Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Leighton on August 30, 2010, 11:57:29 PM
-
Nothing to surprise anybody really, but still interesting comments about how the previous manager was seen by senior players...
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Luke-Young-Martin-O-Neill-didn-t-give-me-a-chance-to-shine-at-Aston-Villa-article568353.html
-
You see, that's the really disappointing thing about MON's tenure, as it seems. Whether or not a manager's decision is right, he has a duty to explain it to his players, especially those not in the team. Though I am not Luke Young's biggest fan, if I were manager I'd like to think I'd have the decency to tell him why he's not in the team, and what he has to do to get in it. Very disappointing.
-
Good for him, nothing too controversial there....I hope the second half of his career with Villa proves to be a success.
Shows you what a donkey O'Neill really was. Told he had to reduce the wage bill, he would rather off-load Young than Heskey or Sidwell.
-
We're bigger than Spurs Luke!
Leaving Luke Young out was stupid. He seems to like the club and wants to do well with us.
-
I've always rated Luke Young and it's good to see him back
-
A couple of interesting comments:
“There are still people ringing me left right and centre to see if I am available. I don’t believe I am available any more."
So, clubs no longer bother the chairman or manager anymore. It's straight into tap-up mode.
But Young opted to remain at Villa Park once it became clear O’Neill was close to resigning and says he is now happy to stay.
Did anyone know that MON was close to resigning until he actually resigned? Interesting. Maybe some of the players were actively pushing him out.
-
I think the most telling part of that interview is his opinion on Kev Mac. I think its essential that he remains involved with the first team under the new manager, because he’s obviously got a lot of really good ideas about the game and all the players appear to really like and respect him.
-
“It is refreshing now to have the kind of feeling that if you are playing well you might keep your place.
Sums it up really. Here he is not even saying you should be guaranteed a place if you play well, but that under O`Neill you could be as good as frozen out and left with no hope.
He believed he was playing well, and I would think virtually every Villa fan believed he was playing well too. Yet not only was he being kept out, it had reached the stage where there was virtually no hope of playing whatever he did.
It is clear now O`Neills management style in terms of communicating with players was very poor. However, we seem to hear this over and over again with many managers. It never ceases to amaze me that that those appointed to manage the players very often dont do this. I would have thought continual communication with the extremely valuable and highly paid personnel in your charge was one of the most important aspects of the job.
-
Similar story to sorensen and maloney who both said o neill never spoke ro them in months and never explained why- as a manager you cannot treat people like that and command respect.
Good riddance to o neill !
-
I heard a story that O'Neill told Luke that he was "weak" following his compassionate leave.
-
I am just glad luke young is back in the team and playing well.
-
I think the most telling part of that interview is his opinion on Kev Mac. I think its essential that he remains involved with the first team under the new manager, because he’s obviously got a lot of really good ideas about the game and all the players appear to really like and respect him.
That would soon change if he was picking the team full time and they were not getting a game.
-
I heard a story that O'Neill told Luke that he was "weak" following his compassionate leave.
If that is true then so much for his wonderful man management that the media go on about.
-
However, we seem to hear this over and over again with many managers. It never ceases to amaze me that that those appointed to manage the players very often dont do this. I would have thought continual communication with the extremely valuable and highly paid personnel in your charge was one of the most important aspects of the job.
It is odd, very old school but very common. I think it's down to knowing that you're going to have disappoint them by not picking them so feeling it makes it easier if you don't get too close to them.
-
The real O'Neill is coming out slowly but surely.
Why spend £5 million on a player to freeze him out afterwards ?
It does make you realise why Randy lost confidence in MON's ability to spend properly.
-
It was probably due to him questioning the Moscow decision.
-
I think it's a delicate balance between being liked by the players and being respected. Does a manager keep his distance so they know who's boss, or be too friendly and risk them thinking they can take the piss?
Maybe he got that balance worng, but it seems to be the players that were not in the side having a dig, which I don't think Luke is overly.
-
In two seasons Luke Young missed starting less than a dozen PL games when availabe for selection.
