Trap Retires

No Alan Kelly Snr either. Only manager with a 100% record

zizu Kilbane wrote: So what we're getting at is that trap is probably our 3/4th best manager of the last 40 years... 1) Jack 2) Mick 3) MON 4) Trap 5) Kerr 6) Lamh 7) Stan The elder statesmen here might tell me where Giles & Tuhoy would slot in

Who's Lamh?

FrankosHereNow wrote: zizu Kilbane wrote: So what we're getting at is that trap is probably our 3/4th best manager of the last 40 years... 1) Jack 2) Mick 3) MON 4) Trap 5) Kerr 6) Lamh 7) Stan The elder statesmen here might tell me where Giles & Tuhoy would slot in Who's Lamh?

There should be a fada over the a...

pre Madonna wrote: OnTheOneRoad wrote: horsebox wrote: Trap's last campaign was a disaster and I'm not disputing that, and it cost him him job. What I am saying though is that if the criteria was the same, people would be calling for O'Neills head. The criteria weren't the same though. This wasn't sprung upon us after the group had finished. Everyone knew what was required of them. We got out of an extremely tough group, where both teams in the top two were eventually only narrowly defeated by the two tournament finalists.  It's the same way you said earlier "we beat France 1-0 over 90 minutes to force extra time" as one of the big achievements, as though the criteria to record a big win were the same as a normal match. They weren't due to going 1-0 down in the first leg, and France came into that match with a lead to defend. While we'll never know what would have happened if it were 0-0 on aggregate or a one-off game, the dynamic of the game was completely different. We tied that game up on aggregate. You can't point to the greatness of one of those achievements and diminish the other in my opinion. The fact is the goalposts were moved for both before a ball was kicked. I'm happy to give Trap credit for his accomplishments, judged against everyone in the past 20 years he was a good manager for us, he made us competitive, hard to beat, and delivered a major tournament. He took us as far as he could and eventually reached a ceiling where he could take us no further. I believe Martin O'Neill has been a better one for us and has built on the work done by Trap, but I'm grateful for what Trap achieved. Spot on.

OnTheOneRoad wrote: horsebox wrote: Trap's last campaign was a disaster and I'm not disputing that, and it cost him him job. What I am saying though is that if the criteria was the same, people would be calling for O'Neills head. The criteria weren't the same though. This wasn't sprung upon us after the group had finished. Everyone knew what was required of them. We got out of an extremely tough group, where both teams in the top two were eventually only narrowly defeated by the two tournament finalists.  It's the same way you said earlier "we beat France 1-0 over 90 minutes to force extra time" as one of the big achievements, as though the criteria to record a big win were the same as a normal match. They weren't due to going 1-0 down in the first leg, and France came into that match with a lead to defend. While we'll never know what would have happened if it were 0-0 on aggregate or a one-off game, the dynamic of the game was completely different. We tied that game up on aggregate. You can't point to the greatness of one of those achievements and diminish the other in my opinion. The fact is the goalposts were moved for both before a ball was kicked. I'm happy to give Trap credit for his accomplishments, judged against everyone in the past 20 years he was a good manager for us, he made us competitive, hard to beat, and delivered a major tournament. He took us as far as he could and eventually reached a ceiling where he could take us no further. I believe Martin O'Neill has been a better one for us and has built on the work done by Trap, but I'm grateful for what Trap achieved.

That's fair comment.

I always judge our managers against our history. For me, we should always aim to be finishing in the top 2 of our groups and Trap got us back there after 3 campaigns out of it. The fact that both Kerr's campaigns went to the last game is irrelevant to me given how timid we were in both those games. Both campaigns ended with a whimper.

O'Neill certainly did better in the finals than Trap did but again it's not comparing like with like due to the bigger tournament in terms of teams which led to easier groups and 3rd being enough to get out of the group. He's certainly on schedule to be better but if he was to fail to make a play off in this campaign that would have to be reassessed. I hope and don't believe that will be the case though!

horsebox wrote: rolo wrote: Some of us aren't engaging in revisionism.  But whats wrong with revisionism anyway? If its ok to judge the Trap era in the context of what came before him when Stan was in charge, then it is perfectly acceptable to also judge the Trap era in the context of what followed it under MON. That's revisionism, but only for those who bought what Trap was selling in the first place. For the rest of us, we haven't had to revise our opinions at all. A man like Trap comes in and tells us we haven't got the players, he turns his nose up at our football pedigree and tells us we can't be beating top teams, and sets the team up in a negative manner so as to avoid defeats to these top teams (at the expense of ever trying to win). If people are going to go along with that then they are entitled to revise their opinion when Trap's successor comes in and effectively calls bullsh*t. And the reality is, should Martin O'Neill get this team to the World Cup, and dare we say it, even manage to win the qualifying group in the process, then that achievement will result in even more revisionism of the Trap era. We were beating Italy the World Champions at home 2-1 until they scored in the last minute, we should have beated Slovakia 2-1 away from home only for Keane to miss a peno, probably the only peno he missed for Ireland. We beat France 1-0 away from home in Paris for it to go to extra time. Trap is from an era where you keep it tight at the back, and play with a structured team, this worked and was effective but not pleasant to watch. Also, the vast majority of them play at a lower level. Coleman and to a less extent Brady are the only 2 players of a high calibre. Odd that Brady is playing the championship and is not close to s a move to a higher level.

Pipkin wrote: horsebox wrote: Pipkin wrote: Mixed fortunes he had. He was blessed to have the FAI as his employers regardless.  Nobody else would have touched him after the Euros debacle despite him claiming he had loads of offers which sort of blotted his warm nature. Not sure what he wanted/needed to prove with that.  He had a long successful career and was long finished when he still managed us to our worst campaign in 3 decades and should have resigned after the Germany home match.  And to think the amount of money you spend on bedsheets during those campaigns too. Was Kerr's campaign not worse? couldn't be arsed checking. Both finished 4th anyway. We lost 4 matches in Trap's last campaign. We lost 1 in Kerr's 06' campaign and could have topped the group in the last 30 mins.

But we didn't top it. We came 4th and with one of the strongest Ireland's we've had.

Zinedine Kilbane 110 wrote: zizu Kilbane wrote: So what we're getting at is that trap is probably our 3/4th best manager of the last 40 years... 1) Jack 2) Mick 3) MON 4) Trap 5) Kerr 6) Lamh 7) Stan The elder statesmen here might tell me where Giles & Tuhoy would slot in I would agree with that - 4th best which is no shame. I will always be grateful to him for getting us to 2012 and nearly to 2010 with a limited squad. After the Paris match, that was the first time in years the managers, fans and the public were all united. He should have left after the Euros but Jack and Mick also should have left after major tournaments. He didn't get everything right but he did good.

Applied for the South Africa job apparently