The Martin O'Neill thread (with added sacking #2188)

[Percy McCarthy]

Anyway, while we're all showing off and dredging up the past to go on about how clever we all were/are, I'd like to congratulate everybody who said he'd improve us. They were proved right for four whole seasons in a row.

[Concrete John]

But on the flip side, it was also possible to think that he was generally doing a good job without thinking that he was a messiah and without any fault. Which was no less common an accusation thrown around at the time.

Doesn't really explain the vitriol directed at those who did offer criticism.

Or the equal amount oc vitriol directed at those who would highlight the good things.

[PeterWithe]

Anyway, while we're all showing off and dredging up the past to go on about how clever we all were/are, I'd like to congratulate everybody who said he'd improve us. They were proved right for four whole seasons in a row.

Yup, we were contenders for every one of the years he was here.

I'd like to think PL will get us back to that.

[Percy McCarthy]

No John, those who attacked the positive posters were much more vitriolic and fond of an insulting nick-name. I was always moaning about it without responding in kind (much).

[hilts_coolerking]

But on the flip side, it was also possible to think that he was generally doing a good job without thinking that he was a messiah and without any fault. Which was no less common an accusation thrown around at the time.

Doesn't really explain the vitriol directed at those who did offer criticism.

Or the equal amount oc vitriol directed at those who would highlight the good things.

I think you're both kidding yourselves there.  I don't think there was a single poster who never once offered some form of praise or gratitude towards O'Neill.  But I can think of at least two who never once aimed a single word of criticism at him and never missed an opportunity to put the boot into those who did.

I think that's why the likes of paulie, Risso and myself, among others, find the current condemnation of O'Neill somewhat amusing, particularly as it's for the very same reasons we were highlighting two or three years ago.  Those aren't faults he has developed since he left us.

[PeterWithe]

Yup, all you who said MON had taken us as far as he could were bang on the money.

Did we ever find Mourhinos phone number?

[Concrete John]

I don't see a wholesale condemnation here, but rather a more balanced evaluation two years after he's left.  That's probably aided by those one or two posters from each end of the spectrum not being involved (yet!).

And there were those who never had a good word to say about him.  Or at least kept it to themselves if they did and just commented in the negative.

[pauliewalnuts]

I can't see how you were proved correct paulie. The proof would have been if we'd have been struggling or knocked out of the cups early.

What actually happened was that we were in contention for fourth place until the penultimate week of the season, when we played Man City off the park and suffered a very unlucky defeat, and were possibly two atrocious refereeing decisions away from winning two cups.

If we'd have got a decent manager in next instead of the clown that followed who alienated a big part of a squad who had proved very effective, the financial crisis that followed could have been managed much better.

Maybe you're saying what he's doing at Sunderland is your proof, but I don't give a shit about that. I hope that he royally fucks up there and they take up one of the relegation spots if we're still down there in a few months time, but I don't think that proves anything about his time at a different club under different circumstances three years ago.

No, I was making no reference whatsoever to what he does at Sunderland, I was talking entirely about what he did here.

The vindication i refer to is that he never did get us any further than sixth, the players he signed who we said would be shit, were shit, without exception, and we were indeed lumbered paying players he'd given big contracts to, who delivered nothing.

I understand there are fond memories to be had of his time here, I have some myself, but my view looking back is that, if anything, those of us who got labelled doom mongers were in fact being too understanding with him - what kind of callous shit bag walks out in the circumstances he did? Thats my abiding memory of him.

Interesting, though, you could bring Sunderland into it and say that his "tactic" has been well and truly found out now, and we're seeing the result of that.

Good point about the bozos who followed him, but to be honest, I struggle to see what kind of managerial genius could have squeezed some value out of the likes of Habib Beye and Emile Heskey approaching 35 and pulling in over 100k a week between them.

[Percy McCarthy]

Hilts man, relax, we're all friends again aren't we?

It's only the internet mate - nobody is actually going to kick anybody unless you introduce yourself when buying a fanzine.

*wink*

[pauliewalnuts]

Anyway, while we're all showing off and dredging up the past to go on about how clever we all were/are, I'd like to congratulate everybody who said he'd improve us. They were proved right for four whole seasons in a row.

You don't really need to be Nostradamus to work out that that level of spending was going to improve a side who'd just flirted with relegation.

And as for his long term improvement of us ... well, that was so solid that he himself fucked off as soon as he worked out he'd been rumbled.

[pauliewalnuts]

I'm probably speaking for myself here but I think some of us who lost faith in MON after Moscow (and had even began to question his methods as early as the summer of 2007 when we made some pretty under-whelming signings) felt reluctant to air criticisms because things were going quite well.

That's the other thing.

At the time, there was also a widely held assumption when people moaned about MON that they wanted him sacked - as if you couldn't criticise a manager without wanting them to get the bullet. Which was, of course, utter nonsense.

But on the flip side, it was also possible to think that he was generally doing a good job without thinking that he was a messiah and without any fault. Which was no less common an accusation thrown around at the time.

I agree, which is why I didn't suggest anything to the contrary.

[pauliewalnuts]

But on the flip side, it was also possible to think that he was generally doing a good job without thinking that he was a messiah and without any fault. Which was no less common an accusation thrown around at the time.

Doesn't really explain the vitriol directed at those who did offer criticism.

As I said, I'd say that it was met in kind by those very same people.

A quick browse through the Gnasher's posting history and his litany of witty nicknames will attest to that.

it's not really saying much to point at the single most controversial, negative poster on the board, though, is it?

It's like saying "there was widespread ridiculous optimism, just look at Seattle Villain's posting history for evidence of that"

[pauliewalnuts]

And there were those who never had a good word to say about him.  Or at least kept it to themselves if they did and just commented in the negative.

Who, though? As in never had a good word to say about him?

I think even those who got labelled miserablists most frequently (and I am probably one of them) had plenty good to say about him, too.

I can see several good things he did. I don't even blame him for Moscow, which puts me in a minority.

[pauliewalnuts]

I think that's why the likes of paulie, Risso and myself, among others, find the current condemnation of O'Neill somewhat amusing, particularly as it's for the very same reasons we were highlighting two or three years ago.  Those aren't faults he has developed since he left us.

It's like the way half the population of Scotland was at Celtic's UEFA cup final, or at the Sex Pistols 100 Club gig. Or, moving back to the Villa, how many were at that 8k attendance Southampton game.

Ultimately, there was name calling in both camps, and there were an awful lot of people who saw it as either black or white (everything was ace, or everything was shit, nothing in between), which is a ridiculous way to see things, but it's just the number of people now talking about his predictable, old fashioned style of football now, compared to the shit some of us got for pointing this out in the past that gets on my tits a tiny bit.

[Dave]

But on the flip side, it was also possible to think that he was generally doing a good job without thinking that he was a messiah and without any fault. Which was no less common an accusation thrown around at the time.

Doesn't really explain the vitriol directed at those who did offer criticism.

As I said, I'd say that it was met in kind by those very same people.

A quick browse through the Gnasher's posting history and his litany of witty nicknames will attest to that.

it's not really saying much to point at the single most controversial, negative poster on the board, though, is it?

It's not, but it's one example. And I don't think it would too hard to find plenty of other people who have been put their anti-MON feelings in less than friendly terms.

Which of course is absolutely fine, but it seems a bit at odds with Hilts' insinuation that the 'vitriol' was a one-way thing.

I remember it as lot of people arguing their point as forcefully as each other. Just as it should be.