Is he saying that he should have never be left out, even though we had the best derfensive record in the league until he played against Chelsea?
-
He believed he was playing well, and I would think virtually every Villa fan believed he was playing well too.
I certainly did. I was also very happy that we had 3 such good central defenders (Dunne, Collins, Cuellar) fighting it out for two places in central defense. I was confounded when Cuellar suddenly turned up at right back.
-
It is clear now O`Neills management style in terms of communicating with players was very poor.
Gary Cahill said something similar in an interview before our last game with Bolton, something along the lines of "if the communication had been better, I probably wouldn't have left". I think managers have to remember that players are like kids, they live in a bubble and are not half as intelligent/mature as you'd hope them to be. Sometimes they need every now and then to be reassured and talked to.
-
I heard a story that O'Neill told Luke that he was "weak" following his compassionate leave.
If that is true then so much for his wonderful man management that the media go on about.
If that was true I would have expected that to be in this article. There wouldn't be any point on holding back on O'Neill would there.
-
In two seasons Luke Young missed starting less than a dozen PL games when availabe for selection.
Is he saying that he should have never be left out, even though we had the best derfensive record in the league until he played against Chelsea?
You mean the game where pretty much everyone had a bad day and as for Luke, was thrown in after months in the wilderness.
Yes the defence did have a ggod record, but the balance of the Team was wrong, especially when we played at home. Could you see Carlos score a goal like that on Sunday?
-
O'Neill is in the 1970's when players didn't have the power they now have.
He is Clough reincarnated but without the football intelligence.
The intelligence to be a modern Manager rather than revert to 'what might Brian have done' stuff.
Yes, I am not one of those who buy into the 'O'Neill's a clever man' bollox.
-
Although Young scored the goal yesterday, and he did take it well, I thought he had a bit of a shocker with Pienaar and Baines coming at him. You could equally say that Cuellar would have been more defensively sound. Why wouldn't Cuellar have finished Lukes chance anyway? How can you prove it?
-
In two seasons Luke Young missed starting less than a dozen PL games when availabe for selection.
Is he saying that he should have never be left out, even though we had the best derfensive record in the league until he played against Chelsea?
You mean the game where pretty much everyone had a bad day and as for Luke, was thrown in after months in the wilderness.
Yes the defence did have a ggod record, but the balance of the Team was wrong, especially when we played at home. Could you see Carlos score a goal like that on Sunday?
I'm saying that he isn't talented enough to be demanding he plays every game and he hasn't had to sit out many at all. He is better going forward than Carlos but not better defensively.
-
By "demanding he plays every game" you mean "wanting a fair crack of the whip" really don't you?
-
It is clear now O`Neills management style in terms of communicating with players was very poor.
Gary Cahill said something similar in an interview before our last game with Bolton, something along the lines of "if the communication had been better, I probably wouldn't have left". I think managers have to remember that players are like kids, they live in a bubble and are not half as intelligent/mature as you'd hope them to be. Sometimes they need every now and then to be reassured and talked to.
There may be something in that but, if there was a communication problem there was nothing stopping Cahill approaching MON himself and sorting out any issues. This is not sticking up for MON's management style.
It all strikes me more of Cahill wishing he hadn't left and is looking for an excuse to cover up his reckless decision making.
-
I heard a story that O'Neill told Luke that he was "weak" following his compassionate leave.
If that is true then MON is a despicable human being
-
I'm not sure I like the idea of calling your manager 'Kev'.
-
By "demanding he plays every game" you mean "wanting a fair crack of the whip" really don't you?
He played 65 games (3 sub) under O'Neill in 2 seasons. Allowing for the fact he missed the first 3 months of last season and any other injuries/suspensions he may have had in that time, I don't see how he didn't get a "fair crack of the whip".
-
How often did he play at right back ?
-
How often did he play at right back ?
Why does that matter? He plays where he's picked and in any case he showed on Sunday that he's more than comfortable with his left foot.
-
He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
-
He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
He's a full back. He can play either side. His best performances for us have been at left back.
