Quoteas has been stated, ad nauseum, on this site regardless of whether you thought that Kerr was good or bad he was a better option than flan, sorry I mean Stan.
Discuss.
as has been stated, ad nauseum, on this site regardless of whether you thought that Kerr was good or bad he was a better option than flan, sorry I mean Stan.
Yes, but to go further, they should have made a big effort to hold on to Mick McCarthy in the first place.
City definetly have the best bands playing at half-time.
O'Bama - "Eerah yeah, I'd say we can alright!"
G.O'Mahoney Trapattoni'll sort ém out!!
Think back to the media's hounding of him after Israel and Switzerland, would it have got any better from him? I doubt it. I was fully behind him but the media wanted a change and they got Stan.
As Irishmen we dilute our sense of nation by depending on the English to bring us our balls
I thought a change was more than justified as Kerr was obviously out of his depth in senior International management. However, Staunton was the worst possible choice and I do believe Kerr would have done far better than him with this current squad of players though we probably still would have failed to qualify.
No the real problem started 30 years ago when Paddy Mulligan didn't get the job because some FAI official once suspected Mulligan of throwing a bun at him on the team bus.... and there you have the whole saga of the FAI's professional approach to appointing managers summed up
Yeah we probably wouldn't have qualified with Kerr either but we would probably be about 3 points better off, at least with Kerr I think the next 3 games would have some meaning
Crucial thing is we would not have started with 2 away games that is for sure. Getting rid of him without having a manager lined up was a mistake. Then getting a coach from Walsall with no experience was another one.
In Trap we trust
It's a hard one to call, I still think Kerr had to go, and we all believed at the time that a "World-class management team" would have been assembled. But it wasn't.
I guess the a better way of looking at it is: would the team under Kerr be in a better or worse position than they are now?
I don't think Kerr would have lost away to Cyprus, but equally I don't think he would have won both games in March in Croke Park.
Also Stephen Ireland would more than likely not be playing for us at the moment.
Just listening to Eoin Hand sing a song on the Radio, he has a very nice voice.
Sings like a pro.
We must have had damn good sing songs in those days.
Given the stories doing the rounds about this fella, is Kerr really to blame?Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Brian Kerr brought structure and discipline to the Irish team, which is something that we sorely miss. He was also very thorough and professional.
We were I felt outstanding in Paris and if we had won in Isreal the caution of our play would have been quickly forgotten. He also showed he could get results in places like Georgia and Cyprus, despite not always playing well.
With Kerr, we would have won in Cyprus and I'm confident we would have drawn in either or both Germany or Czech Republic.
The downside of Kerr was that some of the players obviously didn't like him (though that might say more about them) nor want to work with him. As already pointed out, Stephen Ireland would not be playing if Kerr was manager. He would be sorely missed, as he has shown how good he is in this campaign.
In summary, I liked Kerr and would have liked him to have been given another chance. With him, I feel we would be in with a very decent shot at qualification out of this group.
Agree with all of above except the quoted part. Ireland has scored 4 crucial goals but his inability to secure midfield, or our inability to accomodate him, has led to us being on the back foot especially in Cyprus & Slovakia. A proper tactician would work it out I reckon. I like to call him Lampard-lite.
Lampard - Lite
He is a player with ability who has to grow (in more ways than one)
IMO manager for 2 Qual campaigns is more than enough. Charlton for us was an exception, like FDR getting a third presidency.
Brian Kerr was a poor international manager.
He was the first manager not to get us a top two place in any qualifying group in 8 campaigns (since Eoin Hand). He did it twice. The second time we finished fourth in the group. And don't tell me that he took over when the first campaign was dead and buried. We would have qualified for the Euros if we beat Russia at home and drew with the Swiss away. In two spineless performances, particularly in Berne, we took one point from six.
He failed to beat any top 70 ranked team in competitive action in 8 attempts. We are talking France, Russia, Switzerland and Israel here not exactly world class opposition. He took 6 points from 24 in those games.
He didn't really blood anyone of any note, save for Andy Reid. At least Staunton has.
Kerr inherited a good team with World Cup experience. He had virtually the same side as McCarthy and still didn't do as well as McCarthy. That Stan was a dreadful appointment doesn't make Kerr's poor record any better.
it might be a silly question, and probably well known, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but whats the story here? is there some history between these two?As already pointed out, Stephen Ireland would not be playing if Kerr was manager. He would be sorely missed, as he has shown how good he is in this campaign.
illiteracy and alphabet soup hmm?
Kerr didn’t pick Ireland for an underage game in Cork where he had his family (all alive & well) come to watch him. He got the hump and vowed not to play for Kerr.
The media picked up on it very late despite being on soccercentral.ie ages in advance and used it against Kerr in the tail end of his tenure just as Ireland had broken through at City. The media put up some hysterical nonsense about one of our best young players maybe playing for England or Italy instead. In reality it was old news and Kerr would probably have called him up in due course anyway and Ireland would probably have played.
Given what we know of Ireland now Kerr was up against it with this young lad.
He spat his dummy out because BK didn't start him for an underage game in Cork that his mammy and daddy had taken the good time and trouble to come see him in his cute green top at.
Yes really ...I'm deadly serious.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
As far as I know, it relates to an incident a few years ago when Ireland were playing an underage game in Cobh and Kerr told S.Ireland that he would be playing in front of his hometown crowd. Subsequently, Kerr changed his mind and S.Ireland walked out of the squad when he heard he wasn't playing.
Don't know if that's 100% correct but I think it's more or less what happened.
Well pointed out. S.Ireland reminds me of a young Frank Lampard at West Ham. I do think he needs to bulk out and like Giles I would agree that he needs to become more of a presence in midfield i.e demanding the ball etc.
However, like you say, a good tactician would protect S.Ireland and ensure that he could work creativity. Very few teams (club or international) would expect a 20 year old to take on a Keane/Zidane fulcrum in a team.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks