The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Anyway, you're interrupting Chris having an absolute nightmare here.

I imagine he's stood in front of a chart covered with squiggles and diagrams right now, trying to work out how he's going to extricate himself from this particular corner he's backed himself into.

Good point.
Give it up Chris, you're wrong as wrong can be on this one.
You dare to say how Liverpool fucked up to let Spurs in, no way would you stand for anybody saying that if it was us who had taken advantage of their idiocy.

[Ross]

Spurs were bottom of the league when 'Arry took over - 2points from 8 games was it? (as he tells anyone who'll listen).  I can't stand the bloke, but you'd have to be pretty one-eyed not to concede that he has done a fantastic job. He's twice the manager MON is.

[JJ-AV]

Who cares? Nice bloke but with all the will in the world he was never as good as he thought he was.

Fuck him.

[barrysleftfoot]

   

   Well Legacy suggests that we discuss what he has left behind.


   Are we a better team after his stint.....yes

   Have we got better players now than we had before........yes

  Is he a better manager than HR...........don't know.



   All i know is that with Randys support, MON has taken us from a team that was going to get relegated, bought , generally, potentially good young players, and made us a team that did'nt fear teams above us  for the 1st time in about 10 yrs.To compare him to HR is ridiculous, that is a team who has always tried to compete with the top teams, and gebnerally failed.They spend more than us, act bigger than us, generate more income than us, and i expect them to finish above us, the fact that MONs teams generally finished higher might suggest that MON might deserve a bit more praise than he seems to be getting on here.   

[Risso]

   To compare him to HR is ridiculous, that is a team who has always tried to compete with the top teams, and gebnerally failed.They spend more than us, act bigger than us, generate more income than us, and i expect them to finish above us, the fact that MONs teams generally finished higher might suggest that MON might deserve a bit more praise than he seems to be getting on here.   

We've finished above Spurs more times than they have us in the last 10-15 years.

[pauliewalnuts]

   To compare him to HR is ridiculous, that is a team who has always tried to compete with the top teams, and gebnerally failed.They spend more than us, act bigger than us, generate more income than us, and i expect them to finish above us, the fact that MONs teams generally finished higher might suggest that MON might deserve a bit more praise than he seems to be getting on here.   

We've finished above Spurs more times than they have us in the last 10-15 years.

We've finished in the top six in 9 of the 18 seasons since the Premier League started.

Spurs have managed that three times.

I sometimes wonder why, as fans, we are quite so keen to make ourselves to be like Sunderland or West Ham or something. And that also gives lie to that 7th-12th place nonsense, too, for what it's worth. Which isn't very much, but it does show it to be misguided.

In fact:

15, 8, 15, 7, 8, 10,14,11,10,12, 9, 10, 14, 9, 5, 5, 11, 8, 4

There's a 7th - 12th place club right there. Which makes Redknapp's achievement all the more impressive.

*fetches coat*

[stevenjos]

Great thread right now. Looking forward to chris smiths next clever reply!! :0)

[Villa'Zawg]

According to wikipedia:

cost of Spurs squad - £190m

cost of Villa squad - £109m

both approx with a couple of guesses.

...

The figures are probably not exactly correct but the difference in spread is about right. Spurs squad has cost something like 75-80% more to assemble than ours.

[Villa'Zawg]

...

How far back do we take the net spend to make any comparison worthwhile?

I did a back of the envelope working of Mon's ins and outs and came up with about £60m. Does that sound about right?

Yes that's right. We've spent approx. £60m net.

[hilts_coolerking]

Yes that's right. We've spent approx. £60m net.

And what is Spurs' net spend over the same period?

[KevinGage]

How much did the squad that relegated Newcastle cost?

The value of the players at point of purchase isn't in itself a clear guide to the merits or otherwise of a side.

Regardless of whether the bloke before Rednkapp spent £50 million or £500 million, it's hard to argue against the point that they looked like a side in trouble when he arrived (though I'm sure a few will try). Plenty of Bentley/ Dos Santos/ Modric types, but very little backbone. They were getting turned over regularly by some very mediocre opposition.

