Ireland Vs. Romania

cournioni

Originally posted by kaids
Ruud Van Nistelrooy has 14.

Mmmhmm...

Anyone else of the perception that the word "fact" indicates fact?

1) What does Ruud van Nistelrooy have to do with Ireland vs. France. And alot of people know that Ruud has had quite a shakey career in the Holland squad.

2) Do you not know a figure of speech when you see it? :rolleyes:

Jivin Turkey

I have to say it was my perception also.

Villain

Originally posted by PORNAPSTER
Plus the fact that Henry can't play for shít outside the prem

Thats complete bull and you know it, and you stated above as a FACT so don't start shouting people down that read what you said and took it at face value. If you think that Henry is shít outside the premiership then you need to open you eyes.:rolleyes:

redspider

To BaZmO

>> The point that I was making was that it is quite often the 2 or 3 best players in a team that carry the team to success

> take an example of National Team A v National Team B, and in the case of Roy, its bringing in just one world class player [to team A]. Its unlikely that the one world class player can make any real difference on his own if the rest of the players aren't playing 100% with him.


I didn’t see a response from you on this one. I understand where you are coming from in that 2 or 3 very good players, especially in the “backbone” of the team, can improve a teams results. The point I was making was that there is a lot of emphasis placed on individuals, those who score the goals, etc, but as a team sport which you agree with, it is the collective that produces results. There are cases of individuals that are exceptional at carrying a team a long long way, such as Maradona did with Argentina. But even Maradona would have found things hard with 10 duds. Hence my exaggerated example (3 v 11) to get across the point of team versus individual. A good example of teamwork versus individual was both Porto and Monaco this season where teamwork beat better individuals in other teams. Overall, Roy as an individual will not carry the team to qualification for the WC 2006, nor did he carry the team to qualification for WC 2002. It was 11 players on the pitch at any one time that did that and it will remain the same now. Even Roy knows that he is not god (there is a joke about that) although some fans are split on this !!


In terms of the detailed discussion about France, etc. My opinion is that whilst it is true that the Irish team could always aim for a win, everyone knows that we are not the world’s best team, we are 17th or so in the world according to the FIFA rankings (which are estimations), but football being the sport that it is does not always play to form. If it did (like Formula 1?) we wouldn’t watch it. Wimbledon can beat Liverpool, Denmark can win the European Championships, etc. The closer the teams are, the more unpredictable the result. France are “on paper” better than Ireland and according to FIFA’s “paper calculation”. But they can still lose to us.

The players and Kerr will approach each match with a sense of realism and a target. Against France in Dublin Kerr will be happy with a draw but would love a win. And we all should be too. True, on any given day we could beat France in Dublin, we may well do. They may also beat us. A draw would be ideal in France but a loss would not be a disaster. That is the nature of football. I don’t think we should be pessimistic and allow France to roll us over, yielding them six points. Every point is there to be won and fought for and we are clearly competing with Switzerland. The games against the “minnows” matter as much. And of course, the result on any given day must be compared with how we played, how many chances we and the opposition created. It may be a case of us having deserved to beat France but only ending up with a draw. I would rather see the former than see us being under the cosh for the whole game and only scraping a draw. Sometimes, its not what you do but the way that you do it.

By the way, I was unaware (had forgotten?) of the booing of Roy in a match against Iceland all those years ago. That seemingly was because many suspected that Roy and Man U were not releasing him for games. Everyone (including the dogs on the street) know that all premiership clubs use this excuse. If a Man U doctor says to Roy: "I don’t think you should travel with that strain". Whats Roy to do? He’s not personally feigning injury. But he’s not stupid. He knows whats going on. Everyone does. So, given that Roy was booed on his return, and was booed in that match against Iceland, is it a case that Roy has the sole place in history of being the only player to be booed for Ireland?

I don’t agree with booing as its shooting ourselves in the foot, but I can sympathise with those followers that were rightly pissed off with Roy’s attitude and mistakes in Saipan ….. I might have done the same if I was there as a form of protest.

But, we are all moving on with Roy. The past is now the past. Maybe in 6 years time I will be thinking, oh yeah, Saipan, Roy Keane … I remember that, I think. What was it again?

Pigman II

"We did come joint top on points".

I suppose the 'points arguement' might be worth something in a sport like Boxing, but unfortunately not in football. Just face it - we came 2nd on RESULTS. After all in 1988-89 Liverpool supposedly came 'joint top on points' in the league too. They didn't get half-a-trophy for it tho.

Where were Turkey 10 years ago? Didn't they come third in the last world cup?

I think a better question you should ask yourself is 'Where are Turkey now'? Besides take a look at some previous 3rd place teams in the World Cup : 82 Poland, 86 Belgium, 90 Italy (at home mind!), 94 Bulgaria, 98 Croatia. Hardly a hallmark of worldbeating quality there. Hell even Ireland could have come 3rd in the last world cup if the wind had blown the right way etc etc. Don't get me wrong 3rd is a nice achievement - but hardly spectacular.

You're the one going on about Ireland not winning a group since '88, how has historical fact got any relevance to whether Ireland can qualify or not? [Childish comment] You started it.[/Childish comment]

It has relevance in that it suggests strongly that it is a trend that will in almost 100% likelihood not be bucked - especially now in a group with a consistantly world class opponent and also based on our own current performances and standing in the world game (and I'm talking about REAL standing not the halucinary FIFA rankings or the 'friendlies world championship' that we are so fond of).

I mean as an analogy we could all sit here and say well 'maybe' San Marino won't come last in their group in 2006 (even tho they've done it 7 times in a row now with an impressive 2 draws and 58 defeats and no signs of improving) but I think we know that'll get us nowhere.

Similarly we have Ireland who have (prior to the ECQ2004) had come 2nd SEVEN times in a row. That is not just coincidence. That is about as clear an indicator as you are EVER going to get in world football. So don't just ignore it now because this time around we're up against a bunch of minnows like France.

From my own experience as fan there are only three kinds of teams who win qualifying groups Europe. (1) teams blessed with abundant attacking potential and reasonable defence (2) teams with pedigree (3) teams with an EXTREME rub of the green AND in a group of death. The rest have to make do with getting in through the back door - and that includes us right now unfortunately.

I don't think anyone in there right mind (other than you of course) would believe that we have a worse team now than the one Mick left us with.

And even at the end.....
McCarthys teams never lost a game by 3 goals - EVER.
McCarthys squads never had players prematurely 'retiring' at this current rate.
McCarthys never let the FAI sandwich meaningless fixtures into 2 day windows just for the sake of E130k (a match) into Fran Rooneys grubby little hands.
McCarthys teams never resorted to (for want of a better phrase) 'slow-slow-SLOW-SLOW-slow' football that will (admittedly) work wonders for you in a finals tournament - but unfortunately won't get you there in the first place.

Given, Cunningham, Breen, Carr, Harte, Carsley , Kilbane, Holland, Kinsella, Robbie and Duff was Mick's first choice. You may have noticed that every one of those players (bar Carsley) are still available to Kerr but he (and most Irish fans), unsurprisingly, wouldn't even rate 4/5 of them good enough for the current team.

Carsley was never first choice under McCarthy. In fact despite his perplexingly high collection of caps the only time I remember him getting any kind of decent run in the Irish team in a competitive nature was actually during KERR's early games! Kerr even went as far as to give him the 'number 10' shirt which I found quite amusing.

Also how do you know who Kerr rates or who he'll pick? For the most part all I see Kerr currenlty worrying about is his tactical 'template' not who is actually going to be in it next September. I personally think he's already worked his best 11 out and is now currently seeing who he can (and cannot) depend on for mere back-up. So if you reckon only just 4 of those you mentioned above are going to start in the Qualifiers then I think you'll be in for a surprise.

I'll try and take your 0-0 comment as a little sarcastic.

Take it whatever way you want. Just absorb the fact that you are calling a team who have scored in only 2 of their 5 games so far this year 'the best we've ever had'.

