The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[Ger Regan]

If he has to rebuild from scratch thne yes it will.  If he just adds to what we already have then we need to acknowledge the foundations MON laid down.

Hence the decent squad comment. It is decent, good even, but I don't think anyone could say it's anything more than that. Every manager is going to try and stamp their mark over the squad, so can see quite a few comings and goings over the next 18 months or so, particularly left back, goalkeeper (which would have to happen sooner or later anyway), and up front.

His legacy outside of the first team is much much poorer, for the reasons outlined already.

[Concrete John]

If he has to rebuild from scratch thne yes it will.  If he just adds to what we already have then we need to acknowledge the foundations MON laid down.

Hence the decent squad comment. It is decent, good even, but I don't think anyone could say it's anything more than that. Every manager is going to try and stamp their mark over the squad, so can see quite a few comings and goings over the next 18 months or so, particularly left back, goalkeeper (which would have to happen sooner or later anyway), and up front.

His legacy outside of the first team is much much poorer, for the reasons outlined already.

Coaching and scouting will change, that I would not argue.  However these are extensions of any managers style and the people he likes around him, so whether good, bad or indifferent would change anyway.  I think the team that takes the field, which is what it's all directed towards, is the real measure.  And as you say that's pretty good right now!

[Ger Regan]

Coaching and scouting will change, that I would not argue.  However these are extensions of any managers style and the people he likes around him, so whether good, bad or indifferent would change anyway.  I think the team that takes the field, which is what it's all directed towards, is the real measure.  And as you say that's pretty good right now!

Pretty good is a bit underwhelming considering the money paid.

[pauliewalnuts]

Coaching and scouting will change, that I would not argue.  However these are extensions of any managers style and the people he likes around him, so whether good, bad or indifferent would change anyway.  I think the team that takes the field, which is what it's all directed towards, is the real measure.  And as you say that's pretty good right now!

Pretty good is a bit underwhelming considering the money paid.

My issue wasn't that the players he bought were all rubbish, they weren't.

It was that frequently, we made such decent players look so crap by the style of football we played.

[Villa'Zawg]

 Mark Kelly:

The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.


I wish more fans had that winning mentality. There are far too many these days who don't understand the difference between a football club and a soap opera, or dare I say a Portuguese novela.

[cdward]

All of us now want and expect a level of results that improve year on year, that we give the likes of Manure, Chelski a run for their money, we improve our points total,  that we qualify for Europe, and a quite reasonable expectation that we can win a trophy or two a season as well. Pro MON or anti MON, collectively Villa fans have probably never had those "realistic" expectations before, so that is MON's legacy, in short he has raised the bar at Aston Villa Football Club. Which is what all successful managers at all clubs do.

[pauliewalnuts]

Mark Kelly:

The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.


I wish more fans had that winning mentality. There are far too many these days who don't understand the difference between a football club and a soap opera, or dare I say a Portuguese novela.

It isn't all about winning, though, is it? It needs to be entertaining, too.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.

I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.

Once again Chris you deliberately miss the point. If your definition of decent football is restricted to Mowbray, you really have little understanding of modern football. You really must have hated the West Ham game.

[cdward]

The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.

 as opposed to the "getting hammered 6-0 away at Newcastle any old shit" 
I know which one i prefer.

[WarszaVillan]

the legacy of MON is our best league placings since WWII. After all the gripes about right-backs, etc have long been forgotton this is what will remain. Let's hope Houllier can go a step better but it'll be a tough call.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.

 as opposed to the "getting hammered 6-0 away at Newcastle any old shit" 
I know which one i prefer.

I'd agree with you if it was the norm rather than the exception.

[Monty]

The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.

I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.

Once again Chris you deliberately miss the point. If your definition of decent football is restricted to Mowbray, you really have little understanding of modern football. You really must have hated the West Ham game.

Exactly. The idea that somehow winning football and attractive football need to be different is exactly the attitude that has held England back for generations. From Hungary in '53 to the Germans in '10, English football has suffered from exactly the same deficiencies. Any notion that somehow possession is too risky a strategy to be a good one for winning, or that it's preferable to put in endless crosses in the vain hope that something will happen rather than crafting a move with a definite purpose, or that defenders should always hack it as far away as possible from their goal because passing is such a dangerous luxury - these notions were never right and now they're just laughable.

[Chris Smith]

The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.

I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.

Once again Chris you deliberately miss the point. If your definition of decent football is restricted to Mowbray, you really have little understanding of modern football. You really must have hated the West Ham game.

Not at all, my argument is that, like most football fans, I'll take "any old shit provided we win". Your posts suggests the opposite. I won't accept any old shit if we lose but winning always comes first.

[Chris Smith]

The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.

I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.

Once again Chris you deliberately miss the point. If your definition of decent football is restricted to Mowbray, you really have little understanding of modern football. You really must have hated the West Ham game.

Exactly. The idea that somehow winning football and attractive football need to be different is exactly the attitude that has held England back for generations. From Hungary in '53 to the Germans in '10, English football has suffered from exactly the same deficiencies. Any notion that somehow possession is too risky a strategy to be a good one for winning, or that it's preferable to put in endless crosses in the vain hope that something will happen rather than crafting a move with a definite purpose, or that defenders should always hack it as far away as possible from their goal because passing is such a dangerous luxury - these notions were never right and now they're just laughable.

Except that isn't what Mark said. He suggested that Villa fans were somehow unique for putting a winning team ahead of a pretty team. Which is total bolloocks.

We all like to see great football but we prefer to see winning football.

 

[Concrete John]

If the options are playing well and losing or playing poorly and winning, I'd take the latter everytime. 

Playing well and winning should always be the goals.

But if you said to me we'll play a certain attractive way and win 3 out of 5 or play a less attractive way and win 4 out of 5, I'd again take the latter option!