-
He's a full back. He can play either side. His best performances for us have been at left back.
Interesting to see you still rabidly defending the speccy one, VD, despite him having shat all over us and leaving us in the current shambles. It means at the very least you mean it despite being gigantically wrong
-
Although Young scored the goal yesterday, and he did take it well, I thought he had a bit of a shocker with Pienaar and Baines coming at him. You could equally say that Cuellar would have been more defensively sound. Why wouldn't Cuellar have finished Lukes chance anyway? How can you prove it?
In fairness Albrighton struggled to give him any sort of protection particularly in the first half where he was caught on his heels on a few occasions. I do think defensively Cuellar is a better player even when playing at right back, but Young gives better support going forwards.
It was in home games that Cuellar's limitations were more exposed. He helped make us a solid unit away from home.
-
He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
He's a full back. He can play either side. His best performances for us have been at left back.
Sorry but that's bollo... nonsense, to try and back your once again all too obviously dubious stats.
I doubt Ashley Cole would be as effective playing on the right, nor would he be happy about it. Luke wasn't selected in his natural or preferred position for a lot more games than you quote and he wasnt given any good reason for that. In fact he was only put in at LB because O'Neill decided he liked Shorey even less, and had failed to secure adequate cover in that position prior to signing Warnock.
-
He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
He's a full back. He can play either side. His best performances for us have been at left back.
Good point. Then why didn't he pick him at left back ahead of a player who is less solid defensively and who's form had dropped off alarmingly?
-
Think having Luke Young now staying. Is like a new signing .......... And Sunday proved he is as good as any RB in the premiere League .... ;)
-
He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
I was a right footed left back for years.
I know, without fear of contradiction, that if Luke Young had played every game then some people would have found another player to champion their cause of the great wasted talent. It happens at every club under every manager.
-
He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
I was a right footed left back for years.
Crumbs, were you any good ? ;-)
-
He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
I was a right footed left back for years.
Oh yes.
How did that go, who you playing for these days?
*wink*
I know, without fear of contradiction, that if Luke Young had played every game then some people would have found another player to champion their cause of the great wasted talent. It happens at every club under every manager.
Thing is, though, the ostracised player seem to be quite a feature under MON towards the end.
-
He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
I was a right footed left back for years.
Crumbs, were you any good ? ;-)
Shit hot, one of the finest ever seen in the Redditch & South Warwickshire Combination League.
-
Right footed left backs should be banned from all forms of the game, they deprive hard working naturally left footed players the chance of a game.
You never hear of players having a sweet right foot do you.
-
He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
I was a right footed left back for years.
Crumbs, were you any good ? ;-)
Shit hot, one of the finest ever seen in the Redditch & South Warwickshire Combination League.
I rest my case !!!
-
I wonder what the truth about the failed Liverpool move is. It surely isn't that he knew O'Neil is off.
-
He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
I was a right footed left back for years.
Crumbs, were you any good ? ;-)
Shit hot, one of the finest ever seen in the Redditch & South Warwickshire Combination League.
Chris was excellent going forward in a rigid straight line, no amount of tackling or fouls could deviate him from his path, he was a managers dream and always accepted orders and instructions without question. Strangely towards the end of his career, he would track back for no apparent reason and eventually got thrown out of his club for unjustified criticism of the way it was run.
-
I wonder what the truth about the failed Liverpool move is. It surely isn't that he knew O'Neil is off.
Doubt it; it was apparently a massive surprise to everyone in the world. The repercussions of which rocked the club to its foundations, unable to cope with the once in a lifetime happening of a manager leaving. Those poor millionaire players had no other choice than to lose 6-0 to Newcastle and the owner was left with no option but to keep quiet for 3 weeks and wait for the transfer window to close before making an appointment.
-
[/quote]He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
He's a full back. He can play either side. His best performances for us have been at left back.
Sorry but that's bollo... nonsense, to try and back your once again all too obviously dubious stats.
