The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[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.

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

It absolutely is all about winning.

If we did that comedy thing where one person has the ball and the other 10 form a defensive, protective circle around him whilst they shuffle toward the net, I'd be reasonably happy as long as we won.

Seriously though, I'm never unhappy with the manner of a win, not ever. I am always unhappy following a defeat, regardless of how much better we may have been or how unlucky or how dodgy the ref. I just hate it. Being entertained by the performance is a very distant "nice to have" compared to the result for me.

[not3bad]

Being entertained by the performance is a very distant "nice to have" compared to the result for me.

When I think about this question I think about a match V Sunderland at the fag end of John Gregory's reign.  Villa won 1-0 but it was the most excrutiating match I think I've ever had to sit through.  Winning is not worth that.

[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.

It absolutely is all about winning.

If we did that comedy thing where one person has the ball and the other 10 form a defensive, protective circle around him whilst they shuffle toward the net, I'd be reasonably happy as long as we won.

Seriously though, I'm never unhappy with the manner of a win, not ever. I am always unhappy following a defeat, regardless of how much better we may have been or how unlucky or how dodgy the ref. I just hate it. Being entertained by the performance is a very distant "nice to have" compared to the result for me.

Really?

Fair play to you, in that case, no wonder you liked MON so much

Surely there is a limit, though? What if we played like Cambridge United under John Beck? A percentages, out and out long ball game? Would you pay to watch that so long as the results were ok?

I don't suspect many people would do - the winning is good, yes, but our volatile attendances suggest we're not one of the clubs that could get away with being so unentertaining (if indeed any can, these days).

I guess the other question is where you draw the line - ie what do you mean by "winning" over the course of the season?

I assumed you'd accept, for example, 38 unwatchable  performances in return for winning the league (i bet we all would), but what about in return for finishing 6th? Or 8th? Or 10th?

I'm not trying to kick off a row, incidentally, I think we've just stumbled on an interesting point of debate.

[Monty]

There's also this weird divide people often make between good football and winning football, because none of the teams who are champions in any of the major divisions in the world, the European champions, the Libertadores winners, the South American, European and World Cup victors, and indeed all their runners-up and contendors - none of them play the kind of hoofball which goes down in England as 'pragmatic'. What on earth is pragmatic about relying on luck, or bobbles, or opposition mistakes? To some extent that's what MON's football was like at its worst, and it's the football that Allardyce, Wimbledon and John Beck have turned out under the guise that it 'wins games'. The lack of any champions of that style in the last 50 years should surely end that debate.

[Concrete John]

You could also ask of those who place a higher value on style over results, at which point does that change?  Yes, you wouldn't accept Arsenal style performances and relegation, but were we bottom half would you be asking for a change to see us more competitive and less open?

It's a balance.

[pauliewalnuts]

You could also ask of those who place a higher value on style over results, at which point does that change?  Yes, you wouldn't accept Arsenal style performances and relegation, but were we bottom half would you be asking for a change to see us more competitive and less open?

It's a balance.

It's exactly the same question - where does the "tipping point" lie.

Sounds like a good idea for a book.

[pauliewalnuts]

There's also this weird divide people often make between good football and winning football, because none of the teams who are champions in any of the major divisions in the world, the European champions, the Libertadores winners, the South American, European and World Cup victors, and indeed all their runners-up and contendors - none of them play the kind of hoofball which goes down in England as 'pragmatic'. What on earth is pragmatic about relying on luck, or bobbles, or opposition mistakes? To some extent that's what MON's football was like at its worst, and it's the football that Allardyce, Wimbledon and John Beck have turned out under the guise that it 'wins games'. The lack of any champions of that style in the last 50 years should surely end that debate.

I always thought that describing MON's team as "kick and rush" or "long ball" was unfair, as it wasn't that.

I do, however, think the overreliance on wingers and balls into the box in itself was almost as much a percentages game as the long ball game, as it seemed to be based on "get it whacked in as much as you can, and you've got a chance it'll take a bobble or a deflection and you'll get something"

I like watching good wingers play. I don't like watching teams which rely almost totally on their wingers, though.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

You'll not be suprised that I find it difficult to argue with the late, great Jock Stein: "I think it is important to win a match, but I think what is even more important is the manner in which you win."

[Concrete John]

I don't see it as a 'tipping point' as much as the expectations you have based upon your club/finances spent.  If Albion were 16th and playing beautifully they'd be happy, but if we were we'd want more.

If I had to put a tilt on it either way, I think fans would say they were fed up with losing long before they'd say they were fed up with dull football.

[Monty]

I agree totally, Paulie. Teams at the level we want to be at cannot seriously rely on luck to the extent that we did.

[Risso]

I think there has to be a balance between entertainment and being effective.  The problem for me with O'Neill is that last season at home, the football was dull to watch, and led to less victories than even the likes of Sunderland and Blackburn.  So boring to watch and largely ineffective.

[Concrete John]

You'll not be suprised that I find it difficult to argue with the late, great Jock Stein: "I think it is important to win a match, but I think what is even more important is the manner in which you win."

I notice he doesn't say the manner in which you lose!  I think that's one for our side of the argument!

[Concrete John]

I agree totally, Paulie. Teams at the level we want to be at cannot seriously rely on luck to the extent that we did.

I'd seriously disagree that we relied on luck.  We played to our strengths, which was widemen, big strikers and Gabby's pace.

[Monty]

I think there has to be a balance between entertainment and being effective.  The problem for me with O'Neill is that last season at home, the football was dull to watch, and led to less victories than even the likes of Sunderland and Blackburn.  So boring to watch and largely ineffective.

That's the point, really, that attractive football with good enough players is generally actually winning football. With the resources and time at his disposal, MON really should have had us winning more in a more convincing style. The type of football he actually played was as boring as it was inefficient.

John, those strengths are the strengths of lesser sides who don't look to dominate games, which if we're getting to the top we have to do against sides like Blackburn and Sunderland.

[pauliewalnuts]

I think there has to be a balance between entertainment and being effective.  The problem for me with O'Neill is that last season at home, the football was dull to watch, and led to less victories than even the likes of Sunderland and Blackburn.  So boring to watch and largely ineffective.

That's a decent point, it was actually pretty ineffective at home, certainly compared to our away form.

Maybe I'd have been less harsh on his football if i travelled to all the away matches and got to see our counter attacking style more, but I don't.

I do remember spending much of the last two years sat in my ST seat thinking how boring it was to watch, though.