Just the thing to cheer you up for Christmas!

Pigman II

Tuesday 20/12
RTE1 10.15pm - 11.15pm

Brian Kerrs World Cup Story (... or complete lack thereof).

Lex Luthor

Pigman II wrote:

Tuesday 20/12
RTE1 10.15pm - 11.15pm

Brian Kerrs World Cup Story (... or complete lack thereof).

I'm washing my hair...or complete lack thereof

Third_Echelon

60 minutes of excuses...

Chong

Why oh why would they want to show this , what a complete waste of tv time.

Pigman II

Third_Echelon wrote:

60 minutes of excuses...

Exactly what I was thinking. Still, even that'd be better than 60minutes of match footage from that excuse for a campaign.

BaZmO*

Third_Echelon wrote:

60 minutes of excuses...

Well, from the clips that they're showing to advsertise the show it definitely looks that way.

B.

Chong

Why would they do broadcast this to make the nation more miserable at the fact of not being the world cup.

Benedict XVI

WDK wrote:

Why would they do broadcast this to make the nation more miserable at the fact of not being the world cup.

More than likley this show is going on air 12 months too soon.
They sent a crew out to follow what looked on paaper like a fairly staright forward run to a playoff place at the least and ended up with a damp squib.

I will dig out the insurance policy on my TV cos as soon as I hear Kerr mention that France's goal against us was the only difference between the top 4 team I will go through the TV after the ba**ard.

Chong

Its complete stupidity in RTE's behalf imo

MrJoeSoap

Haha, what a poor excuse for a television programme. He had probably planned to sell it as a DVD if we qualified!

BaZmO*

WDK wrote:

Its complete stupidity in RTE's behalf imo

Why? I bet it gets sh1tloads of viewers. Isn't that their objective?

B.

Benedict XVI

BaZmO* wrote:

Why? I bet it gets sh1tloads of viewers. Isn't that their objective?

B.

I will certainly watch it, just to see what Kerr has to say for himself.

emc2

I saw a review of this in the time sports section and while I can't remember the full gist of the piece it did summarize that this was a crap documentry, that raises more questions than answers.

gandalf

Why the hell would I watch this unless its like that documentary about Graham Taylor. Now that was quality television

BaZmO*

Benedict XVI wrote:

I will certainly watch it, just to see what Kerr has to say for himself.

It'll be just the same as his Late Late Show interview, all rehearsed and nicely thought out, unlike his post match interview against the Swiss (where it mattered) so that he can deflect the blame from his inept tactics all throughout the campaign.

B.

Benedict XVI

BaZmO* wrote:

It'll be just the same as his Late Late Show interview, all rehearsed and nicely thought out, unlike his post match interview against the Swiss (where it mattered) so that he can deflect the blame from his inept tactics all throughout the campaign.

B.

From the clips I have seen, it seems more like a 'fly on the wall' documnetary, if so we will get to hear his post Swiss match interview, then again at the time I think he did say that the only thing between the top 4 was France beating us.

I will watch it for the sake of seeing what the producers are wishing to achive. As I said before it may be a case that it is going to air 12 months earlier than the producers wanted.

Pigman II

gandalf wrote:

Why the hell would I watch this unless its like that documentary about Graham Taylor. Now that was quality television

Yeah classic tv there! I can see it now...

After Ireland show passion and style on the pitch to go 2-0 up against Israel
Kerr :"Do I not like that!"

After Ireland draw 0-0 to Switzerland
Kerr : "Tell your boss he's just got me the sack"
Linesman : "Tell your boss he shouldn't have gotten himself injured against Liverpool"

mchurl

Pigman II wrote:

Yeah classic tv there! I can see it now...

After Ireland show passion and style on the pitch to go 2-0 up against Israel
Kerr :"Do I not like that!"

After Ireland draw 0-0 to Switzerland
Kerr : "Tell your boss he's just got me the sack"
Linesman : "Tell your boss he shouldn't have gotten himself injured against Liverpool"

lol:D

Pigman II

Duff on the paper today blaming the players (and not Kerr) for Irelands performances in the last 3 games. Calls them akin to 'a pub team'. Hardly putting himself on the line there considering you can't (or at least Ireland can't) get rid of the players we have. If you felt that way Duffer then why didn't you speak up before the axe dropped? :rolleyes:

Sometimes I'd like to slap Duff and (despite him being our 'star' player) if I was manager I'd be sorely tempted to drop him after his string of what I can only describe as 'disinterested' performances in the last campaign. Mourinho seems to have turned him into the 'complete' player but thats doing us no favours imho and considering our dearth of attacking options I wish he was still the hell-for-leather player he was 4 years ago.