I thought my previous reply was pretty clear but it obviously wasn't. If Kilbane was available for the Poland match he would have started. Why? Because we were missing Holland, Duff and Keane.

In that case you can't reasonably include his name then just because he would have been 3rd or 4rd choice for a position just for the sake of generating a long list of noteable absentees .

By that logic does that mean everytime 'Joel LeBloggs' lines out for France in a meaningless friendly their fans have to bemoan all 20 guys who would have potentially been in front of himrather than just THE one missing guy whose position it was to own?

Does that mean if Glen Crowe ever gets another cap for us that I have to say explicitly 'well Keane, Morrison, Duff, Lee, Connolly, Doherty, Barrett and Jason Byrne were missing, so there'! No I (at least) would just mention Keane because it was his most likely his position that was occupied and leave it at that.

All That said tho I can now kind of see where you are coming from. I guess it's just a matter of difference in our own definitions of what we consider 'absense' here. I'm of the opinion that if a guy was in fact only 4th choice for a position then he really isn't missed either way.

BaZmO*

I have to say, I've quite enjoyed this thread, a lot of interesting debating going on. Now, while I agree with most of your "realist" points of view rather than the "optimistic" points of view that most people are taking but would you not agree that football as a partisan sport is about being optimistic. Sure isn't that the beauty of the beautiful game. The what if's, the potential giant beating games. Maybe I, like many others I feel, just have too much of a romantic outlook when it comes to their country playing?

Originally posted by Pigman II
....McCarthys never let the FAI sandwich meaningless fixtures into 2 day windows just for the sake of E130k (a match) into Fran Rooneys grubby little hands....

But wasn't Fran Rooney brought in as a business man? I feel he has to be commended at his approach so far. In particular the way he dealt with the allocation of the tickets for the last 3 home friendlies.

He also recently argued with FIFA to ensure that we didn't play most of our last WC qualifying games away from home.

Do you really want to go back to the days when Eoin Hand's wife was brought away on trips to Russia to do the catering to cut down on costs, or would you like to see the USA '94 ticket fiasco happen again, to name only a couple.

B.

eirebhoy

You may have noticed that I didn't reply to certain points you made about the premiership being average, etc. because it wouldn't have got me anywhere. I think you should do the same on points I make about Ireland coming joint top because it doesn't really matter.

Originally posted by Pigman II
I suppose the 'points arguement' might be worth something in a sport like Boxing, but unfortunately not in football. Just face it - we came 2nd on RESULTS. After all in 1988-89 Liverpool supposedly came 'joint top on points' in the league too. They didn't get half-a-trophy for it tho.

I'll just give you a little advice, type google the following: "joint top" + premiership or "joint top" + spl. I agree with what your saying about goal difference etc. so i hope thats the end of this debate.

I think a better question you should ask yourself is 'Where are Turkey now'? Besides take a look at some previous 3rd place teams in the World Cup : 82 Poland, 86 Belgium, 90 Italy (at home mind!), 94 Bulgaria, 98 Croatia. Hardly a hallmark of worldbeating quality there. Hell even Ireland could have come 3rd in the last world cup if the wind had blown the right way etc etc. Don't get me wrong 3rd is a nice achievement - but hardly spectacular.

I was merely making the point that teams can improve and Turkey were a very good team during the last world cup and WC qualifying campaign. You said yourself that France failed to qualify for three or so tournaments in a few years, history means feck all. I really do believe that the current set of players have the potential to be the best Irish team ever. Of course your not going to agree but it is my honest opinion.

And even at the end.....
McCarthys teams never lost a game by 3 goals - EVER.
McCarthys squads never had players prematurely 'retiring' at this current rate.
McCarthys never let the FAI sandwich meaningless fixtures into 2 day windows just for the sake of E130k (a match) into Fran Rooneys grubby little hands.
McCarthys teams never resorted to (for want of a better phrase) 'slow-slow-SLOW-SLOW-slow' football that will (admittedly) work wonders for you in a finals tournament - but unfortunately won't get you there in the first place.