I doubt Ashley Cole would be as effective playing on the right, nor would he be happy about it. Luke wasn't selected in his natural or preferred position for a lot more games than you quote and he wasnt given any good reason for that. In fact he was only put in at LB because O'Neill decided he liked Shorey even less, and had failed to secure adequate cover in that position prior to signing Warnock.
I'm not sure what you could find dubious about the number of appearance stats. The facts about Luke Young's appearances don't fit the oft repeated argument that he wasn't given a fair chance, that isn't my problem.
When Cuellar played for Villa last season we had the best defence in the league. In the two games he missed, we shipped more than 20% of our total goals conceded for the entire season and lost both matches. It's ridiculous to insist that it was an obviously bad decision to play Cuellar, Collins, Dunne and one of Warnock/Young at left back, it doesn't make any sense.
I struggle to see why Luke Young's preference for playing position matters one way or the other, it's a team game. In what way has he ever done anything to justify having a problem with wearing a Villa shirt in any position?
-
I wonder what the truth about the failed Liverpool move is. It surely isn't that he knew O'Neil is off.
Liverpool wouldnt match his Villa wages.
-
He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.
Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?
He's a full back. He can play either side. His best performances for us have been at left back.
Sorry but that's bollo... nonsense, to try and back your once again all too obviously dubious stats.
I doubt Ashley Cole would be as effective playing on the right, nor would he be happy about it. Luke wasn't selected in his natural or preferred position for a lot more games than you quote and he wasnt given any good reason for that. In fact he was only put in at LB because O'Neill decided he liked Shorey even less, and had failed to secure adequate cover in that position prior to signing Warnock.
I'm not sure what you could find dubious about the number of appearance stats. The facts about Luke Young's appearances don't fit the oft repeated argument that he wasn't given a fair chance, that isn't my problem.
When Cuellar played for Villa last season we had the best defence in the league. In the two games he missed, we shipped more than 20% of our total goals conceded for the entire season and lost both matches. It's ridiculous to insist that it was an obviously bad decision to play Cuellar, Collins, Dunne and one of Warnock/Young at left back, it doesn't make any sense.
I struggle to see why Luke Young's preference for playing position matters one way or the other, it's a team game. In what way has he ever done anything to justify having a problem with wearing a Villa shirt in any position?
I'm not sure what you could find dubious about the number of appearance stats. The facts about Luke Young's appearances don't fit the oft repeated argument that he wasn't given a fair chance, that isn't my problem.
When Cuellar played for Villa last season we had the best defence in the league. In the two games he missed, we shipped more than 20% of our total goals conceded for the entire season and lost both matches. It's ridiculous to insist that it was an obviously bad decision to play Cuellar, Collins, Dunne and one of Warnock/Young at left back, it doesn't make any sense.
I struggle to see why Luke Young's preference for playing position matters one way or the other, it's a team game. In what way has he ever done anything to justify having a problem with wearing a Villa shirt in any position?
[/quote]
Being played out of position does not count as being given a fair chance in my view, especially when he was only selected because the manager had failed to secure a better option - i.e. as a last resort. Your stats do not take this fact into account and they are therefore, in my view, dubious as evidence that he was given a fair chance. Another example would be Craig Gardner, who when he did make appearances, they hardly ever seemed to be in his preferred and probably most effective position of central midfield.
The assertion that playing on the right or left make no difference for a full back is unconvincing to say the least. If Cuellar is such a convincing right back, as you seem to think, I wonder why he couldn't have played at left back and Luke could have been selected in his preferred and natural position?
-
The point about Gardner is good - from his initial run-out in the first team it was clear that he had a penchant for getting goals from the centre of midfield. Yet MON played him largely as a utility player, Eamon Deacy for the jilted generation (similarly (not great) looking). Filling in at right-back or right-midfield more often than not. His goals at Blose show that given a run of games he gets his fair share of goals from the centre.
And why didn't Cuellar play in the 7-1 at Chelsea? I don't recall him being injured and seeing as he was being picked for his defensive strength it seems the oddest of games to drop him for.