BaZmO*

Pigman II wrote:

If you felt that way Duffer then why didn't you speak up before the axe dropped? :rolleyes:

And we all know how you feel about the last Irish player to do that!

B.

eirebhoy

Pigman II wrote:

Sometimes I'd like to slap Duff and (despite him being our 'star' player) if I was manager I'd be sorely tempted to drop him after his string of what I can only describe as 'disinterested' performances in the last campaign. Mourinho seems to have turned him into the 'complete' player but thats doing us no favours imho and considering our dearth of attacking options I wish he was still the hell-for-leather player he was 4 years ago.

I wouldn't call them disinterested. He was our best player in the last 3 friendlies he played (Croatia, Portugal and Italy). He was absolutely superb against Italy. It was the Duff of old except he tracked back when he hadn't got the ball. He doesn't just lose interested when it comes to competitives, he must be getting marked out of the game as he's our only creative player. Against France there wasn't once where he had less than 2 players on him. If he had the ball fairly long Makelele was straight over too. Still though, he got 5 excellent assists in the qualifiers.

Pigman II

BaZmO* wrote:

And we all know how you feel about the last Irish player to do that!

B.

I mean voice the concerns in private. As for public I'd have preferred Duff had said nothing before OR after the fact but if he really felt he HAD to say or do something then at least do it whilst it could still make some difference.

And btw whilst I'm not at all impressed by the TheTraitor for his various and multiple public criticisms of his teammates that's not the primary reason I have no respect for him.

Pigman II

eirebhoy wrote:

I wouldn't call them disinterested. He was our best player in the last 3 friendlies he played (Croatia, Portugal and Italy). He was absolutely superb against Italy. It was the Duff of old except he tracked back when he hadn't got the ball. He doesn't just lose interested when it comes to competitives, he must be getting marked out of the game as he's our only creative player. Against France there wasn't once where he had less than 2 players on him. If he had the ball fairly long Makelele was straight over too. Still though, he got 5 excellent assists in the qualifiers.

Ok I take it all back EB. When I'm Ireland manager I promise to pick him for all the friendlies

eirebhoy

I'm just hearing people slate Duff more and more. Its not his fault Mourinho likes to win boringly. Although, he did tell his attacking players (except Joe Cole) that they are all playing poorly last week. As soon as he said that Robben and Cole have great games against Arsenal. He would have to say it after Duff gets injured.

whiskeyman

well, what yee all think?
Great review of the campaign and no real excuses given by Kerr.
He said it himself "we simply weren't good enough".
Excellently produced I thought... real shame they didn't get the chance to edit it to be about our qualification rather than lack of.

Pigman II

It's great to finally learn (straight from the horses mouth) that 'we' weren't good enough and never a hint of 'he' weren't good enough.

I believe there's an old Chinese saying that says "A man who doesn't learn from his mistakes is doomed to be Brian Kerr"

bizmark

Kerr is paranoid ever one was against him no one liked him boo hoo its every one else’s fault but his own pff :rolleyes: dumphy had a good point we got worse over the course of the campaign you can only look at the back room stuff to blame for that imho

eirebhoy

Pigman II wrote:

It's great to finally learn (straight from the horses mouth) that 'we' weren't good enough and never a hint of 'he' weren't good enough.

He's right in fairness though. He did admit that he made mistakes in Switzerland and learnt from them. We just didn't have that great a team. Half the team were struggling to get into their club teams. "we weren't good enough" was the right thing to say.

As soon as he leaves though about 20 players decide to break through.

I feel Kerr is more than good enough and will prove it in time.

Pigman II

eirebhoy wrote:

He's right in fairness though. He did admit that he made mistakes in Switzerland and learnt from them.

No he didn't. Even then he was blaming others saying that the trip was organised prior to his appointment so he didn't get the training pitch he wanted. So even there he was at pains to point out that anything he 'learnt' was from the (so called) mistakes of others, not his own.