You've said so many times that the Fifa rankings are useless because they take into account the results of friendlies and you also described friendlies as meaningless, so why does the result actually matter? I thought you would have being slating Mick for taking friendlies so seriously. I won't even go into how weak the team was or how tired the players were, I'll just admit that Nigeria were better than us on the day.

I said that I don't believe anyone would think the current team is worse than the team Mick left us with. What has players retiring early got to do with how good the team is, none of them would have made the team anyway.

The current FAI is better than the previous one, thats all I'll say on that point.

Slow-Slow-Slow football? 32 consecutive passes in a minute or so against Romania. Far from slow to me.

Carsley was never first choice under McCarthy. In fact despite his perplexingly high collection of caps the only time I remember him getting any kind of decent run in the Irish team in a competitive nature was actually during KERR's early games! Kerr even went as far as to give him the 'number 10' shirt which I found quite amusing.

Also how do you know who Kerr rates or who he'll pick? For the most part all I see Kerr currenlty worrying about is his tactical 'template' not who is actually going to be in it next September. I personally think he's already worked his best 11 out and is now currently seeing who he can (and cannot) depend on for mere back-up. So if you reckon only just 4 of those you mentioned above are going to start in the Qualifiers then I think you'll be in for a surprise.

Carsley started just 3 games under Kerr (and got 2 assists in those 3 games) but anyway, maybe McAteer was ahead of him in the pecking order, I still doubt he's be a first choice for Kerr.

I obviously don't know who Kerr rated but I know/presume that he more or less knows his starting 11 already. I doubt Harte, Breen, Kinsella and McAteer are in that 11. I never said just 4 players from Micks team will start in the qualifiers, read it again.

Take it whatever way you want. Just absorb the fact that you are calling a team who have scored in only 2 of their 5 games so far this year 'the best we've ever had'.

Actually we scored 3 . But you would be the first to say that Kerr should be judged from the competitive fixtures.

In that case you can't reasonably include his name then just because he would have been 3rd or 4rd choice for a position just for the sake of generating a long list of noteable absentees .

I'm still struggling to think how you feel you still have an argument on this point. I said Kilbane would be lucky to get into the current team but thats just because we have such a strong midfield. Due to so many absentee's against Poland he would have started against them. If I really wanted to generate a long list of absentees I would have mentioned Dunne, Breen, McAteer, Kavanagh, McPhail, Healy, Delap and Connolly. I only mentioned the players who have a reasonable chance of making the team. I am not contradicting myself though. I feel Kilbane has a reasonable chance of making the team but due to the amount of players I rate ahead of him, he would be lucky to get in IMO. Kerr probably rates him as first choice though. Even if you still feel I'm contradicting myself I hope thats the end of this argument too because it is a useless one TBH.

This is the longest debate/argument I've probably ever had on boards but please don't take a grudge against everything I say on boards from now on as so many people do. I certainly won't do in your case anyway.

The Rooster

where are all these so called early retirees pigman?

There is no Irish player out there who has retired from international football since Kerr took over, who would be a valuable addition to the team.

Dean Kiely has stated that if shay Given was injured and if he was called up, he would gladly play. But at his stage of his life he is not prepared to travel and miss time away from his family just to sit on the bench.

With Carr and Finnan ahead of him, no way is Gary Kelly anywhere near worth his place. And in any event his retirement had notihng to do with Kerr. Kelly was picked in Kerr's first 3 squads. He pulled out of them all, but each time played in the Leeds games directly before and directly after the international break.

Carsley (do we need him anyway?) has asked not to be picked until he re-establishes himself in the Everton first team. He has not retired.

With Keane back at least Kerr will manage to have his best team on the field. Something McCarthy failed to manage at the world cup.

To say things have disimproved off the field since Kerr took over is just the height of nonsense. I would be slow to blame McCarthy for what went before, but now it seems the FAI have finally started to get their act together.

Pigman II

where are all these so called early retirees pigman?

