Kerr -becoming a Sad Figure

[seanfhear]

I think that Staunton was appointed largely so the FAI could be seen to be dealing with Kerr's failings. I read an article a while ago that new managers are often appointed on the basis of the previous manager's failings. IIRC, it took Newcastle as an example, Keegan was seen as tactically inept at the end of his first reign, so Gullit ,who had a reputation of solid football following his stint at Chelseas was appointed. Gullit was sacked because he didn't understand the Geordie spirit, so Robson - a Geordie who bled for the club - was appointed. Robson was given the boot because he wasn't seen as a disciplinarian within the club, and Souness, who had a history of enforcing discipline, was appointed. And so on. It can be applied to the England national side as well, The public perception of Hoddle was (and still is) that the players couldn't get along with him (noone would care about his religious beliefs if he was successful, Domenech is known for bizarre astrology beliefs, but it's largely ignored because of his success). Keegan was appointed because he had a history of fantastic man management. When he left, Ericsson was appointed because he was a far better tactician than Keegan. Following his departure, and the outcry of appointing a foreigner (remember Harris' rant about selling their history down the fjord to a nation of skiers and hammer throwers who spend half their lives in darkness?), the most qualified English coach was appointed. After that failed miserably, the FA went with actual success, rather than potential.
Going back to Staunton and Kerr, the public reaction at the end of Kerr's reign was that he had lost the spirit of the dressing room. Staunton was appointed partially on the basis that he had been there in the successful years, and would being that spirit back. In the build up to the Sweden game their was a lot of talk in the press about how easy it was to talk to the players and manager, as compared to under Kerr where it was nigh impossible to get a quote outside of a press conference.
Like it or not, Staunton's failure will forever be linked with Kerr.

If a manager is successful then no matter how crazy his beliefs or coaching methods there are commentators/journalists/fans that will declare these crackpot ideas the answer to every problem on the face of the earth.These people are spoofers without an original idea of their own and there are far more of them out there than most people realise

[RiffRaff]

Like most people i was enthusiastic about Kerr's appointment but instead of the clever tactician and brave decision maker we expected, the job just seemed too big for him. My main memory is of him constantly picking our strongest 11 for friendly matches and beating sides who were using the games to experiment, giving a false impression that we were doing well. In fact we became completely dependant on Duff as an attacking outlet because we hadnt tried anything else and just became predictable for teams we played against competitively. His whole approach was negative and cautious and smacked of failure to experiment for fear of failure. The last straw was bringing back RK knowing he would expect to be guaranteed a starting place in competitive games and wouldnt accept being substituted. It may have made Kerr popular with armchair fans but it wasnt the sign of a strong manager.

[Drumcondra 69er]

Like most people i was enthusiastic about Kerr's appointment but instead of the clever tactician and brave decision maker we expected, the job just seemed too big for him. My main memory is of him constantly picking our strongest 11 for friendly matches and beating sides who were using the games to experiment, giving a false impression that we were doing well. In fact we became completely dependant on Duff as an attacking outlet because we hadnt tried anything else and just became predictable for teams we played against competitively. His whole approach was negative and cautious and smacked of failure to experiment for fear of failure. The last straw was bringing back RK knowing he would expect to be guaranteed a starting place in competitive games and wouldnt accept being substituted. It may have made Kerr popular with armchair fans but it wasnt the sign of a strong manager.

Not to mention the factthat it allienated certain players within the squad and kept 'Saipan' on the boil. RK's best days were behind him at that stage for me and it was little more then PR. Had he come back when Kerr was first appointed when he was initially asked he may have made a difference to that Euro campaign but it was too late when he did.

[jbyrne]

Not to mention the factthat it allienated certain players within the squad and kept 'Saipan' on the boil. RK's best days were behind him at that stage for me and it was little more then PR. Had he come back when Kerr was first appointed when he was initially asked he may have made a difference to that Euro campaign but it was too late when he did.

roy was at least as good if not better than any other ctre midfield option we had under kerr. not as spectacular as wc 2002 qualifying but still our best option. i would suggest the fact that he was missing from some of our more important qualifiers was one of the reasons we failed to qualify. why are we so special that the re-introduction of a 'bad boy' alienates other players in the squad? it happens in other national teams far bigger than us all the time. i think our national team and what surrounds it needs to grow up a little

[Razors left peg]