At the end of the doc he said he had no regrets (other than the results :rolleyes:) and would have done nothing differently. If thats his honest pov then I'm even more glad he's gone now than I was 2 hours ago.

We just didn't have that great a team. Half the team were struggling to get into their club teams. "we weren't good enough" was the right thing to say.

It's the right thing to say if you're a bluffer who can't accept that he's contributed in no small part to a teams downfall. Amazing how when even McCarthy was in charge the players we had weren't markedly better at any stage during his tenure yet they clearly 'were good enough' then.

eirebhoy

Pigman II wrote:

It's the right thing to say if you're a bluffer who can't accept that he's contributed in no small part to a teams downfall. Amazing how when even McCarthy was in charge the players we had weren't markedly better at any stage during his tenure yet they clearly 'were good enough' then.

I'd swap a 26 year old Duff and a 34 year old Keane with a 26 year old Keane and a 34 year old Houghton. Then you have Staunton at his peak, Gary Kelly and Ian Harte playing well, Irwin, Townsend and Quinn. Mark Kennedy wasn't bad at the time either. I was debating something similar on another forum and I feel that McCarthy's (who I'm a fan of) first 2 campaigns weren't any better than Kerr's (you can feck off if you think I'm repeating it all again its on foot.ie). Whether that means Kerr deserved another campaign, probably not, but I feel the critisism he gets is OTT.

Benedict XVI

Two interesting points from Kerr during the interview that I think really stood out

1.When he had to take Keane off against Israel at home he said that he did not replace him with Elliot because Elliot was ‘out of sorts, ‘not doing well’, ‘not hitting the target in training’ etc.
If Elliot was so poor that he could not be brought on with a 2-0 lead against Israel at home how come he was suddenly so good 4 days later in a rain sodden bog in the Artic where he scored and was good enough to get man of the match (he may have I can’t remember)

Once again Kerr was making excuses for his negative attitude

2.Kerr mentioned during the France 1-0 defeat discussion that we were only behind for 20mins in the whole qualifying campaign.
What he failed to mention was that we were at leading for at least 100mins in the total campaign and threw it away.

The Insider

Have to agree with you there 100% eirebhoy, when you look at McCarthy's time in charge, he had Roy Keane in his prime, he had the likes of Quinn, Staunton, Gary Kelly, Denis Irwin, Alan Kelly, he also had the likes of Duff and Keane breaking into the team. He also got his fair share of luck in his last world cup qualifying game, Holland probably deserved to beat us 4-0 in the game in Dublin but somehow we managed to win it. When it came to the crunch game against Switzerland Kerr was without Duff and Keane, if we had those two fit we would have got the win. If Brian gets the chance at another club I think he will do well.

Pigman II

I have to say its great to know now that when you're winning its because you 'get your fair share of luck' and players like (Liverpool reject) Mark Kennedy and Blackburn reserve keeper Alan Kelly 'weren't bad' in hindsight.

When I said Mick hadn't much different to work with I was refering to the squad as a whole not just 1 or 2 players in particular. As for comparing Duff(26) & Keane(34) with Keane(26) & Houghton(34) (which I think is nitpicking anyway EB) I could just as easily say that Kerrs 2 were playing champions league football for the top3 clubs in England whereas Micks 2 weren't.

Fact of the matter is that Kerr put out more full premiership-XI's than the McCarthy or Charlton ever could and had a greater depth of established players to choose from than either Mick or Jack. In an era where it is actually harder for Irish players to make it at the top level in England that really says it all.

I agree with Benedict about the time excuse. That's really grasping at straws with his 'we were only behind for 20 minutes' stat. Almost as bad as his 'one bit of Henry magic decided the group' line. Why didn't he produce the stat that 'each time we WERE behind in a competitive game, we LOST which showed our complete lack of character' imho and that by comparison we managed to lose points in competitive games we were actually winning on no less than four occasions under Kerr!

BaZmO*

The over-riding impression that I got from the documentary was that Kerr constantly felt that it wasn't his fault. It was the player's fault, it was the FAI's fault, it was the wrong colour jerseys. Green jerseys on a football pitch do make it hard to pick players out so it's best not to try anything adventurous.

