardiff. Add seven points to our present points tally and we would have been in qualification territory.
Oh and after drawing away to Wales we could yet come 5th if certain results occur on Wednesday.

[Stuttgart88]

UCD against San Marino away would be interesting. Who'd you back?

[Billsthoughts]

whatever manager comes in gets a two year contract. the aim being to qualify. if he doesnt qualify but it looks like there has been enough progress made to make qualifying for the next tournament a distinct possibility then extend his contract. if not get rid and bring in someone else. anyone who says "we are a small country and cant be expected to qualify for major tournaments" should be fired on the spot.

[Noelys Guitar]

Just in case there was any misunderstanding, I'd have categorised a win in Slovakia or Israel before that as a "decent" away win. In fact Israel would have been a very good away win. Still fuming...

True. I can't think of any other teams who have thrown away so many leads late in games. Back to the Benchmarks. New manager must never say 4 year plan or immediately sacked. "I can't buy players" another immediate sacking offence.