Not to mention the factthat it allienated certain players within the squad and kept 'Saipan' on the boil. RK's best days were behind him at that stage for me and it was little more then PR. Had he come back when Kerr was first appointed when he was initially asked he may have made a difference to that Euro campaign but it was too late when he did.

what players did it exactly alienate. That crap was brought up before he came back and we were warned that half the squad would quit if it happened... did one single player quit ????
He might have been past his best at the time but he was still a hell a lot better than any midfielder in the squad and his performance in Lansdown against the French was excellent

[Drumcondra 69er]

roy was at least as good if not better than any other ctre midfield option we had under kerr. not as spectacular as wc 2002 qualifying but still our best option. i would suggest the fact that he was missing from some of our more important qualifiers was one of the reasons we failed to qualify. why are we so special that the re-introduction of a 'bad boy' alienates other players in the squad? it happens in other national teams far bigger than us all the time. i think our national team and what surrounds it needs to grow up a little

Give it a rest, the very fact that you refer to the games he missed reinforces the point that he was well past his best being totally injury prone by then. It's my opinion that it was a bad move by Kerr and a PR stunt on Roy's part. He did okay when he played but his effictiveness was way overstated by a media obsessed with him such as in the away game in France when he was overshadowed by far by a limited player like Kilbane in midfield yet every two bit journalist creamed themselves over his performance.

It's a fact that is p1ssed off some (by no means all) of the squad. It was a gamble by Kerr that didn't pay off for me, was way too backward looking depending on a prodigal son who was always likely to miss games rather then moving on and trying to build something.

[Drumcondra 69er]

what players did it exactly alienate. That crap was brought up before he came back and we were warned that half the squad would quit if it happened... did one single player quit ????
He might have been past his best at the time but he was still a hell a lot better than any midfielder in the squad and his performance in Lansdown against the French was excellent

Not everyone quits a squad just because they don't like someone involved in it.....

[Razors left peg]

Not everyone quits a squad just because they don't like someone involved in it.....

I dont like some of the people I work with either, doesnt mean I feel Alienated or make me any worse at my job

[Drumcondra 69er]

I dont like some of the people I work with either, doesnt mean I feel Alienated or make me any worse at my job

Fair enough, that comment was tounge in cheek. Not quite the same though is it?

All I'm saying though is that I've heard, on good authority, that a number of players weren't happy with the the way Keane was chased back particulalry after turning Kerr down the first time. These things can affect a dressing room and players relationship with their manager (which, whether as a result of that or not defintely dipped in this case). Had Keane been the player he was a couple of years previous then this probably wouyldn't have made any difference but it's my opinion that Kerr pinned his chances too much on RK's return and suffered because of it.

[Billsthoughts]

it was a no brainer taking keane back. he was better than the options we had end of story. as for some players bein upset. so what? when they stand up to be counted on the pitch then they can moan off it. Kerrs record at international level is ok. better than macarthy in my opinion(who got forever to try get Ireland thru and then only when keane dragged them thru). staunton doesnt count as his reign was a farce. trapp is a good manager but remains to be seen what he can achieve with technically mediocre players who blame everyone but themselves for failures.

[Razors left peg]

Fair enough, that comment was tounge in cheek. Not quite the same though is it?

All I'm saying though is that I've heard, on good authority, that a number of players weren't happy with the the way Keane was chased back particulalry after turning Kerr down the first time. These things can affect a dressing room and players relationship with their manager (which, whether as a result of that or not defintely dipped in this case). Had Keane been the player he was a couple of years previous then this probably wouyldn't have made any difference but it's my opinion that Kerr pinned his chances too much on RK's return and suffered because of it.

I would still have Roy Keane in the team ahead of the likes of Matt Holland, Liam Miller, Kevin Kilbane, Lee Carsley and the rest. Im no fan of Kerr but I do think that bringing Keane back was one of the few high points of his management

[BigmanCas]

it was a no brainer taking keane back. he was better than the options we had end of story. as for some players bein upset. so what? when they stand up to be counted on the pitch then they can moan off it. Kerrs record at international level is ok. better than macarthy in my opinion(who got forever to try get Ireland thru and then only when keane dragged them thru). staunton doesnt count as his reign was a farce. trapp is a good manager but remains to be seen what he can achieve with technically mediocre players who blame everyone but themselves for failures.

Kerr's record is better than Mc Carthy's???. Well done Billy. 2-2 Israel - HA!!!!

All that can be said is that Mc Carthy got a job immediately after leaving the Irish set up where I might add he did a wonderful job whereas Kerr on the other hand to quote the vomit Dunphy was a 'nothing manager' who has not been truely employed since. Beat that one.