I didn't seem to remember him addressing his constant negative tactics, strange substitutions and his inabilty to deal with the press.

Interesting point made my Liam Macken or Emmet Malone (?) about Carr nearly having a panic attack when Keane told him to get forward during the Israel match.

B.

The Insider

Pigman II wrote:

Fact of the matter is that Kerr put out more full premiership-XI's than the McCarthy or Charlton ever could and had a greater depth of established players to choose from than either Mick or Jack. In an era where it is actually harder for Irish players to make it at the top level in England that really says it all.

Did you watch much of the Chartlon era??? Brady, Stapelton, Aldridge, McGrath, Bonner, Sheedy, Moran, McCarthy, Irwin, Keane, Quinn, Houghton, Galvin, Whelan, O'Leary, Staunton and that’s just off the top of my head. You are having a laugh if you think Kerr had better players then that.

Pigman II

The Insider wrote:

Did you watch much of the Chartlon era??? Brady, Stapelton, Aldridge, McGrath, Bonner, Sheedy, Moran, McCarthy, Irwin, Keane, Quinn, Houghton, Galvin, Whelan, O'Leary, Staunton and that’s just off the top of my head. You are having a laugh if you think Kerr had better players then that.

Yeah I saw the odd game or a 100. I noticed how when you rattled off the players Jack had you seemed to forget 'off the top of your head' the likes of Chris Morris, John Byrne, David Kelly, Alan McLouglin, Phil Babb, Jeff Kenna, Tommy Coyne and Alan Kernaghan (to name but a few) .... all of whom racked up handsome cap totals under Jack and all of whom would have barely even got in Kerrs squad had they been round today as far as I'm concerned.

So in answer to your statement I think it's you who are 'having the laugh' by merely picking the stars from 10 years worth of games and then trying to pass us of as the 'Pad-acticos'.

eirebhoy

Benedict XVI wrote:

Two interesting points from Kerr during the interview that I think really stood out

1.When he had to take Keane off against Israel at home he said that he did not replace him with Elliot because Elliot was ‘out of sorts, ‘not doing well’, ‘not hitting the target in training’ etc.
If Elliot was so poor that he could not be brought on with a 2-0 lead against Israel at home how come he was suddenly so good 4 days later in a rain sodden bog in the Artic where he scored and was good enough to get man of the match (he may have I can’t remember)

He made that point in an interview before. He said that Elliott was a different player between that Saturday and Wednesday. Previous to the Israel match he had started 1 game in the last 2 months for Sunderland and apparantly had a virus and wasn't himself. I think Kerr takes too much from what he see's in training though and Elliott should have came on against Israel. It wasn't a defensive substitution but it was the wrong substitution.

Pigman II wrote:

we were actually winning on no less than four occasions under Kerr!

And McCarthy (Macedonia x2, Belgium, Turkey). I appreciate that McCarthy did have a few more games though.

Pigman II

eirebhoy wrote:

And McCarthy (Macedonia x2, Belgium, Turkey). I appreciate that McCarthy did have a few more games though.

You forgot Holland away too (we were even winning by 2 that night!)

Anyway, on the other side of the coin, to further show the difference Micks teams did also manage to claw us back from deficits on several occasions. Which is more than Kerrs team ever did.

I always felt we had a chance with Mick side no matter what the score but when a Kerr team went a goal down I knew that'd be 'all she wrote' so to speak. Nothing more depressing from a supporter pov than to feel that way imho.

BaZmO*

Pigman II wrote:

I always felt we had a chance with Mick side no matter what the score but when a Kerr team went a goal down I knew that'd be 'all she wrote' so to speak. Nothing more depressing from a supporter pov than to feel that way imho.

Most definitely. And I know an awful lot of people that felt that way.

B.

The Insider

Pigman II wrote:

Yeah I saw the odd game or a 100. I noticed how when you rattled off the players Jack had you seemed to forget 'off the top of your head' the likes of Chris Morris, John Byrne, David Kelly, Alan McLouglin, Phil Babb, Jeff Kenna, Tommy Coyne and Alan Kernaghan (to name but a few) .... all of whom racked up handsome cap totals under Jack and all of whom would have barely even got in Kerrs squad had they been round today as far as I'm concerned.

