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

[PeterWithesShin]

I was boringly middle of the road about MON when he was here from what I can remember. I praised him for some stuff and gave him pelters for others. I can't stand the little shit these days mind.

[Concrete John]

I remember it as some people being glad when we lost and they couldn't wait to get on here and tell us how they told us so.

[PeterWithesShin]

I remember it as some people being glad when we lost and they couldn't wait to get on here and tell us how they told us so.

A bit like under GH, AM and this season then?

[hilts_coolerking]

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 didn't make any insinuation.  All I said is that it doesn't explain the vitriol that came the way of O'Neill's critics.  The fact that those criticisms are now being used across the board, including by people who previously rejected them out of hand, makes such vitriol even more inexplicable.

[Dave Clark Five]

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.

I wanted him sacked and eventually got my way.

[Dave]

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 didn't make any insinuation.  All I said is that it doesn't explain the vitriol that came the way of O'Neill's critics.

Ok, well if there was no insinuation then the obvious answer is 'it was in response to the vitriol that came the way of O'Neill's supporters'.

[Dave Clark Five]

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).

Do you include those who called the twat 'Poison Dwarf'?

[Irish villain]

I remember it as some people being glad when we lost and they couldn't wait to get on here and tell us how they told us so.

I think that's harsh. It is never like that but feels like it when you are hurting about a loss etc.

Here in Ireland  often hear it thrown at critics of the government that 'oh, aren't you glad there's bad news on the economy so you can say "told you so", you will be delighted if the country goes under so you can say "I was right"'.

It's never like that, we are all in it together etc!

[hilts_coolerking]

Ok, well if there was no insinuation then the obvious answer is 'it was in response to the vitriol that came the way of O'Neill's supporters'.

That's an obviously incorrect answer.

[eamonn]

I was boringly middle of the road about MON when he was here from what I can remember. I praised him for some stuff and gave him pelters for others. I can't stand the little shit these days mind.

More or less my stance too.

[damon loves JT]

First they came for the people who were mildly critical of Martin O'Neill...

[JD]

At first I liked MO'N but after a while I grew tired of him buying older, overrated and overpaid players, instead of young up and coming players who were keen to impress (see Lowton, Westwood, Benteke etc).
I think it ended for him and the fans after the Moscow debacle. I felt for those who paid good hard earned money to go over there to see the reserves play, because we had a game coming up against Stoke!!!!!! 

[cheltenhamlion]

I might have a trawl through some of my H+V articles later this week to see at what point I started to raise concerns about him. Just out of interest re the timescales really.

[eastie]

I was delighted the day mon arrived and thrilled for the future ,and delighted the day he left , having seen things turn sour in the final couple of years even though results in his last season weren't too bad.

The Moscow mistake was the beginning of the end and I never forgave him for that , compounded by his errors poor team selection, lack of plan b, constant poor substitutions, heskey, and the general poor quality of football- he had his great days but mon had to go and should have gone in may of his last season.

There were many discussions and as dave says both sides fought their corner, I along with the nasher dc5 and a few others were well outnumbered by the monettes at the time but gradually more and more realised he was not the answer.

Now I think most agree that he wasn't the success we hoped he would be , a decent enough time in our history but given the finances available to him it should have been so so much better.

[PaulTheVillan]

MON is one dimensional. I am surprised he's done so 'well' in his career.