[jmurphyc]

Kerr's record is better than Mc Carthy's???. Well done Billy. 2-2 Israel - HA!!!!

All that can be said is that Mc Carthy got a job immediately after leaving the Irish set up where I might add he did a wonderful job whereas Kerr on the other hand to quote the vomit Dunphy was a 'nothing manager' who has not been truely employed since. Beat that one.

Kerr's record in terms of points per game is exactly the same as McCarthy's was and McCarthy had more time in the job with his best results not coming until near the end. IMO Kerr probably should have been kept on considering who we got in instead. We may have qualified for Euro 2008 if Kerr was still around, but anyway that's all in the past now. As for McCarthy getting a job after Kerr, he already had a bit of a reputation in England due to playing there and managing there previously whereas Kerr's stock would have been relatively low in England. McCarthy has arguably failed at the two jobs he's had since leaving the Irish job.

As for the whole RK thing, is there really any need to bring it up again? Kerr made a decision that he thought was best for the team and most people ageed with it at the time as far as I'm aware.

[jbyrne]

Give it a rest, the very fact that you refer to the games he missed reinforces the point that he was well past his best being totally injury prone by then..

anyone can break their foot whether in their prime or not and thats what Roy did

It's a fact that is p1ssed off some (by no means all) of the squad.

its a fact if it can be proved. prove it?

if players were annoyed at the return of one of our best ever players still playing at the highest club level possible then id say the problem was with them and says a lot about their ambitions

[NeilMcD]

[QUOTE=Drumcondra 69er;956344]

I was a staunch supporter at the time of his appointment and much as I thought he should go had a degree of sympathy when his contract wasn't renewed but he's behaved with such a degree of bitterness since then it's almost impossible not to disike him now. His glee at the Cyprus debacle when he was commentating at the game was unforgiveable and made little sense when you consider it was only Shay Given that prevented a similar scoreline the previous year when he was in charge


I agree with all of that.

[cartman]

[QUOTE=Drumcondra 69er;956620]Give it a rest, the very fact that you refer to the games he missed reinforces the point that he was well past his best being totally injury prone by then. It's my opinion that it was a bad move by Kerr and a PR stunt on Roy's part. He did okay when he played but his effictiveness was way overstated by a media obsessed with him such as in the away game in France when he was overshadowed by far by a limited player like Kilbane in midfield yet every two bit journalist creamed themselves over his performance.

this has to be one of the most stupid comments ever made on this forum..PR stunt!! well done you muppet.. keane was still our most influential player at that time.. he got injured because he was past his best?? i say 18/19 years get injured all the time - is this because they are also past their best??
is there any way stupid people like yourself with ridiculous comments can be removed from this thread so that others can chat sensibly??

[skitz3]

is there any way stupid people like yourself with ridiculous comments can be removed from this thread so that others can chat sensibly??

From someone who cannot spell or use Capital letters

[FarBeag]

this has to be one of the most stupid comments ever made on this forum..PR stunt!! well done you muppet.. keane was still our most influential player at that time.. he got injured because he was past his best?? i say 18/19 years get injured all the time - is this because they are also past their best??
is there any way stupid people like yourself with ridiculous comments can be removed from this thread so that others can chat sensibly??[/QUOTE]

No need to get personal Cartman. Anyhow he is one of the better and more articulate posters on here and I have no problems with him having an opinion and either should you. Now go write something sensible if you are able.

[Billsthoughts]

Kerr's record is better than Mc Carthy's???. Well done Billy. 2-2 Israel - HA!!!!

All that can be said is that Mc Carthy got a job immediately after leaving the Irish set up where I might add he did a wonderful job whereas Kerr on the other hand to quote the vomit Dunphy was a 'nothing manager' who has not been truely employed since. Beat that one.

plenty of poor results under macarthy. 3-2 loss to macedonia and 4-2 loss to russia and plenty of drivel in between. As for the only bet Cyprus one nil lark. he bet them 3-0 at home and one nil away. stan drew at home and was hammered away. and despite winning four nil macarthys team struggled away from home against them. as did lots of teams over the last few years.

[mypost]

As for the only bet Cyprus one nil lark. he bet them 3-0 at home and one nil away. stan drew at home and was hammered away.

Kerr beat Cyprus as most bosses do, and it's nothing to tell the grandkids about. Staunton didn't and was fired, as you should be if you can't beat Cyprus.