So in answer to your statement I think it's you who are 'having the laugh' by merely picking the stars from 10 years worth of games and then trying to pass us of as the 'Pad-acticos'.

I think you named a few decent players there, Jeff Kenna, David Kelly, John Byrne are better then David Connolly, Alan Maybury and Gary Dougherty.

But apart from that look at the teams that used to line for Charlton, in 88 it was roughly Bonner, Morris, Moran, McCarthy, Chris Houghton, Sheedy, Whelan, Brady, Ray Houghton, Stapleton, Cascarino (I know that’s prob not 100% right but it was nearly 18 years ago )

In 90 it would have been Bonner, Staunton, McGrath, McCarthy, Houghton, Sheedy, Townsend, Whelan, Houghton, Quinn, Aldridge. With the likes of Stapleton, Cascarino, O'Leary on the bench. Brady did not even make the squad.

In 94 it would have been Bonner, Staunton, McGrath, Babb, Irwin, Sheridan, Townsend, Keane, Houghton, Quinn, Aldridge. With the likes of Gary Kelly, McAteer, Moran, Phelan and Whelan on the bench.

No comparison IMO.

eirebhoy

A lot of people say the Israel home match was Kerr's biggest fault. Nobody knows that. We deserved to win that match 4 or 5 nil. A Matt Holland tackle on the half way line and a mis-kick from Shay Given were the incidents that got Israel their only shots on target from. Their only shot off target came with us 2-0 up and Robbie still on the pitch. Israel got back into the game as soon as we scored that 2nd goal. IMO Kerr should have put on Elliott for Keane but nobody on this planet knows whether that would have got us the win.

BaZmO*

But that's all "'if's" and "buts"

There's one thing that Kerr was supposedly reknowned for and that was his fore planning, tactics and organisation, with that in mind can you honestly say that he had a plan against the Swiss in the last match, even though it was the 3rd time that we played them while he was at the helm.

The fact of the matter is, Kerr was never gonna be given more than a full campaign to prove himself, for whatever right or wrong reasons, and unfortunately for him and the country he failed miserably. He had he chance and he didn't take it, and his response was that "we" weren't good enough, not "him" but "we"
If "we" weren't good enough then why did he take the job in the first place?

B.

LostinBlanch

Baz,

planning, tactics and preparation are the means. The result is the end. Unfortunately for Kerr he didn't produce when it mattered most, and that's it. Excuses aren't going to change that fact.

He seems to have a chip on his shoulder that the FAI didn't renew his contract before the end of the qualification programme just like they did with McCarthy. That was a mistake whcih they were rightly slated for when they renewed his contract. Kerr should have realised that this is a results based job.

It's a pity the way that it worked out for Kerr as I really thought he was the man to take us forward, but we've been going backwards instead.

eirebhoy

LostinBlanch wrote:

He seems to have a chip on his shoulder that the FAI didn't renew his contract before the end of the qualification programme just like they did with McCarthy.

Maybe he had the chip on his shoulder because the FAI had the media getting on Kerr's back (The most respected journalists in the Irish Times seem certain this happened). Kerr was no worse than McCarthy (give or take 10% ) in his first 2 campaigns in my opinion.

McCarthy made mistakes - 3-5-2 against Iceland. Mark Kennedy in a free role against Belgium. Forcing one of our best ever full backs (Irwin) into retirement. 4-5-1 away to both Yugoslavia and Croatia. The game in Macedonia was no different to the one in Israel. Giving Kilbane and Holland their debut's in crucial matches against Iceland and Macedonia respectively.

McCarthy lost leads - McCarthy's team lost leads and failed to win 4 times in the first 2 campaigns, something Kerr was slated for.

McCarthy failed to beat teams he should have - Macedonia (a) x2, Iceland (h), Lithuania (a), Romania (h), Belgium (h), Turkey (h). Maybe adding Romania and Turkey is a bit harsh but the Swiss are a fairly strong team and we should have beaten them in Lansdowne.

McCarthy's average - Mick's team averaged 1.88 points per game over the 2 campaigns. Kerr averaged 1.75. OK, McCarthy's was better but other than Romania the WC group was full of minnows and he had 8 friendlies to prepare before his first competitive.

I'm not saying Kerr should have been kept on. I'm not slating McCarthy (who I like). I just feel the critisism Kerr is getting is unfair.