Kiely, Carsley and Kelly can sugarcoat it anyway they like but the fact of the matter is they're still playing football at a reasonalby high level (at least high enough for this Ireland squad) and are not offering themselves up for selection. Call it whatever you want but I call it early retirement. The fact that they've all happened since Kerr took over pinpoints the origin of the problem.

To say things have disimproved off the field since Kerr took over is just the height of nonsense. I would be slow to blame McCarthy for what went before, but now it seems the FAI have finally started to get their act together.

Yes, sticking their noses in the trough at every opportunity for a quick buck certainly is a positive sign. Here's looking forward to us winning the Unity Cup next year at what's left of Plough Lane and I can't wait for the 2006 friendly fixture triple header of England-Nepal-MaltaU21's. Start saving!

He also recently argued with FIFA to ensure that we didn't play most of our last WC qualifying games away from home.

Well that is his job after all so I wouldn't expect anything less. I still don't see any reason for him to to be dumping us into the 'Lunacy cup' beyond making a quick buck at the expence of the players (and our reputation as a team). I'm sure a lot of people had a good laugh at the dynamic new FAI team setup and it's knacked-out team losing 3-0 without a whimper in front of a crowd of barely 7,000 on a pitch that looked like something from the WW1 trenches.

It's probably the most embarrasing organisational f-up the FAI has had since the 1960's when players would line up for their English clubs on a Saturday and then get the ferry over to Dublin to play a match for us on the Sunday. Also this was bad enough but it made me sick reading Rooney today when asked about the low crowds at The Valley go on about how not to worry as he made sure to get the E260k fee upfront - as though he was some kind of financial wizard. Clap-Clap-Clap Fran. I'm sure the money will do as a downpayment for Roy's kingsized chair on our next chartered flight. :rolleyes:

Do you really want to go back to the days when Eoin Hand's wife was brought away on trips to Russia to do the catering to cut down on costs, or would you like to see the USA '94 ticket fiasco happen again, to name only a couple.

There'll always be someone moaning and something wrong with the set-up no matter how much preperation goes into it - Keanes presence alone will guarentee that much. And If you saw the way Ireland played during that particular WC86 campaign and the home gates they were deservedly not getting then you'd realise they didn't even deserve anything more than a few packed sandwiches.

You may have noticed that I didn't reply to certain points you made about the premiership being average, etc. because it wouldn't have got me anywhere. I think you should do the same on points I make about Ireland coming joint top because it doesn't really matter.

It does matter in so far as people are trying to find evidence that supports we have a chance of winning our 2006 group when even in that 2002 campaign where we (1) went full out, (2) rode our luck on a number of occasions and (3) were generally felt to have achieved the maximum we could possibly hope for ... yet we STILL only came second albeit by goal difference.

I'll just give you a little advice, type google the following: "joint top" + premiership or "joint top" + spl. I agree with what your saying about goal difference etc. so i hope thats the end of this debate.

It'll end when you accept that there's no such thing as 'joint first on <anything>' in football unless two sides finish with exactly the same record - which is a rarity over anything with more than 3 matches.

I was merely making the point that teams can improve and Turkey were a very good team during the last world cup and WC qualifying campaign. You said yourself that France failed to qualify for three or so tournaments in a few years, history means feck all. I really do believe that the current set of players have the potential to be the best Irish team ever. Of course your not going to agree but it is my honest opinion.

I hear what your saying about teams going up and down and I agree that if France DO have a terrible hangover from the Euros then 'perhaps' we can topple them. All I'm saying is that your wishful thinking is unlikely to happen and even if France are even at 80% then this current Irish team (from their displays thusfar under Kerr) won't have it within themselves to take advantage of the situation.

You've said so many times that the Fifa rankings are useless because they take into account the results of friendlies and you also described friendlies as meaningless, so why does the result actually matter? I thought you would have being slating Mick for taking friendlies so seriously. I won't even go into how weak the team was or how tired the players were, I'll just admit that Nigeria were better than us on the day.