Redknapp got the most out of the players he inherited -or at least the ones he felt he could work with. Moved others on and signed key players for key positions. Keane second time around aside, I'm struggling to think of a bad buy he's made.

Good management, in other words. Making the most of your available resources and sourcing new players at reasonable prices.

[Villa'Zawg]

Yes that's right. We've spent approx. £60m net.

And what is Spurs' net spend over the same period?

I think it is approx. £100m and they were building on a squad that had finished 5th two season in a row.

[eamonn]

Angel, Barry, Delaney, Hendrie, McCann, Mellberg, Moore, Ridgewell, Samuel, Sorensen and Whittingham were all still at the club when O'Neill took over.  All were at the club in O'Leary's 6th placed season.

And how many of them played any significant part?
[/quote]

O'Neill also inherited Laursen, Bouma and Agbonlahor. Three key players in our progression under MON. Baros and Berger (even Kevin Phillips come to think of it) were decent players too. MON failed to get the best out of the former (in fairness Baros did ok under DOL) and used Berger too sparingly. O'Dreary chronically under-achieved in his last season and O'Neill didn't have a bad set of players at all when he took over.

[Monty]

Spurs have a good, competitive team and squad, but for me the main reason they got into the Champions' League was the sudden (and accidental as far as Redknapp's concerned) burst into life of Gareth Bale in the further forward role. Other than that and I think City bore their way there, but Bale's arrival was so sudden and timed so well to coincide with the games against Chelsea and Arsenal, which they wouldn't have won without his contribution - as neither of them knew quite what to do against this sudden new threat. It's rather like when Ash first burst onto the scene in his first full year for us - teams don't quite triple up on him at first, so for a few games he's absolutely flying, and those few games were the supposed unwinnables which they won.

As for Redknapp himself, his man-management seems a bit like MON's - great if he likes you, but if he doesn't, he's pretty unambiguous about it - his transfer policy is hardly value-for-money based largely (but at a club like Spurs, you can afford to spend a bit more), though he has picked up a few gems like many have, and he's an absolute tactical dinosaur. Wigan beat them largely because Martinez played a 3-5-2, a tactic specifically invented to thwart open 4-4-2s - in the mid-80s. It's 4-4-2 or a system like today when they don't have the forward for one-up-front systems, both of which leave them open on the counter. I can't wait to see them go to Inter and attempt to play this alarmingly open way, and I think with the extra physical demands of both the system and Europe, they'll struggle to replicate their success last season.

[hilts_coolerking]

Spurs have a good, competitive team and squad, but for me the main reason they got into the Champions' League was the sudden (and accidental as far as Redknapp's concerned) burst into life of Gareth Bale in the further forward role. Other than that and I think City bore their way there, but Bale's arrival was so sudden and timed so well to coincide with the games against Chelsea and Arsenal, which they wouldn't have won without his contribution - as neither of them knew quite what to do against this sudden new threat. It's rather like when Ash first burst onto the scene in his first full year for us - teams don't quite triple up on him at first, so for a few games he's absolutely flying, and those few games were the supposed unwinnables which they won.

As for Redknapp himself, his man-management seems a bit like MON's - great if he likes you, but if he doesn't, he's pretty unambiguous about it - his transfer policy is hardly value-for-money based largely (but at a club like Spurs, you can afford to spend a bit more), though he has picked up a few gems like many have, and he's an absolute tactical dinosaur. Wigan beat them largely because Martinez played a 3-5-2, a tactic specifically invented to thwart open 4-4-2s - in the mid-80s. It's 4-4-2 or a system like today when they don't have the forward for one-up-front systems, both of which leave them open on the counter. I can't wait to see them go to Inter and attempt to play this alarmingly open way, and I think with the extra physical demands of both the system and Europe, they'll struggle to replicate their success last season.

I don't buy any of that.  You're telling me that over 38 games a side finished in fourth place mainly because of a magic spell from one player, and despite a manager who has limited man management skills, chucks money around like it's going out of fashion, and knows nothing about tactics?  Rubbish.