-
In two seasons Luke Young missed starting less than a dozen PL games when availabe for selection.
Is he saying that he should have never be left out, even though we had the best derfensive record in the league until he played against Chelsea?
Half of those games were probably at left back though which to his credit he usually performed very well there.
-
The point about Gardner is good - from his initial run-out in the first team it was clear that he had a penchant for getting goals from the centre of midfield. Yet MON played him largely as a utility player, Eamon Deacy for the jilted generation (similarly (not great) looking). Filling in at right-back or right-midfield more often than not. His goals at Blose show that given a run of games he gets his fair share of goals from the centre.
And why didn't Cuellar play in the 7-1 at Chelsea? I don't recall him being injured and seeing as he was being picked for his defensive strength it seems the oddest of games to drop him for.
Cuellar is a very good defender and obviously contributed to our excellent defensive record. However, his lack of ability going forward cost us dearly particularly in many of our home games last season. My own view is that the choice to play Cuellar at right back in games where we didn't need that level of defence cost us the opportunity to be serious contenders for 4th place.
The Chelsea game was pretty even until half time when MON decided to panic into a change of formation. In the second half Luke had no cover from midfield and had to handle an in form Malouda and the Russian left back on his own. He was stitched up a treat.
-
Gardner should've been retained ahead of Sidwell especially with NRC having less than a year of his contract remaining and Delph broken for a while longer.
-
In two seasons Luke Young missed starting less than a dozen PL games when availabe for selection.
Is he saying that he should have never be left out, even though we had the best derfensive record in the league until he played against Chelsea?
You mean the game where pretty much everyone had a bad day and as for Luke, was thrown in after months in the wilderness.
Yes the defence did have a ggod record, but the balance of the Team was wrong, especially when we played at home. Could you see Carlos score a goal like that on Sunday?
I'm saying that he isn't talented enough to be demanding he plays every game and he hasn't had to sit out many at all. He is better going forward than Carlos but not better defensively.
But he has enough in the locker going forward and defending. O'Neill was lauding him as an England regular only 18 months ago playing at LB.
That's what I never got with MON. I could somewhat understand if he played the 3 CB's away from home, but got a bit tiresome when we were at home and we struggled to get across the half way line from RB position, unless it was lumped up front.
-
In two seasons Luke Young missed starting less than a dozen PL games when availabe for selection.
Is he saying that he should have never be left out, even though we had the best derfensive record in the league until he played against Chelsea?
You mean the game where pretty much everyone had a bad day and as for Luke, was thrown in after months in the wilderness.
Yes the defence did have a ggod record, but the balance of the Team was wrong, especially when we played at home. Could you see Carlos score a goal like that on Sunday?
I'm saying that he isn't talented enough to be demanding he plays every game and he hasn't had to sit out many at all. He is better going forward than Carlos but not better defensively.
But he has enough in the lock going forward and defending. O'Neill was lauding him as an England regular only 18 months ago playing at LB.
That's what I never got with MON. I could somewhat understand if he played the 3 CB's away from home, but got a bit tiresome when we were at home and we struggled tyo get across the half way line from RB position, unless it was lumped up front.
My theory is that he bought Luke and Shorey with this in mind, i.e. to give us the option of attacking full backs, but then he became cautious at some point and effectively jettisoned the plan.
When you think about it, he is not the only manager that became cautious after an auspicious start. I used to blame Doug.
-
Gardner should've been retained ahead of Sidwell especially with NRC having less than a year of his contract remaining and Delph broken for a while longer.
In theory I agree with you but how could we stop Gardner leaving when his boyhood team came in f0r him that he has supported since he was a nipper.
-
Gardner should've been retained ahead of Sidwell especially with NRC having less than a year of his contract remaining and Delph broken for a while longer.
In theory I agree with you but how could we stop Gardner leaving when his boyhood team came in f0r him that he has supported since he was a nipper.
I know, he went all the way to wembley to watch their play-off final. He told us so. So what if that particular play-off was at The Millenium Stadium? So what?