Yes, I don't rate the rankings and yes I don't think losing a friendly by a goal or two isn't that important. But losing one by 3 clear goals even in a 'meaningless friendly' is a very serious situation for any manager under any circumstances. Whats worse is Kerrs already making excuses like a pro for that defeat such as the players having to play so soon after Romania and the pitch being a state. Well Brian if you have so many quality players at your disposal then you should have started with a totally different XI to romania and as for the pitch .... well the old adage of 'its the same for both sides' comes to mind.

As for McCarthy taking friendlies seriously, the truth is he clearly didn't give a **** - as his final record in non-competitive games (W=9/D=7/L=11) will testify.

I said that I don't believe anyone would think the current team is worse than the team Mick left us with. What has players retiring early got to do with how good the team is, none of them would have made the team anyway.

The loss of the players themselves mightn't be that important (Kiely aside IMHO) but it gives-out the message that fringe players in the squad don't believe that the good ship Kerr is going anywhere long-term and therefore as such there's really no point being around just to make up the numbers.

Slow-Slow-Slow football? 32 consecutive passes in a minute or so against Romania. Far from slow to me.

'Finnan to O'Brien to Cunningham to Maybury and back again' x 6 + a few into midfield I suppose? All very quick, neat and pretty but you're still getting you no closer to a shot on target. No, I'm talking about 'slow' as in build up. I'm sure Redspider could get the stats but I'd seriously doubt with the way were playing if the total number of shots on target in our last three games even hit double figures.

Carsley started just 3 games under Kerr (and got 2 assists in those 3 games) but anyway, maybe McAteer was ahead of him in the pecking order, I still doubt he's be a first choice for Kerr.

Only maybe now? And no, I doubt Kerr would willingly pick him either, the point was like Kerr McCarthy didn't consider him first-XI either and it was incorrect of you to suggest so.

I obviously don't know who Kerr rated but I know/presume that he more or less knows his starting 11 already. I doubt Harte, Breen, Kinsella and McAteer are in that 11. I never said just 4 players from Micks team will start in the qualifiers, read it again.

You said (and I quote 'he [ie Kerr] wouldn't even rate 4/5 of them [ie Micks XI] good enough for the current team.' Therefore presumably by anyones logic if Kerr had every player fit and available then only 4/5 of 'Micks XI' would be picked by Kerr - otherwise Greener would therefore be picking players he 'wouldn't rate good enough for the current team'?

Now I can see how there might have been crossed wires in the 'Kilbane' contradiction example below but I honestly cannot see how the 4/5 comment could be misinterpreted?

Actually we scored 3 . But you would be the first to say that Kerr should be judged from the competitive fixtures.

Actually I said '2 games' not '2 goals'. And if you want to talk competitive then '7 in 6' isn't exactly mindblowing either.

This is the longest debate/argument I've probably ever had on boards but please don't take a grudge against everything I say on boards from now on as so many people do. I certainly won't do in your case anyway.

No worries and I won't. At least this has remained a civilised intelligent discussion after 8 pages unlike most of the entries I remember from 'soccer board 1'. I guess the system finally does work.......

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Pigman II
You said (and I quote 'he [ie Kerr] wouldn't even rate 4/5 of them [ie Micks XI] good enough for the current team.' Therefore presumably by anyones logic if Kerr had every player fit and available then only 4/5 of 'Micks XI' would be picked by Kerr - otherwise Greener would therefore be picking players he 'wouldn't rate good enough for the current team'?

I can understand how you misinterpreted what I said. I meant Kerr wouldn't even rate 4/5 of the players listed good enough for the current team and those 4/5 players are Breen, Kinsella, McAteer, Harte / Kilbane. So 4 of the players in Micks team aren't good enough for the current team.

eirebhoy

BTW, about McCarthy never losing 3-0. I just noticed/read how many players that were actually unavailable for the Nigeria match. Did Mick ever have a match against a top 15/20 team away from home at the of the season, less then 48 hours after another match with 15 members of his first choice squad? Those players are Carr, Harte, Breen, Dunne, O'Shea, S Reid, Kennedy, Delap, Roy Keane, Kilbane, Kavanagh, Duff, Healy, McAteer and Connolly. Every single one of those players would have been in the squad if available.

It's not Kerr's fault that the FAI arranged matches at such stupid dates but I get the feeling you think it is. I also don't believe he was making excuses about the result by complaining about the pitch. He said the same about the Poland pitch and I don't think he had to make excuses about that result because it was a good result giving the circumstances.

Kerr said he will rest Cunningham, Keane, Holland and Finnan for the Jamaica match and Miller has gone home, O'Shea is now fit so make that 19 members of the first choice squad unavailable for that match. I wouldn't be suprised if we get slaughtered by Jamaica and Holland and I won't lay any of the blame on Kerr's shoulders. I just hope it doesn't affect the confidence of the players.

redspider

I commend eirebhoy and pigman II for holding a good debate on the forum. I didnt get a chance to read all of your tit for tats or join in and your viewpoints have validity from both sides.

Originally posted by eirebhoy
Did Mick ever have a match against a top 15/20 team away from home at the of the season, less then 48 hours after another match with 15 members of his first choice squad unavailable (edit) ? It's not Kerr's fault that the FAI arranged matches at such stupid dates. I wouldn't be suprised if we get slaughtered by Jamaica and Holland and I won't lay any of the blame on Kerr's shoulders. I just hope it doesn't affect the confidence of the players.

I do think that the FAI are culpable for entering this tournament, but I'm sure that Kerr had his say when asked. If he was dead against such a competition we wouldn't have participated. Such tournaments are a good time to experiment but with such rapidity of matches the results should be taken with a pinch of salt, given the number of players not available, etc, and the value of the experimentation is reduced. It would be a big shame if we do get beaten badly by the Netherlands as that will go down on our record book as a black mark.

The Unity Cup if on its own would have been ok, but book-ended by matches against Romania and the Dutch is ludicrous. Why Kerr didnt veto this is beyond me.

Pigman II

I can understand how you misinterpreted what I said. I meant Kerr wouldn't even rate 4/5 of the players listed good enough for the current team and those 4/5 players are Breen, Kinsella, McAteer, Harte / Kilbane. So 4 of the players in Micks team aren't good enough for the current team.

Yeah that's fair enough. Actually it seems we're on close lines of thought on that issue than it seemed.

BTW, about McCarthy never losing 3-0. I just noticed/read how many players that were actually unavailable for the Nigeria match. Did Mick ever have a match against a top 15/20 team away from home at the of the season, less then 48 hours after another match with 15 members of his first choice squad? Those players are Carr, Harte, Breen, Dunne, O'Shea, S Reid, Kennedy, Delap, Roy Keane, Kilbane, Kavanagh, Duff, Healy, McAteer and Connolly. Every single one of those players would have been in the squad if available.

Not a valid comparison. Knock a flabby squad of 40 or so players together like Kerr has and you'll find 15 chancers will take licence to drop out at the drop of a hat when the match isn't high profile enough for them because they know there'll always be some jobber hanging around looking to sneak a cap. McCarthy on the other hand never had 15 dropouts because he made it clear he was considering a panel of around 25 players max at all times and that if you were in it then you didn't get to pick and choose your appearances.

It's not Kerr's fault that the FAI arranged matches at such stupid dates but I get the feeling you think it is.

How is it not Kerrs fault - at least in part? Has he not been there 16 months now? Or was the Lunacy Cup arranged prior to his appointment? Because I cannot believe he wasn't consulted about this farsical arrangement and asked whether he thought it favourable or not.

I also don't believe he was making excuses about the result by complaining about the pitch. He said the same about the Poland pitch and I don't think he had to make excuses about that result because it was a good result giving the circumstances.

I was watching 'The Road to America' (a documentary about Irelands WC94 qualification journey) just the other day. The reason I mention it is because after the match we lost 3-1 to Spain. Charlton was asked what went wrong. His
response was 'I don't know. I guess we had a bad day and we just weren't good enough'. That's the difference between an honest no nonsence manager and a bluffer like Kerr.